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

461–470 of 789 posts

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

#461

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

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

#462

Post by scruple »

fzeroracer wrote: post #437
scruple wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you reconcile your world view with the story of someone like Daryl Davis, who verifiably contradicts what you think?

Because while it might persuade a few, the onus is not and should not be on the minorities to convince people who literally want them dead that no, their lives are worth living.

I didn't intend to give the impression that I think that minority groups ought to tackle this problem alone. I certainly don't believe that they should, or that this is their fight and theirs alone. At the same time, I believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant.

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

#463

Post by slantyyz »

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?

> Why did they do it?

My guess - their brand name seems to be always mentioned when people ask for donations.

I notice people don't just say "go to my donation page to give me money", they say "Give me money through Patreon".

So I guess that creates a bit of an optics issue when someone controversial is constantly saying the word "Patreon".

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

#465

Post by prepend »

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…

“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.”

I definitely remember the 80s and 90s with controversy over Walmart not carrying “obscene” records. Or nc-17 movies not being played by movie theaters. Or books being banned from libraries (public and private).

It wasn’t Facebook, but it was definitely a similar theme of cultural norms not being upheld and corporate powers suppressing free speech. Just like now.

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

#466

Post by krapp »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #454
coldtea wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>I don’t understand what has occurred that has made it new to discuss.

A lot of people in the tech community and on HN sympathize with the ideology of people being deplatformed, particularly regarding alt-right and "anti-feminist" views.

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

#467

Post by wmil »

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 it simply because it rubbed the wrong way someone in the company management?

This is most likely. For some people, the whole point of power is the ability to stomp on the face of your enemies.

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

#468

Post by notafraudster »

slededit wrote: post #400
TulliusCicero wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And at some point, that means it becomes virtually impossible to express yourself if your views are unpopular enough. This is how free speech has always worked, though. You could always get on a soapbox in a public plaza and rant, but the potential engaged audience there is pretty small. If you wanted a real audience, even in older times you would've needed a newspaper to print your thoughts, or a publisher to help…

News organizations used to be much more interested in presenting the “other” side. Sometimes referring to outsider writings when they felt their own biases prevented them from doing justice to the ideas they disagreed with. My favorite example is Edward R. Murrow giving an entire episode to McCarthy (unedited) to explain why he felt black listing communists was necessary. Letters to the editor are vestigial examples…

Murrow devoted an episode to McCarthy because at the time Murrow was one of three people who had an episode to devote to McCarthy.

Now McCarthy has a network that will have him on any time he wants, and if he didn't he'd have a hundred online venues, including the one he runs, and most of them spend time talking about how Murrow is a "Jew Communist" or an "SJW" or whatever people say now, so it should probably not be a surprise that Murrow isn't inclined to have him on for a chat. And anyway, we're not talking about McCarthy anyway, we're talking about George Lincoln Rockwell and Robert Welsh.

And if we were talking about McCarthy, it still wouldn't be useful, because if Murrow hadn't devoted an entire episode to McCarthy, it's not like we think McCarthy would have a grievance to demand an episode devoted to him because it's his fundamental right, it would have been Murrow's editorial choice. It may well be the case that there exist venues who would do better to give extremists a voice so they can embarrass themselves, but that's quite different from a commitment to sincere pluralism to hear everyone out.

By the way, in the end, the thing that did McCarthy in was not his public supporters vanishing because his speeches embarrassed him, it was the Senate voting to censure him and effectively curbing the platform they afforded him.

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

#469

Post by Fellshard »

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…

It is frustrating to see rising intolerance of speech in the culture. Yes, Patreon has the right to decline to do business with people they don't like.

What they absolutely ought not do - and what Patreon might perhaps be held contractually responsible for, here - is to hide the ball and not be transparent about their reasons for removing people.

This recurring theme is now showing up on a regular basis in social media - opaque rules of morality that you have to guess at and appear to be enacted at the platform's whim. If there are groups they don't want on board, they should say so. I suspect they don't because they fear the fragmentation and competition that laying those rules down would encourage.

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

#470

Post by PeterisP »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #235
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.

By saying that they, and I quote Mr. Benjamin here: > "White people are meant to be polite and respectful to one another, and you guys can’t even act like white people, it’s really amazing to me." That sure sounds like someone who espouses a racial ideology to me, even if he hates other people who put on the nazi emblem.

The Borat movie has the protagonist sing a song "Throw the Jew down the well". Should that movie be considered antisemitic?
Post reply on HN