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

451–460 of 789 posts

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

#451

Post by epicureanideal »

joe_the_user wrote: post #430
coffeemug wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just made an argument about that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18765494 . > The difference is that the internet has discontinuously more scalable network effects, so technology companies often find themselves in a winner-takes-all dynamic. If some publisher, newspaper, or literary magazine refused to publish Walt Whitman, he could always try and find another publisher. But if Twitter bans Titania McGra…

If some publisher, newspaper, or literary magazine refused to publish Walt Whitman, he could always try and find another publisher. But if Twitter bans Titania McGrath, there is no other Twitter for her to join because the next best alternative has 1/10000th the number of users. This is pretty much exactly wrong (the situation is basically the exact opposite). When there were a very finite number of publishers in the…

The problem is if you do set up your own website, a very small number of companies you choose from can each decide to deplatform you, and very soon unless you're unusually technically savvy you will be unable to speak your message.

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

#452

Post by ggreer »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #397
ggreer wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm addressing point 1: > John Milton, Thomas Paine, and John Stuart Mill all made the point (in various ways) that every time you stop someone from saying or publishing an idea, you are also preventing others who want to hear or read that idea from doing so. But no one who wants to hear or read racism is prevented from doing so — they just can't do it on Patreon . The parent's concept of free speech is fully compati…

Again, what Sargon said wasn't racist. It was stupid, offensive, and probably an impulsive attempt to get more eyeballs, but it wasn't racist. If what Sargon said was racist, then so is Steven Pinker's talk on language[1] (specifically the segment on profanity and racial slurs).

> The parent's concept of free speech is fully compatible with this point, specifically because alternatives exist (and will always exist, given liberal enough laws protecting freedom of speech).

This argument proves too much. Alternatives always exist; they just vary in how inconvenient they are. By the same logic, it would be OK if every online payment service banned Sargon and every bank refused to let him open an account. After all, an alternative still exists: His patrons could mail him cash every month.

There's no bright line here, and of course I don't think Patreon should be compelled to do business with Sargon, but I tend to worry when popular platforms erode free speech norms by policing content. Patreon is the latest example of this, and they're particularly worrying because they're responsible for people's livelihoods. I'm not alone in this worry. As the article mentions, Sam Harris has cancelled his Patreon account. He's willing to forgo tens of thousands of dollars per month today rather than let his patronage grow and risk losing more in the future. That's quite the condemnation of Patreon's judgement and of similar policies by other companies.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBpetDxIEMU

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

#453

Post by SolaceQuantum »

coffeemug wrote: post #404
SolaceQuantum wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The difference is that the internet has discontinuously more scalable network effects, so technology companies often find themselves in a winner-takes-all dynamic. If some publisher, newspaper, or literary magazine refused to publish Walt Whitman, he could always try and find another publisher. But if Twitter bans Titania McGrath, there is no other Twitter for her to join because the next best alternative has 1/10000…

Yes, and this was problem exists to this day in prevailing cable and newspapers. During the time they were prevalent, unpopular events and speech were not spoken on the biggest networks (still not spoken about) and significant silenced perspectives had to make do with smaller platforms, poorer cable times, smaller venues, and self-publishing newspapers assuming they could fund a printing press. There was not a push to force those networks to host these voices.

Yes, it’s an existing problem. I don’t understand why this is a new problem and am confused why this is unacceptable on the level that is new.

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

#454

Post by SolaceQuantum »

coldtea wrote: post #414
SolaceQuantum wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’m confused why patreons behavior is newly unacceptable in a way that sparks controversy. I agree that it is likely a problem overall, but I don’t understand what has occurred that has made it new to discuss.

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

#455

Post by manfredo »

magduf wrote: post #440
manfredo wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, we don't need to make a government service that doesn't discriminate. We just need to designate things like payment processors and hosting providers as utilities. Your electric company, plumbing company, or mail carrier can't just choose not to do business with someone because they dislike their political views.

A hosting company isn't a utility. A utility is a monopoly in almost every case (or sometimes a duopoly). There's countless hosting companies out there, and you can make your own too. If you don't like your hosting provider, find another, or set up your own service. There's lots of payment processors out there too. However, Mastercard and VISA do have an oligopoly, and those deserve a lot more regulation than they cu…

We're increasingly getting to the point where some technologies have no effective competitor. Even sites like Cloud Flare that have decided to kick people off their service have pointed out the dangers of such a practice: https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/

> Someone on our team asked after I announced we were going to terminate the Daily Stormer: "Is this the day the Internet dies?" He was half joking, but only half. He's no fan of the Daily Stormer or sites like it. But he does realize the risks of a company like Cloudflare getting into content policing.

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

#456

Post by unethical_ban »

bunderbunder wrote: post #417
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…

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 mo…

Ooo, I can link to my blog for relevance:

https://wannabewonk.com/gab-and-free-speech-on-the-internet/

Summary: I agree, largely. Socially, we should be able to debate people with diverse opinions without turning the world into one big safe space. As far as the rights of hosting platforms: There has to be a line somewhere. I draw the line at CAs, ISPs and registrars. They should have to serve ANYONE unless the government mandates otherwise. Maybe Twitter and AWS shouldn't have to support abhorrent speech, but my home ISP can't pick and choose if I reach the larger world.

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

#457

Post by mcguire »

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…

Careless remarks?

"Before your stupid social justice feminine bullshit, [mass murders] didn't happen on this scale, it's crazy. This is a disease of the modern age. YOU are responsible for perpetuating it, by disenfranchising these poor fucking guys who don't have any options left. When someone takes the option of absolute insanely last resort, you have to wonder, what kind of system is producing them? And I'll tell you what, Laci, it is a fucking feminist system that is doing this."

Quirky ideas?

"I wouldn't even rape you, @jessphillips. #AntiRapeThreats #FeminismIsCancer"

Do you really think Carl Benjamin is quirky and careless? Are you really defending him as having done something harmless, funny, or simply unthinkingly? Are you as laissez-faire about, say, the anti-vaccine crowd or the creationists---they're just disagreeing "with the overall bent of the arc of history?"

In a more serious mode, have you any evidence that we are "talking about people who may have made a careless remark, or have quirky ideas, or disagree with the overall bent of the arc of history?" I would think everyone would be up in arms if such were the case. All of the examples I have run across are individuals who are repeatedly, deliberately and provocatively making loathsome statements, and, due to "tolerance", being applauded for it.

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

#458

Post by peterwwillis »

coffeemug wrote: post #434
peterwwillis wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These "norms" are generalized and not always applicable to real life. If I disapprove of you yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, should I also have to defend your right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater? We "erode freedom of speech" when it hurts people. This is not about "weird people with quirky ideas". This is about people who use speech to abuse, cause harm, intimidate, harass, or inspire others to commit su…

Nonsense! Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater has a very high risk of getting hundreds of people instantly killed. It is not at all equivalent to verbally abusing someone. More so, verbal abuse is frequently socially desirable and useful! 2pac verbally abused people, many think of him as a great artist and social commentator. Many, many, many, many, many great artists did too -- Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Dostoevskiy, am…

Verbally abusive music actually gets people killed in Chicago [re: drill music]. Teenagers even get killed over Twitter comments. It's not a joke.

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

#459

Post by ng12 »

bunderbunder wrote: post #438
coffeemug wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just made an argument about that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18765494 , and here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18765509 . > The difference is that the internet has discontinuously more scalable network effects, so technology companies often find themselves in a winner-takes-all dynamic. If some publisher, newspaper, or literary magazine refused to publish Walt Whitman, he could always try and…

The fact that Twitter is way more popular than Mastodon doesn't really change anything. It's freedom of speech , not freedom of venue.

Ah, yes. The "free speech zone" approach.

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

#460

Post by wmil »

This article is poorly researched and misses the key points of the dispute.

Patreon previously said that they only care about content on their platform. Sargon's comments weren't on Patreon. They weren't on his Youtube channel, which is presumably what Patreon money is supporting. They were made during an interview with an altogether different channel.

So the rules were changed retroactively without warning.

Next, the scary part involves another company called Subscribe Star.

After the ban was announced, a number of creators decided they didn't want to put all their eggs in one basket and opened up accounts on Subscribe Star.

Several hours later PayPal cut service to Subscribe Star without explanation.

Jaqueline Hart, who made the decision to ban Sargon, used to work at PayPal.

It certainly looks like she called in a favour to kill a competing service.

A tech lawyer who runs a channel called YoutuberLaw is trying to file an FTC complaint about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2ySC7edHO0

Post reply on HN