Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 234 posts

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#121

Post by baq »

imtringued wrote: post #108
tapland wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steam is, despite there being a lot of competition, the de facto one stop shop for digitally distributed PC video games (and is in itself a kind of DRM protection). I think that a large proportion of gamers would be happy for almost all of the competition to disappear in favor of getting everything on the Steam platform.

Keeping Valve in check is worth the friction. Today they might be benevolent now but when Gabe Newell is gone they will have same problems as Apple because Steve Jobs is gone. There is a high risk a new CEO will just be a paperclip maximizer.

valve is different (not sure if for better or worse) in that it's privately held.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#122

Post by NicoJuicy »

jelv wrote: post #52

Liberapay takes 0% https://liberapay.com/ It's European non-profit and open source. It's funded by the donation on it's own platform.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19270786 European non-profit is not the same as American non-profit.

So i made a new item for liberapay, since I thought it was worth it.

Also, I would much rather see Liberapay on the frontpage of HN than Facebook "fan subscriptions"...

We have enough multinationals that try to claim 30% on top of someone else's work.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#123

Post by yorwba »

rjtavares wrote: post #107
yorwba wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That podcaster might be ordered to cease the blasphemy, and if they don't comply their website might be blocked, but I don't think that puts Liberapay at risk if they don't operate as a publishing platform but only handle payments. That woman didn't lose her bank account, did she?

In any case, European countries don't have blasphemy laws (there might be exceptions to this - I know Ireland had it until recently). That case the parent linked is about defamation (calling Muhammed a paedophile), not blasphemy (for example saying Muhammed was not a prophet). EDIT: so I was wrong. See the comments below.

Austria does have a blasphemy law. https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?ResultFunctionToken=a...

Specifically, it covers disparagement and mockery of religions and traditions if it is likely to cause justified anger. That leaves a lot open to interpretation (when is anger justified?) but it seems clearly aimed at blasphemy.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#124

Post by ibeckermayer »

morganvachon wrote: post #101
ernesth wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seeing as patreon, paypal, visa refuse clients because of their beliefs (alt-right) or their sexuality (which would be illegal in Europe), the US do not have free speech either

The US does have freedom of speech at the federal government level; i.e. the government is not supposed to repress speech. However, it appears the parent is intentionally conflating freedom of speech and a private entity's right to censor their own platform. One has literally nothing to do with the other; private entities in the US and abroad are largely free to run their platforms as they choose, including censoring…

Are we really going to pretend that financial institutions are “private” enterprises? I recall the taxpayer being forced to bail them out for their incompetence. They are effectively government institutions and should be regulated as such.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#125

Post by leereeves »

rjtavares wrote: post #107
yorwba wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That podcaster might be ordered to cease the blasphemy, and if they don't comply their website might be blocked, but I don't think that puts Liberapay at risk if they don't operate as a publishing platform but only handle payments. That woman didn't lose her bank account, did she?

In any case, European countries don't have blasphemy laws (there might be exceptions to this - I know Ireland had it until recently). That case the parent linked is about defamation (calling Muhammed a paedophile), not blasphemy (for example saying Muhammed was not a prophet). EDIT: so I was wrong. See the comments below.

The charge was blasphemy, or, in the words used in the article: "disparagement of religious precepts". It could not be defamation because there is plenty of evidence that Muhammad did marry and have sex with a child. That was not doubted even within the Muslim community until it became a source of controversy in modern times.

With Ireland's recent repeal, it seems there are now only 17 European countries with blasphemy laws, including Austria, where this case happened:

> Andorra, Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Liechtenstein, Poland, Portugal, the Russian Federation, San Marino, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland and Scotland) and the Vatican City. This list excluded countries like Belgium and Luxembourg, which provide narrower provisions for insulting the objects of a religion in places of worship or public ceremonies.

https://ipi.media/despite-danish-repeal-blasphemy-laws-still...

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#126

Post by paulnechifor »

morganvachon wrote: post #101
ernesth wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seeing as patreon, paypal, visa refuse clients because of their beliefs (alt-right) or their sexuality (which would be illegal in Europe), the US do not have free speech either

The US does have freedom of speech at the federal government level; i.e. the government is not supposed to repress speech. However, it appears the parent is intentionally conflating freedom of speech and a private entity's right to censor their own platform. One has literally nothing to do with the other; private entities in the US and abroad are largely free to run their platforms as they choose, including censoring…

You are conflating freedom of speech with the US first amendment. Freedom of speech is a principle. It applies to private companies as well. Voltaire didn't say "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, so long as it's not on Twitter, Facebook, &c in which case I'll beat you to death myself because private companies are entitled to censor their own platforms".

What's the point of having free speech protected by the government if in practice no company will allow you to practice your free speech?

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#127

Post by rjtavares »

leereeves wrote: post #125
rjtavares wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In any case, European countries don't have blasphemy laws (there might be exceptions to this - I know Ireland had it until recently). That case the parent linked is about defamation (calling Muhammed a paedophile), not blasphemy (for example saying Muhammed was not a prophet). EDIT: so I was wrong. See the comments below.

The charge was blasphemy, or, in the words used in the article: "disparagement of religious precepts". It could not be defamation because there is plenty of evidence that Muhammad did marry and have sex with a child. That was not doubted even within the Muslim community until it became a source of controversy in modern times. With Ireland's recent repeal, it seems there are now only 17 European countries with blasphe…

Well, it seems my understanding of the word blasphemy is not the commonly used: I was considering only "lack of reverence to a deity", while "insulting or showing contempt" to the practice is also considered blasphemy.

I stand corrected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#128

Post by buboard »

You need to take into account that fan subscriptions are a miniscule percentage of the overall user base. It's not like an app store where a whopping 1/3 of users buy apps. Just because facebook has a larger userbase it doesn't mean people are going to use it "out of convenience". If creators don't see a financial advantage , they 'll redirect their sponsors to patreon or another cheaper medium.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#129

Post by kgwxd »

paulnechifor wrote: post #126
morganvachon wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US does have freedom of speech at the federal government level; i.e. the government is not supposed to repress speech. However, it appears the parent is intentionally conflating freedom of speech and a private entity's right to censor their own platform. One has literally nothing to do with the other; private entities in the US and abroad are largely free to run their platforms as they choose, including censoring…

You are conflating freedom of speech with the US first amendment. Freedom of speech is a principle. It applies to private companies as well. Voltaire didn't say "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, so long as it's not on Twitter, Facebook, &c in which case I'll beat you to death myself because private companies are entitled to censor their own platforms". What's the poin…

Private companies can't arrest you, put you on trial, sentence you to prison, or kill you. Government can. That's the point.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#130

Post by tpxl »

Asooka wrote: post #94
tapland wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steam is, despite there being a lot of competition, the de facto one stop shop for digitally distributed PC video games (and is in itself a kind of DRM protection). I think that a large proportion of gamers would be happy for almost all of the competition to disappear in favor of getting everything on the Steam platform.

That's because Steam's community features are second to none. I don't really want a monopoly, though, having more than one store is better in the long run, even if it sucks having to register for multiple services. At least it's not like streaming where your costs go up the more services you register for. The ideal would be if Steam could let other publishers plug in their platform for a much smaller cut of the profi…

Steam functions as an OpenID provider, so external vendors could (theoretically) use Steam logins for their platforms.

The problem with "competing platforms" is that they're mostly not competing platforms. Recently Metro: Exodus was pulled from Steam store to be sold as an exclusive on the epic store. This is not competition, this is a monopoly on distribution of a title.

When different platforms emerge where most platforms have most titles (or offer DRM free like GoG or Humble Bundle), then we will have actual competition.

Post reply on HN