Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5% • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by badpun » Thu, Feb 28, 2019, 2:35 PM UTC

sametmax wrote: post #142

badpun wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not banned by law, but, especially after what happened to Charlie Hebdo (and it wasn't the first or the last incident like that, however probably most drastic), I'd say people are afraid to publicly say negative things about Islam, because the threat to their lives is very real. So, while we might have freedom of speech written into the laws and the state per se is not taking it away from us, it's also not prote…

That's pretty much the history of entire humanity. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you are free from the consequences of speaking, it means that the country you live in consider it a right. And CH kept publishing on the same theme AFTER the murders, showing that they do, indeed, have freedom of speech, and are willing to use it.

1. It is not freedom of speech, if the consequence of speach is death.

2. If the country considers freedom of speech a right, shouldn’t the country make serious attempts to protect it? It does so for other human rights.

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

#162

Post by waylandsmithers » Thu, Feb 28, 2019, 2:35 PM UTC

ddalex wrote: post #115

rootlocus wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Facebook is selling access to an audience. I remember their promo videos promising access to "millions of people" and "your imagination is the limit". Turns out it isn't feasible to spam all the people in your friends list with all your updates, so Facebook decides who sees which. Want more people to see your posts? Your wallet is the limit.

> access to "millions of people" and "your imagination is the limit". > Want more people to see your posts? Your wallet is the limit. I'm not seeing anything inconsistent in that position. They didn't promise free access to their audience. The imagination of how much you can spend is indeed the limit.

In my mind at least the 30% fee was the price for access to the audience.

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

#163

Post by throwawaymath » Thu, Feb 28, 2019, 2:40 PM UTC

jsonne wrote: post #157

kgwxd wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm not picking on you in particular, but this is a rather annoying argument that people bring up that is utterly nonsensical. Companies can and do cause harm to individuals. No they can't put you in jail but they can otherwise isolate you from society via making you unemployable, revealing personal information to social embarrass you, or barring you from essential services to function in modern society. To pretend t…

Sure, but no one is claiming private companies can't hurt you. That's not what this is about. Note the specific term used: the government can kill you. It is the sole arbiter of what's legal in its domain. The first amendment doesn't exist to protect you from being shamed or embarassed for what you say. It exists to keep you from being jailed or murdered to censor the voice of the people.

So no, it's not "utterly nonsensical." Everything you're bringing up is completely orthogonal to the political theory of freedom of speech.

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

#164

Post by sametmax » Thu, Feb 28, 2019, 2:40 PM UTC

badpun wrote: post #161

sametmax wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's pretty much the history of entire humanity. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you are free from the consequences of speaking, it means that the country you live in consider it a right. And CH kept publishing on the same theme AFTER the murders, showing that they do, indeed, have freedom of speech, and are willing to use it.

1. It is not freedom of speech, if the consequence of speach is death. 2. If the country considers freedom of speech a right, shouldn’t the country make serious attempts to protect it? It does so for other human rights.

Free speech is a general society convention, omnipotence doesn't exist.

You have the right to not be raped as well, doesn't mean we can prevent all of them.

What right do you know that can be guaranteed all the time, under any circonstance ?

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

#165

Post by mruts » Thu, Feb 28, 2019, 2:41 PM UTC

_red wrote: post #147

ibeckermayer wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Its more than that, banking is a legally granted monopoly license (ie. Federal Reserve). So they are enjoying all the perks of being government backed (protected monopoly + full bailout privileges), yet must endure none of the restrictions of a government agency. Best of both worlds.

Banks operate under a ton of restrictions. Such as Dodd-Frank.

It's pretty ironic that the solution for being "too big to fail" was to make the banks even bigger while also placing restrictions of many types of trading.

What should have been done is just remove the FDIC insurance and let banks do whatever the fuck they want. The only way to learn that risk management is important is if you see some of your competitors as road kill on the side of the road.

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

#166

Post by Can_Not » Thu, Feb 28, 2019, 2:41 PM UTC

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #96

I remember when reasonably smart cellphones first came out. You could hook them up over USB and change things like ringtones or backgrounds. It was fun. Then manufacturers and cell phone companies started realizing the money train they were on. They made billions by selling this same crap to people who didn't know how or have the time to customize their own phone. As it turns out, billions of dollars tends to get peo…

We're leaving capitalism to enter into a new type of society. Rentierism. Everything is already owned. It's like feudalism, but you can have as many feudal lords as you want to live under--as a service.

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

#167

Post by AlexB138 » Thu, Feb 28, 2019, 2:49 PM UTC

throwawaymath wrote: post #159

paulnechifor wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The commenter didn't conflate anything. They defined the legal parameters under which freedom of speech actually exists in the United States. You can insist on talking about this idealistic normative if you want, but in common parlance it's reasonable to refer to the legal concept by the colloquial term. You know how you can say whatever you want on the street, but I can make you leave my house for whatever reason I…

> The commenter didn't conflate anything. They defined the legal parameters under which freedom of speech actually exists in the United States. You can insist on talking about this idealistic normative if you want, but in common parlance it's reasonable to refer to the legal concept by the colloquial term.

This is an opinion, and one many people disagree with. The idea of freedom of speech existed before the first amendment. They're not the same thing, it's just convenient for authoritarians to conflate them because it creates a narrower scope. It's intentional equivocation and a pretty flimsy argument tactic.

> You know how you can say whatever you want on the street, but I can make you leave my house for whatever reason I want? Same idea. Free speech is only a coherent concept in public spaces. Otherwise my right to private property would be impaired by your right to say whatever you want in my dojo.

Again, not the same thing, but what you're getting at is freedom of association. A company can choose whom they do business with, as an individual can choose whom they allow in their home. The interesting thing lately is that many people only believe in freedom of association when it means that they get to pick who is excluded, and very rarely believe in the actual principal. You can see this in the whole "gay wedding cake" situation that played out in the last couple of years. Much of the same political group that loves to trot out the idea that you can censor people out of existence on the internet was horrified when a private business chose not to create a specific message on their product.

> You're quoting Voltaire like the stakes for private and public censorship are the same but that's utterly ridiculous.

Not really, it's actually pretty dead on. John Stewart Mill wrote at length about censorship in On Liberty and specifically wrote about censorship via social pressure and how dangerous it was. It's not some imagined idea, it's just one inconvenient to a particular political group's goals right now.

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

#168

Post by jsonne » Thu, Feb 28, 2019, 2:50 PM UTC

throwawaymath wrote: post #163

jsonne wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not picking on you in particular, but this is a rather annoying argument that people bring up that is utterly nonsensical. Companies can and do cause harm to individuals. No they can't put you in jail but they can otherwise isolate you from society via making you unemployable, revealing personal information to social embarrass you, or barring you from essential services to function in modern society. To pretend t…

Sure, but no one is claiming private companies can't hurt you. That's not what this is about. Note the specific term used: the government can kill you. It is the sole arbiter of what's legal in its domain. The first amendment doesn't exist to protect you from being shamed or embarassed for what you say. It exists to keep you from being jailed or murdered to censor the voice of the people. So no, it's not "utterly non…

I mean that is exactly what the thread was about. Legalism, and the 1st amendment is very uninteresting as an argument about morals to me. The principle of the freedom of speech is an interesting moral argument which these platforms (publishers if we're being intellectually honest) are often guilty of abusing. Slavery was once "legal" yet when people talk about freedom the entire concept isn't hinged on the 13th amendment.

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

#169

Post by vetinari » Thu, Feb 28, 2019, 2:51 PM UTC

gottebp wrote: post #160

vetinari wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do not worry; all these companies are private enterprises, so in US, freedom of speech doesn't apply anyway. Patreon/Paypal/Visa/Mastercard/Twitter/Facebook will drop you like a hot potato, once you publish something mildly controversial.

What distinguishes a Twitter or Facebook from a phone company? At scale these platforms have become vital to public communication in the same way as certain utilities. Perhaps it would be better if businesses facilitating speech communication had to classify as a common carrier or utility. As a carrier they would get exemption from speech liability and in exchange democracy -- which needs free public discourse -- can…

They want it both ways; to have the legal protections telcos have, and to have a tight control over their platform.

This was touched on in the Congressional hearing with Mr. Zuckerberg, where he avoided the answer:

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TEX): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Zuckerberg, welcome. Thank you for being here.

Mr. Zuckerberg, does Facebook consider itself a neutral public forum?

ZUCKERBERG: Senator, we consider ourselves to be a platform for all ideas.

CRUZ: Let me ask the question again. Does Facebook consider itself to be a neutral public forum, and representatives of your company are giving conflicting answers on this? Are you a ...

ZUCKERBERG: Well ...

CRUZ: ... First Amendment speaker expressing your views, or are you a neutral public forum allowing everyone to speak?

ZUCKERBERG: Senator, here's how we think about this: I don't believe that — there are certain content that clearly we do not allow, right? Hate speech, terrorist content, nudity, anything that makes people feel unsafe in the community. From that perspective, that's why we generally try to refer to what we do as platform for all ideas ...

CRUZ: Let me try this, because the time is constrained. It's just a simple question. The predicate for Section 230 immunity under the CDA is that you're a neutral public forum. Do you consider yourself a neutral public forum, or are you engaged in political speech, which is your right under the First Amendment.

ZUCKERBERG: Well, senator, our goal is certainly not to engage in political speech. I am not that familiar with the specific legal language of the — the law that you — that you speak to. So I would need to follow up with you on that. I'm just trying to lay out how broadly I think about this.

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

#170

Post by sandworm101 » Thu, Feb 28, 2019, 2:52 PM UTC

gottebp wrote: post #160

vetinari wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do not worry; all these companies are private enterprises, so in US, freedom of speech doesn't apply anyway. Patreon/Paypal/Visa/Mastercard/Twitter/Facebook will drop you like a hot potato, once you publish something mildly controversial.

What distinguishes a Twitter or Facebook from a phone company? At scale these platforms have become vital to public communication in the same way as certain utilities. Perhaps it would be better if businesses facilitating speech communication had to classify as a common carrier or utility. As a carrier they would get exemption from speech liability and in exchange democracy -- which needs free public discourse -- can…

Lawyers. There are lots of reasons, but it boils down to them not being like the phone company because they dont want to be. Facebook et al spend millions each year to maintain a very specific legal status across many areas.