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

281–290 of 789 posts

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

#281

Post by acqq »

eesmith wrote: post #98
darkpuma wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak to what's really in the guy's head, but he seemed to be arguing with and insulting nazis.

> Likewise, Benjamin has been called right wing and an alt-right sympathizer by multiple news outlets. He rejects those characterizations, calling himself a “classical liberal.” However, a recent Southern Poverty Law Center report revealed he has been a stepping stone for some white supremacists on the path to radicalization. The Right Stuff, an unapologetically racist, antisemitic blog founded by white supremacist M…

Do you think "Southern Poverty Law Center" has only valid evaluations of who is "racist", i.e. do you think that they can't be wrong?

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2018/04/19/the-splc-has-...

"Ayaan Hirsi Ali" ... "is the Somali-born activist who was a victim of faith-based genital mutilation. Her friend, director Theo van Gogh, was murdered by a Muslim extremist who then stuck a knife in van Gogh’s body with a note that said Hirsi Ali was next. She has since written two memoirs and a book offering ways to reform the faith."

She was listed on the Southern Poverty Law Center's "page listing “Anti-Muslim Extremists”." I'm absolutely sure Southern Poverty Law Center was wrong there, similar but even worse than calling Salman Rushdie an anti-Muslim extremist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali

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

#282

Post by asdffdsa »

zamalek wrote: post #120
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? 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…

The problem is, "intolerance" is an arbitrary distinction, especially over time and especially now. In sites like Patreon, Youtube, or Reddit which apparently presume to operate as a free marketplace to identify, discuss, and promote ideas, censoring those which merely hate (rather than actively condone actual/specific acts of violence) sets the precedent toward greater and more arbitrary censorship (whether people that condone it acknowledge it or not). As the goalposts shift, more 'reasonable' and, let's go with your word, 'conservative' ideas begin to be denounced and censored.

Your argument 'not the right to be heard' does not apply in the context of shutting down users with controversial ideas on sites like Patreon and Reddit because visitors have ample space to not seek out the quiet 'ranting racist'. I have yet to experience people being thrown out of a bar, restaurant, or business because their conversation included racist or controversial topics.

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

#283

Post by [deleted] »

dkersten wrote: post #272
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…

Theres a fine line between “being allowed to throw a loud ranting racist out of a pub” because the pub is your business and you should be allowed to choose who to do business with and you don’t like racists... and throwing out a person of a different race because it’s your business and you should be allowed to choose who to do business with and don’t like that race... That is, we want businesses to have the right to…

[deleted]

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

#284

Post by loeg »

throwawaysea wrote: post #77

I don't understand why commenters in these threads keep noting that free speech only protects people from government censorship. This is a common, distracting, and empty statement. Proponents of free speech are pro free speech as a general concept and principle, beyond what protections are afforded under American law today. The idea of free speech predates the existence of the United States. Free speech is hugely val…

> Proponents of free speech are pro free speech as a general concept and principle, beyond what protections are afforded under American law today.

You certainly don't speak for all of us (re: "beyond").

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

#285

Post by TulliusCicero »

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…

> So what do we do? I don't know. Privately-owned services should be free to censor. People should also continue to speak freely (if legal). I certainly think Net Neutrality is essential at this point, whether enforced via public infrastructure or some kind of over-arching regulation. But, there's not much anyone can do in the current framework of things other than encourage decentralization. And I do, when I can.

Having more foundational internet infrastructure and services controlled by the government (which IS bound by freedom of speech rules) would also solve this issue.

But the ironic thing here, is that most of the right-leaning people complaining about being kicked off platforms, would oppose doing this.

They also oppose private platforms being told how to behave by the government, as it happens, they're just complaining in this particular case because here that works against them.

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

#286

Post by cc81 »

paulcole wrote: post #257
cc81 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What older situations are you talking about?

A good start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_Stat... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States

I mean actual instances where this happened: " companies and people the right to silence vast amounts of voices and opinions on random whims" and no one cared.

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

#287

Post by zozbot123 »

dgudkov wrote: post #248

The missing question here -- why did Patreon do it? Is it because they are afraid of legal risk of not being able to defend themselves against a lawsuit? Or they are afraid of loss of revenue/capitalization if an online activist group launches a shame/smear campaign? Or it simply because it rubbed the wrong way someone in the company management? Why did they do it?

> Or they are afraid of loss of revenue/capitalization if an online activist group launches a shame/smear campaign?

This, pretty much. They see their established niche as that of hosting a well-defined, 'harmonious community' of creators, and if this requires "harmonizing away" some of these creators due to their slightly bothersome political stances, then so be it.

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

#289

Post by beat »

zaroth wrote: post #262
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…

Everything about your response I agree with except the tongue-in-cheek “these individuals are free to create their own businesses and websites which facilitate whatever kind of discourse they please, nobody can take that away from them...” The reality is no, there is enough privatized centralization in payment and networks that certain companies can choose not to do business with someone, based on otherwise legal spe…

Business itself is inherently amoral (not evil, just lacking any sense of morality one way or another). Businesses don't refuse particular customers out of a sense of social justice - they do it because continuing to service their customers harms their reputation, and thus their business. I know I don't want to do business with businesses that tell me fascism is just "speech", and I'll go to their competitors instead.

And I'll free admit, just so the purists can get it out of the way, that I think there are types of speech that should not be socially tolerated. Hate speech shouldn't get public protection. Shun me for it if you like.

From these two things, I find that businesses refusing to do business with the likes of Stormfront, or this "radical anti-feminist", or whatever, is a very good proxy for social standards. Why? Because like I said, business is amoral. It doesn't care about hate speech. But when that speech is so repulsive that businesses worry about the general public, their other customers, punishing them for supporting it, then that's a good point to say "No, this is not acceptable".

And to be clear, I'm drawing a line about the freedom to not do business with someone - not a law to punish speech. I'm not saying throw them in jail for speaking in hate. I'm saying that it's not good to require business to provide a platform for their hate.

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

#290

Post by mrkurt »

dkersten wrote: post #272
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…

Theres a fine line between “being allowed to throw a loud ranting racist out of a pub” because the pub is your business and you should be allowed to choose who to do business with and you don’t like racists... and throwing out a person of a different race because it’s your business and you should be allowed to choose who to do business with and don’t like that race... That is, we want businesses to have the right to…

It's not really a fine line. There are specific, protected people-features you can't use to discriminate. Saying stupid shit isn't one of them. Race is.

Those laws don't exist because we don't agree with their reasons. They exist to protect people who have been categorically repressed for hundreds of years.

Post reply on HN