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

Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 789 posts

Re: Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

#201

Post by ivl »

harimau777 wrote: post #32
endisukaj wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right to free speech protects you from being persecuted by the government. Patreon and any other private company reserve the right to choose their customers (and workers) based on what they say. This has always been the case. There are countless examples, even in the past, where companies have fired employees for saying things they shouldn't have.

As I see it, a functional democracy requires tolerance of unpopular opinions not just by the government but also by society at large. I don't agree with these sorts of statements, but I believe that censoring them is harmful to society.

This runs into the paradox of tolerance[1]. Net, when the things being censored are say, advocating for genocide, the harm they can lead to is much greater than not having people advocating for genocide.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Re: Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

#202

Post by [deleted] »

magduf wrote: post #169
smallnamespace wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If people don't like what you have to say, or how you are saying it, they are free to walk away. Yes, but it's funny that we're now deliberating conflating 'people' with 'private corporations', a conflation that folks on the left vociferously condemned when it came to Citizens United. I think we should look at ourselves a bit more carefully in the mirror - are private corporations supposed to be held to a higher st…

>Put in another context, should we get rid of net neutrality because Comcast ought to have the right to decide what content goes over its pipes? No, we should ban monopolies for one thing, and 2) the whole point of net neutrality is to bring the idea of "common carrier" to the internet. If you provide the transit pathways, you shouldn't get to play favorites. I'll make an analogy: if you own a public stage, you shoul…

[deleted]

Re: Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

#203

Post by nicoburns »

joshuamorton wrote: post #194
wildmusings wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem comes when network effects, entry barriers, and oligopolies make private exclusion take the character of a ban from the public square. Starting a rival credit card company, payment processor, and social network is not a viable option for people looking to participate in public discourse. Plenty of times throughout history, oligopolists and monopolists have been forced to follow common-carriage rules, whet…

But now you're changing the argument: that not only must you have free speech, but that others must assist you in getting compensated for your speech and to help you potentially subsist off of it. That's never been part of any conversation about free speech. (Even the broader non 1st amendment version). And it doesn't make sense. You can always take cash or check. The post office doesn't discriminate.

Surely there's a good argument for non-discriminatory digital payments too, given how much of an advantage easier payments confers.

Re: Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

#204

Post by ptero »

orthecreedence wrote: post #33

I'm torn about this. On the one hand, Patreon shouldn't have to do business with people they don't like. On the other hand, at what point do we accept that we have different viewpoints and live and let live? The biggest one for me in recent history was Cloudflare arbitrarily deciding to stop hosting the Daily Stormer. Sure, DS is vile, but at the point we start enforcing censorship on a whim instead of hardened polic…

Trying to prevent people from arguing for an evil (E) never stops E long term. It should be fought with reason and counter-arguments, not with silencing the speaker. Suppressing the speaker can indicate, especially to those wavering, that there are no reasonable counter-arguments and there must be something true in the message that controlling powers are trying to suppress.

There are different modes: I do not have to give someone I strongly dislike the freedom to preach at my home. However, if I have a media content distribution business, and allow creators freedom to create their own message I should also tolerate content that I personally dislike; otherwise I risk my business to morph from content distribution into society manipulation. "I disapprove of what you say, but will defend your right to say it". Patreon is wrong. My 2c.

Re: Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

#205

Post by orthecreedence »

paulcole wrote: post #92

> Why are we giving companies and people the right to silence vast amounts of voices and opinions on random whims? This is not a new situation. But all of a sudden it’s a problem because it’s conservative white guys instead of women, LGBTQ people and people of color?

You're not wrong.

Traditionally publishers of books and media have always favored the ruling class (in this case, the white man), and they vehemently protect their "right" to do so.

I guess my major issue is that, finally, a platform comes along where everybody can say their part (PoC, LGBTQ, women, conservatives, communists, fascists, etc etc) and everyone is, to some extent, able to be heard. We finally have a democratization of speech. We can live without gatekeepers and without forcing others into silence, if we choose to.

I don't want to see that slip away in a spiteful jab at the ruling class. But then again, I am a white man, so maybe your comparison is fair and I should shut the hell up =]. I probably won't, though, and I will probably continue to argue that everyone should have a voice even if it does benefit myself and the rest of the ruling class.

Re: Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

#206

Post by agentdrtran »

augustl wrote: post #124
nkurz wrote: post #69

The article avoids the specifics of what Benjamin said, which makes it hard to judge whether Patreon is acting reasonably. The interview in question is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ87Wf-0rZg . Here are some excerpts from the automatically generated transcript (click the 3 dots, then "Open transcript"): I just can't be bothered to deal with people who treat me like this it's really annoying like I you are a…

According to Carl Benjamin himself, the comments were meant ironically. He was reacting to a chat stream, which is missing context in that video, and the chat used slurs like this. So Benjamin used the slurs back at them. Having said that, we have to assume Benjamin’s inner thoughts to know what he really meant, so I’m not arguing we should disregard it completely because of his alledged good intentions.

You see officer, I did all that hate speech _ironically_

Re: Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

#207

Post by rjf72 »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #38
orthecreedence wrote: post #33

I'm torn about this. On the one hand, Patreon shouldn't have to do business with people they don't like. On the other hand, at what point do we accept that we have different viewpoints and live and let live? The biggest one for me in recent history was Cloudflare arbitrarily deciding to stop hosting the Daily Stormer. Sure, DS is vile, but at the point we start enforcing censorship on a whim instead of hardened polic…

> On the other hand, at what point do we accept that we have different viewpoints and live and let live? Keep in mind that some of those viewpoints are "we live, others get eradicated".

The danger in this point of view is that if not held to an extremely strict interpretation and substantial burden of evidence, this is indeed precisely how you end up getting eradications. The greatest irony though is that so often the people history comes to record as the 'bad guys' are the people who think they're the 'good guys' protecting society from some perceived eradication.

Think about things like the Spanish Inquisition or the Salem Witch Trials for extremely clear examples. These people didn't hate the people they were attacking. They'd just become so deluded in their own self righteousness that they thought they were saving society from immense evil. In reality though that evil existed only in their head. And while Don Quixote may have only swung at windmills, in these cases many people lost their lives for doing no wrong.

---

In reality the paradox of tolerance, as it is used in common rhetoric is completely nonsensical. Popper made an extremely clear distinction between words and violence that people often ignore when appealing to his argument. When a person moves from speech to unprovoked violence, eliminate that individual from society with the greatest of urgency and severity. Until, and after, that point - tolerance thrives without condition.

Re: Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

#208

Post by darkpuma »

astura wrote: post #180
nkurz wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have an unpopular opinion. Do you think this is actually an unpopular opinion, or just one not well represented by the two dominant national political parties in America? You mention elsewhere that you are from small-town Wisconsin. I grew up there also (Ladysmith) and now live in a small town in Vermont. I feel like this attitude is still quite common in rural America. The downside of this framework is that it's h…

> How does one draw a line between "restaurants must serve customers regardless of race" and "businesses can choose not to offer services to racists"? I believe the key difference is skin color is innate and being an asshole is not, you don't get to choose to be black, you do choose to be an asshole though. I think that the shift in popularity for gay rights mirrors the shift in acceptance that homosexual feelings ar…

What are your thoughts on religious discrimination? As a former christian, I am well aware that being a christian is not innate. Furthermore I consider christian doctrine to be inherently discriminatory against people like me. Should it be legal for me to bar christians from my restaurant?

Of the 11 federally protected classes, religion stands out as the only one that isn't innate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group

Incidentally California prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of political activities or affiliations, which is a step further than the federal requirement: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-employmen...

Re: Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

#209

Post by zamalek »

smallnamespace wrote: post #148
zamalek wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the other hand, at what point do we accept that we have different viewpoints and live and let live? The government, soapboxes, homes and places of business that are happy to have them. Freedom of Speech is not the right to be heard. If people don't like what you have to say, or how you are saying it, they are free to walk away. If you don't like what someone is doing in your place of business, you can also throw…

> If people don't like what you have to say, or how you are saying it, they are free to walk away. Yes, but it's funny that we're now deliberating conflating 'people' with 'private corporations', a conflation that folks on the left vociferously condemned when it came to Citizens United. I think we should look at ourselves a bit more carefully in the mirror - are private corporations supposed to be held to a higher st…

> should we get rid of net neutrality because Comcast

NN governs as though the service is a public utility. There are some businesses that are crucial for upholding FoS (they could be equated to soapboxes). Patreon is not crucial for protecting FoS, nor is YouTube.

> Especially when they have de facto monopolistic control

The important determinant is that it is not de jure.

> left vociferously condemned

The left condemned it because it was pluralist, and the left agreed with majoritarian ideologies (hence: democrats).

Furthermore, things were radically different back then. The Democrats originally supported the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Republicans rose as the opposition. All that tu quoque proves is that times and people change.

In more practical terms: a private corporation consists of human beings, who may not want to deal with certain ideologies.

Re: Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt

#210

Post by ianleeclark »

vowelless wrote: post #166
ianleeclark wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do they have the same stigma for those words? We both know a dude from the UK, who primarily speaks English, and who talks about American politics would be aware of the stigma of the word. > Are we okay applying American standards to their words? It's important to look at the context of the situation to determine what's happening. In this situation, Sargon was appealing emotionally to white supremacists by saying t…

Would you ban her from Instagram? https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/27/middleeast/kuwait-philippines... I can assure you the life of domestic indentured servants in the Khaleej is much worse than that of blacks in america today.

> Would you ban her from Instagram?

Honestly I don't find free speech to be an interesting topic, so I'm not interested in continuing this. I just wanted to point out that it's possible to be so charitable that you say something naive.

Post reply on HN