Patreon Bars Anti-Feminist for Racist Speech, Inciting Revolt • Hacker News Board

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

#571

Post by lgleason » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 1:54 AM UTC

>"Patreon takes a highly personal approach to policing speech. While Google and Facebook use algorithms as a first line of defense for questionable content, Patreon has human moderators. They give warnings and reach out to talk to offenders, presenting options for “education” and “reform.” Some activists hope this will become a model for a better and kinder internet."

As soon a I hear the words "education" and "reform" the hair goes up on the back of my neck. It's bad enough when a totalitarian government does this with internment camps etc., but when I private company, that has no accountability to the general public doing this we are in deep trouble.

The only good news is that with this there are some well funded alternatives in the works for a Patreon alternative, unlike Google alternatives etc. which are not as readily available. That said, some of the pressure has been coming from Visa and MasterCard. Once again, given their position in the market they can and should be regulated as utilities.

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

#572

Post by barry-cotter » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 1:55 AM UTC

cabalamat wrote: post #233

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…

> The societal norms are shifting to a place where there are certain topics that are not allowed to be discussed at all even if looking at them from a critical lens. Patreon want to prevent the expression of certain thoughts. For example, they are against "negative generalizations, of people based on their race". However, negative generalisations are sometimes true. For example the homicide rate in Japan is much lowe…

> I wouldn't mind that Patreon are censorious, if there were lots of alternatives.

Good luck with that. The Visa MasterCard cartel will not allow a Patreon competitor with different standards to use their payment infrastructure and will use their connections to get any competitor kicked off of other payment processors.

It’s been two weeks and SubscribeStar still don’t have a replacement for the eight payment processors that dropped them all at once after they took on Carl Benjamin.

Patreon would have backed down by now if that was an option.

It’s all about the payment processors, as you’ll figure out pretty quickly if you read this transcript of a call between the head of Patreon’s Censorship team and one of their creators.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U0mQjUA0T5INc_GDkwPJ2mfh...

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

#573

Post by furgooswft13 » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 1:56 AM UTC

eesmith wrote: post #492

furgooswft13 wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so hard to trust anything these days, much less the SPLC... > Mike Peinovich, hosted a poll asking users who their biggest influence was in coming to the alt-right. Multiple respondents named Sargon of Akkad. I can't find the actual poll in question, but from the SPLC's own analysis, Sargon was mentioned a grand total of 3 times in a thread about what brought people to "the movement" on The Right Stuff forum. I…

You write "he's no racist". The SPLC did not say he is a racist, did they? I didn't see that in the text I mentioned, but perhaps they said it elsewhere? If not, then you don't need to take their word for something they didn't say. They did make an association between him and racism, so let's examine that connection. This thread exists because of an NYT article about an action by Patreon where Patreon, at https://pat…

Whether they wrote "he's a racist" or not they are heavily implying it by associating him with racism, as you just did, and the alt-right. I don't see a meaningful difference, especially given the source.

Also I was talking about the quote from GP, in which this association is made on much flimsier and misleading evidence than this incident. The SPLC quote combined a wild extrapolation with a lie of omission that would have completely changed the narrative.

As to your question, it seemed to me he was simply using the alt-right's own language against them in an ironic or sarcastic manner, and does not at all want to be associated with them. You could counter that he simply does not like their tactics/behavior but agrees on principal. Personally I'd need to see more evidence (clips of him speaking with relevant context) to come to that conclusion. As I said I could be wrong, I'm not about to subject myself to hours of political ramblings (which seems to be most of his content) to find out, I just like to not assume people are racist hate mongers because a few news sources say so with subjective tidbits.

But mostly I wanted to point out that the SPLC is not an honest or trustworthy source.

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

#574

Post by FakeComments » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 1:58 AM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #431

ptero wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You cannot argue against people that believe an entire race or an entire people should be systematically eradicated. I think we can, and indeed should argue against such ideas. The goal is not to convince a zealot that his views are wrong, but rather convince the majority of those on the sidelines that those ideas are stupid and will lead to no good. If the ideas are outlandish, arguing against them on merits is ea…

If this was honestly the case, then can you explain why we see the rise of neo-nazis as well as the rise in scientific distrust with regards to things like vaccines? If arguing against those beliefs worked then by your own arguments we should see the amount of believers dwindling over time. Yet as they gain exposure even when people attempt to debate them in good faith, their numbers grow. How do you explain this?

Both of those are cases where people tried to suppress movements and legitimate problems via authority.

So to me, your comment comes across as “But what about those cases where what GP said is true?”

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

#575

Post by barry-cotter » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 2:00 AM UTC

raintrees wrote: post #140

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…

I choose to see it as an opportunity for the players that wish to take on the challenge of providing another platform that will cater to those who wish to pay for a given service without concern for the information being posted, assuming it does not violate the values behind the Golden Rule. As long as there is no coercion, let people come to their own agreements. I appreciate free speech, it allows me to read/hear o…

Good luck with that when Visa and MasterCard wil kick you off their payment processing network and get other payment processors to do the same within hours. Cartel behaviour, right? SubscribeStar had eight payment processors. Now it has none.

Transcript of a call from Patreon’s Censorship department and a creator. It doesn’t take much reading between the lines to know it’s payment processors.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U0mQjUA0T5INc_GDkwPJ2mfh...

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

#576

Post by linguistbreaker » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 2:01 AM UTC

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…

Loved the link to the paradox on wikipedia. I have said my whole adult life that I believe in tolerance for everything but intolerance - never knew and happy to find it's been called out as a bit of a paradox since 1945!

Excellent intellectual ammunition.

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

#577

Post by Bill_Dimm » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 2:03 AM UTC

justin66 wrote: post #318

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?

This doesn't seem like a big mystery. It would not take a smear campaign or some kind of major boycott to cost a company that became too closely associated in the public imagination with alt-right whackjobs.

Very interesting statement, considering that Sargon (the guy Patreon banned) was directing his offensive language AT the alt-right (i.e., he is against the alt-right, not part of it).

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

#578

Post by manfredo » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 2:04 AM UTC

darawk wrote: post #562

manfredo wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do HIV drugs cause HIV? How is immunodeficiency treatment at all related to deplatforming? Viruses aren't thinking human beings. > Do civil rights movements cause racism? The Civil Rights movement did not enagage in deplatforming. Many of them explicitly acknowledged that their opponents also deserve the ability to speak. It was often the civil Rights movement itself that was subject to deplatforming. > Of course i…

> How is immunodeficiency treatment at all related to deplatforming? Viruses aren't thinking human beings. > The Civil Rights movement did not enagage in deplatforming. Many of them explicitly acknowledged that their opponents also deserve the ability to speak. It was often the civil Rights movement itself that was subject to deplatforming. My point is that the type of reasoning you used here would lead you to draw b…

One can argue when these terms were initially coined. But we do have hard data on when they became prevalent in the public mind. Look at the Google trends for "deplatforming"[1], "no platforming"[2] and "alt right"[3]. "No platforming" had some blips starting in the late 2000s, but begins rising significantly in 2015, "deplatforming" in January of 2016, and "alt right" in august of 2016. There is evidence to the claim that deplatforming (or at least, widespread interesting in deplatofrming or "no platforming") preceded widespread interest in the alt-right.

> The people stay, the community goes. Then, you look at the level of the material in other sub-communities on the site. That is what those studies did, and that is why they demonstrate causality.

Yes, but as I stated multiple times by now the key limitation here is that they only looked at the material on the same site. Site X bans Y (whether in full or in only some subforums). You observe a reduction of Y on the site. That's not evidence that this action reduced Y in society as a whole. There is a causal relationship between deplatforming and reduction of the deplatformed view on said platform. Nobody is disagreeing with that - most people would likely read such a statement and think "no kidding, Sherlock".

For example, pointing to the fact that when Reddit banned racist subreddits racist content on other subreddits were reduced is proof that banning racist subreddits reduced racist content on Reddit. This is not at all surprising, and is something most would call obvious. But to portray this as proof that banning racist subreddits reduces racist content in society as a whole is a very large misrepresentation. This study did not study the impact on society as a whole - only the forum that is carrying out the deplatforming.

And again, I do not attempt to claim the the correlation between the rise of deplatforming and the rise of the alt right is irrefutable proof that the former causes the latter. But claiming that the former helps prevents the latter is not backed up by the evidence we do have.

1. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=deplatfo...

2. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=no%20pla...

3. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=alt%20ri...

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

#579

Post by joe_the_user » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 2:05 AM UTC

coffeemug wrote: post #561

root_axis wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a misleading characterization of the situation. Being banned from an arbitrary website doesn't mean that nobody can hear you. Twitter is not the internet, you are free to post whatever content you want on a platform that is friendlier to the message or on your own personal platform. Nobody owes you a platform.

Nobody owes you not selling your data either. But social networks got so big and powerful that we're developing specialized norms for this sort of stuff because on balance it's better to live in a society where our data doesn't get sold. The same is true for speech and platforms -- nobody owes you one, but these companies accrue the astronomical benefits of massive network effects and are changing the ecology of our…

It's reasonable to impose free speech norms in exchange because on balance it will result in a better world than the counterfactual.

Why exactly? The New York Times and the wire services were once the primary venue for most newspaper publication. There was never a requirement that anyone be able to write articles for them.

The thing is allowing garbage views into "record of note" publications seriously empowers them. As an earlier article points out, youtube's algorithm is weight towards feeding people polarized extremist rants because these get responses (just the other day, my suggested "next videos" included a client change denier and Jordan Peterson for zero reason). We're looking at the result of extreme ideological polarization and these don't look pretty. A good portion of what could be called "hate speech" is pseudo-science presenting itself as science and this to someone who's (probably foolishly) expecting a bit of vetting on a large website, this pseudo-science sell is especially effective.

Moreover, a large portion of those who uses a social network know that the "open web" exists and are quite capable of cruising it. Again, by letting into a venue the naive person imagines is vetted, you have increased its momentum considerably.

The average person isn't necessary super competent at sorting modern issues. A good portion of heinous content leverages this by appearing respectable and being the web site of

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

#580

Post by whatshisface » Thu, Dec 27, 2018, 2:06 AM UTC

voidpointercast wrote: post #518

whatshisface wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Peterson, Sam Harris and whoever else is involved would probably agree with you, they are now talking about setting up a competitor to Patreon. These people are real financial heavyweights and could probably do it.

And that should be the end of it. This whole debate is a nonissue if there exists an open market. If the ideas are big enough that discriminating against them disenfranchises a fair number of people, these people should have no trouble setting up an alternative that caters to their select 'views'.

>If the ideas are big enough that discriminating against them disenfranchises a fair number of people, these people should have no trouble setting up an alternative that caters to their select 'views'.

At the level of abstraction you're working on, you could say the same thing about LGBTQ or any other minority.