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

411–420 of 789 posts

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

#411

Post by krapp »

creaghpatr wrote: post #395
krapp wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What if they register their ideology as a religion? Iirc it is a protected class in US so they cannot be banned due to it. The thing about the law is that it doesn't operate like code. You can't just cast (ideology) and expect it to work within the framework of law, because the law is (luckily) interpreted by people who expect it to be taken advantage of by the unscrupulous. Otherwise, literally every corporation wo…

What if a law is passed to make political affiliation a protected class?

IANAL, but as I understand it, the typical qualifiers for being a protected class tend to be immutable (sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, or genetic information, per Wikipedia[0].) Obviously you can change your sex and religion, though, and disability status in some cases, though.

Maybe a case could be made for political affiliation under "creed," since there appears to be no specific legal definition for that[1], although the consensus seems to be centered around religious belief.

In any case, since one can (and many people do) change their political affiliations often, I would expect such a law to meet with some extreme legal challenges at the very least, because it seems like such an obvious attempt to game the system, particularly since "discrimination against a political group" is pretty much the purpose of other political groups.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group

[1]https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/8686/what-is-a-creed...

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

#412

Post by nkurz »

ggreer wrote: post #379
jakelazaroff wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Listeners are perfectly free to go elsewhere to hear racist speech — Gab exists, 4chan exists, and there are plenty of smaller sites dedicated to this as well. Insofar as they want to support someone monetarily, no one can prevent them from using Bitcoin.

This comment doesn't address my points at all. First, none of those sites are Patreon competitors. Second, I never claimed alternatives didn't exist. Third, in context it's pretty clear that Sargon is trying to insult racists. I don't know much about him, but from that clip it seems like his shtick is to get attention by making points in controversial ways. Well, mission accomplished (in every sense of the phrase). M…

Patreon has ... a political bias, and that's not good for them

What makes you think that their bias is not good for them as a business? To me, it seems quite possible that were they to take the "principled" stance you advocate, they would soon find themselves facing much larger problems. Either their payment processors would cut them off, or they would face a larger and better organized boycott by those who prefer their current bias. Even if I'd prefer them to take a different stance for the long term benefit society, I don't see it helping them in the short term to do so.

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

#413

Post by paulcole »

cc81 wrote: post #286
paulcole wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

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

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

#414

Post by coldtea »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #371
coffeemug wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Freedom of Speech is not the right to be heard. People keep saying this and repeating it, but as far as I can tell this meme is destructive and wrong. Freedom of speech isn't just a legal assurance that congress shall make no law abridging it. It is also a set of cultural norms rooted deeply in a long lineage of hard won ideas. It is Evelyn Hall's principle "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the de…

I'm really confused, culturally we didn't really have freedom of speech the way is being described here (the freedom to be in private spaces and say disagreeable things without being ousted). Being bullied out of social circles, shunned for behaving in socially unacceptable ways (like women wearing pants, being gay, accepting interracial marriage) including speaking socially unacceptable things (like women are object…

>I'm really confused, culturally we didn't really have freedom of speech the way is being described here

Well, what's to be confused about?

Culturally we only had "freedom of speech" to the degree that we had it the way it is being described here.

Everything else is the dominant ideas (with power in government, press, etc) throwing some other up-and-coming ideas a bone.

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

#415

Post by slededit »

bilbo0s wrote: post #271
jstarfish wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All of these are just people having opinions. If you don't like their opinions, don't associate with them. That's the freedom that you have. At the risk of starting a tangent, this doesn't work when it comes to business. Businesses (or any relationship of dependency) should not be allowed to have "an opinion" because before long it becomes collusion and shunning. How well did "no, no, you have the freedom to go som…

It's like the difference between Sam's Club and a typical grocer. The grocer offers services to the public, Sam's Club does not. It is members only. And it can have any requirements it pleases for membership. It doesn't have any racial exclusivity policies, but that would be well within their rights if they did. (For instance, country clubs have often had racial exclusivity clauses, even after the civil rights act.)…

If every grocery store became a sam’s club would you concede that perhaps the regulatory regime would need modification?

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

#416

Post by mcguire »

"“I think the most likely outcome, if this continues, is that all contentious speech or behavior will put the speaker or actor at risk of serious financial and social sanctions, and strip them of all defense,” Mr. Peterson wrote in an email."

OH, MY GOD! Say it ain't so! We cannot live in a world where "contentious speech or behavior" might lead to "serious sanctions!" Who will think of the victims?!

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

#417

Post by bunderbunder »

coffeemug wrote: post #338
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…

> Freedom of Speech is not the right to be heard. People keep saying this and repeating it, but as far as I can tell this meme is destructive and wrong. Freedom of speech isn't just a legal assurance that congress shall make no law abridging it. It is also a set of cultural norms rooted deeply in a long lineage of hard won ideas. It is Evelyn Hall's principle "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the de…

It's interesting how this gets framed differently nowadays.

20 years ago, before social media, there was no assumption that everyone has a fundamental right to be able to broadcast their ideas using others' platforms. Since publication was more resource-intensive, the default for most media was to not publish things, and deciding that someone's ideas didn't merit publication wasn't seen as a violation of any great moral code. They were always free to self-publish. At their own expense, of course.

Fast forward, and, since most these sites default to letting anyone publish on their platform, with no questions asked beforehand, we've apparently come to think that using these platforms is a human right. It is not. It is a privilege. One with which they have been quite liberal with sharing, yes, but one that they are still free to revoke at any time.

There's another important right to consider, in this siuation: Freedom of association. It is also fundamental, and it goes hand-in-hand with freedom of speech. It encompasses, among other things, the right to not associate with people you don't want to be associated with. If Patreon, a private entity, does not want to be associated with sexism and racism, they should not be required to do so.

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

#418

Post by Semiapies »

cabalamat wrote: post #249
PeterMikhailov wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm ok with the line being "dont host the Daily Stormer"

But that isn't the line, the line is don't be Sargon of Akkad.

"Don't be"? He's been declared outlaw and hunted across the land? No? He's been rounded up and put in a camp? No? He's been arrested? No?

A company doesn't want the business of him and his followers. That's it.

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

#419

Post by emiliobumachar »

darkpuma wrote: post #279
astura wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, I wasn't really expressing much of a personal opinion, just thinking about the difference between the two and thinking about the profound shift in acceptance of gays in society in even the last decade. Personally... I'm not religious, I was raised an atheist, I don't like religion, and I don't really think it should be protected, but I sorta kinda understand why it is, religion seems "special." Veteran s…

> "Veteran status is also protected under employment discrimination law, and military service isn't an innate attribute" I'd say being a veteran is, once you're a veteran you cannot change that about yourself. You could decide to not become a veteran, but you can't unveteran yourself.

Also, there used to be a draft. Plenty of veterans alive today did not have a choice. That is not the same as "innate", but it's closer to that than to being a choice.

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

#420

Post by manfredo »

darawk wrote: post #399
manfredo wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Largely because the opposition did exactly that: they started deplatforming and attempting to more coercively prevent right wing views from speaking. Deplatforming grew in popularity around 2013 or 2014. Students at Brown shut down Ray Kelly's speech in 2014 [1]. We did prevent these groups from going out into the sunlight. That gave them the chance to grow in the shadows. Also, with regards to Trump, I largely see h…

> Largely because the opposition did exactly that: they started deplatforming and attempting to more coercively prevent right wing views from speaking. Deplatforming grew in popularity around 2013 or 2014. Students at Brown shut down Ray Kelly's speech in 2014 [1]. We did prevent these groups from going out into the sunlight. That gave them the chance to grow in the shadows. I'm not a fan of de-platforming, but there…

That deplatforming deprives the person being deplatformed of a platform is obvious, to the point that it's effectively a tautology. However, concluding that this means deplatforming is effective is extremely naive. When tech companies engage in acts of censorship like deplatforming, it causes many do lose trust in the perceived lack of partiality of these platforms. So while individual people getting censored may see their audiences diminish, support for the views they espouse and distrust of the authority carrying out the censorship often increase. In case it wasn't clear, the lack of efficacy in deplatforming I referred to in my previous comment was in reference to attempts to curb ideas and political movements - not individuals within those.

Again, deplatforming gained traction in the early to mid 2010s. It coincides more or less directly with the rise of the Alt Right. Increases in deplatforming is correlated with support for the far right, not against it.

Post reply on HN