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

581–590 of 789 posts

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

#581

Post by barry-cotter »

stevenicr wrote: post #392
aeternus wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they aren't highly unpopular then there should be a demand and market for services/platforms that do allow those opinions. Even though not as large, another company/service should be able to fill the void.

I was under the impression that the main thing preventing "another company/service should be able to fill the void." - is the rules and hoops / unchecked power of the visa/mc/amex etc. I have seen rumors about us gov and other govs pressuring cc authorities to do things in certain ways as well, however my senator says there is no proof rumored pressure changed anything in one case that I write about. there is demand…

> I have seen rumors about us gov and other govs pressuring cc authorities to do things in certain ways as well, however my senator says there is no proof rumored pressure changed anything in one case that I write about.

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

Operation Choke Point was a 2013 initiative of the United States Department of Justice,[1] which would investigate banks in the United States and the business they do with firearm dealers, payday lenders, and other companies believed to be at higher risk for fraud and money laundering.

This operation, disclosed in an August 2013 Wall Street Journal story, was officially ended in August 2017.

...

On May 29, 2014, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform published a highly critical staff report that concluded:[21]

“ Forceful prosecution of those who defraud American consumers is both responsible and admirable. However, Department of Justice initiatives to combat mass-market consumer fraud must be legitimate exercises of the Department's legal authorities, and must be executed in a manner that does not unfairly harm legitimate merchants and individuals. Operation Choke Point fails both these requirements. The Department's radical reinterpretation of what constitutes an actionable violation under § 951 of FIRREA fundamentally distorts Congress' intent in enacting the law, and inappropriately demands that bankers act as the moral arbiters and policemen of the commercial world. In light of the Department's obligation to act within the bounds of the law, and its avowed commitment not to "discourage or inhibit" the lawful conduct of honest merchants, it is necessary to disavow and dismantle Operation Choke Point.

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

#582

Post by TheDong »

repolfx wrote: post #509
TheDong wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example the homicide rate in Japan is much lower than in Jamaica; from this it follows that Jamaicans are on average more homicidal than Japanese. That's a negative generalisation. It's also true. That is not true. The fact you presented might be true, but the statement that "Jamaicans are on average more homicidal than Japanese" is not identical to the fact about homicide rates. Your statement implies that tho…

I'm not even sure why you're arguing about this. The OP's point was that negative generalisations can be true. You haven't disputed this point, only reacted badly to a particular example whilst admitting it's indeed true. There is no meaningful semantic difference between the statements "Jamaicans are on average more homicidal than Japanese" and "Jamaicans have a higher homicide rate than the Japanese". Your outrage…

I am perfectly fine with you saying "the homicide rate amongst Americans is much higher than amongst the Swiss".

I would not be fine with the similar, but different phrase "American people are more homicidal than the swiss", assuming no further context.

One of those is clearly meant to discuss a fact. The other is meant to play up nationalistic tensions.

I know negative generalizations can be supported by fact. I'm fine with those facts being presented and discussed, I'm just not fine with the facts being obscured and rephrased such that it serves more to create a climate of racism and nationalism.

Context and phrasing do matter, especially when it comes to hateful and divisive speech.

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

#583

Post by epicureanideal »

joe_the_user wrote: post #565
epicureanideal wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who knows though if it's left up at the request of law enforcement as a sort of "fascist bug zapper" where they get attracted to the electric light and then zapped. A few isolated examples of free speech being possible by highly undesirable groups doesn't necessarily mean what it looks like.

I don't see a problem with law enforcement keeping their eyes on individuals who talk openly about committing heinous acts of violence, considering in the case of the current alt-right, this talk has boiled over to into vicious act of terror and murder (Portland, Charlottesville, etc). That free speech allows people who advocate crimes to be watched hardly by itself is hardly argument that this isn't really free spee…

I also don't have any problem with it. That wasn't my point. My point was, isolated instances of unacceptable opinions still having a platform isn't enough to prove that all unpopular opinions still have platforms available.

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

#584

Post by amanaplanacanal »

rndgermandude wrote: post #542
cc81 wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone is saying that there should be a law that forces Patreon to allow everyone on their platform. More a lamenting that the consequences of large platforms acting like this might be bigger than people think. Reminds me a little of the whole Parental Advisory thing with rock music or Spotify's decisions around violent artists. How outraged should we be that artists that say very questionable things ar…

>I don't think anyone is saying that there should be a law that forces Patreon to allow everyone on their platform. I am saying essentially that; there should be a law that forces Patreon and other companies (those oligarchic payment processors, Google, Facebook, twitter, etc) which basically qualify as utility companies to allow people on their platform, unless those people abuse(d) those platforms for severe unlawf…

It's going to take constitutional amendment to put those views into law. I'm guessing that we will have already solved this problem one way or another before you could possibly get that ratified.

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

#585

Post by ggreer »

grumdan wrote: post #525
ggreer wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. That's technically correct, but it doesn't get at the core of the concept. If you read the original arguments in favor of freedom of speech, you'll see they don't focus on the rights of the speaker as much as the rights of the listener. John Milton, Thomas Paine, and John…

> In the case of Patreon, there is a man who people want to give money to. He wants to accept that money. There is no criminal activity on either side of the transaction. Yet Patreon is preventing these people from doing what they want because Patreon dislikes one paragraph of the man's boorish utterances. Patreon isn't "preventing" the transaction, they are merely choosing not to facilitate it. Respecting individual…

> Patreon isn't "preventing" the transaction, they are merely choosing not to facilitate it.

What is the distinction between these two terms?

If Wells Fargo refuses to let me deposit checks because of something I said, are they preventing a transaction or merely choosing not to facilitate it? After all, I could open an account at another bank.

If FedEx returns packages addressed to me because of something I said, are they preventing a transaction or choosing not to facilitate it? After all, other shipping companies exist.

I can't find a bright distinction between the two terms, but there is a distinction between behavior directly related to business (such as where the money came from or what's being shipped) and unrelated things (such as what someone said in a livestream months ago).

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

#586

Post by rdiddly »

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…

Reading your comment I was struck by how similar this is to the War on Drugs. Drugs we find objectionable enough to ban and criminalize don't go away; they just go to the next scarier place that will have them - which is to say, the next scarier dudes willing to risk supplying them - which is to say, actual criminals, who are almost always involved in other worse things than just supplying an agricultural commodity or extract thereof.

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

#587

Post by cabalamat »

dwsfzdsfasf wrote: post #481
root_axis wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're way way way overthinking this. The bottom line is that an online service can ban any user for any reason, period. Just because a service is popular doesn't mean that you have a right to use it. If you don't like how a company operates their business, then you can start a boycott or use a competitor. > the world handing them the reigns. Nobody is handing anyone the reigns. Patreon didn't even exist a fe…

"The bottom line is that an online service can ban any user for any reason, period. " Agreed. And the govt (US and EU) can break them up whenever they they attain market monopoly. Or governments (every other one) can decide they've had enough with arbitrary content control by foreigners and ban their service within their borders. Which is fine, really. I dont b%^ h about FB and friends kicking someone out of their se…

> The Internet as we knew it in the 90s is dead. Time to get over it.

That should be:

The Internet as we knew it in the 90s is dead. Time to revive it.

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

#588

Post by amanaplanacanal »

coldtea wrote: post #433
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 Then this limited "freedom of speech", a provincial americanism based on a historical accident (the first amendment), is not the full freedom of speech the philosophers of enlightenment, artists, activists, etc., described. > If people don't like what you have to say, or how you are saying it, they are free to walk away In this case, they weren't free to walk away, the…

> a provincial americanism

Can you point to other countries that have broader freedom of speech than the US?

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

#589

Post by fao_ »

kristofferR wrote: post #447
bunderbunder wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If you are only allowed to speak freely when noone can hear you - are you then allowed freedom of speech?

You need to rephrase this to:

"If you are only able to speak freely when no one is forced to listen to you - are you then allowed freedom of speech?"

This isn't some guy shouting in the street or some other public place (who, funnily enough, everyone usually agrees with their removal), but someone shouting on what is effectively private property.

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

#590

Post by ggreer »

elif wrote: post #346
ggreer wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. That's technically correct, but it doesn't get at the core of the concept. If you read the original arguments in favor of freedom of speech, you'll see they don't focus on the rights of the speaker as much as the rights of the listener. John Milton, Thomas Paine, and John…

The platform is not a neutral third party arbitrarily interfering with 2 legitimate parties' desire for speech. The platform, in this case and many, has its own reputation and business interests to consider primarily. Are the people in charge of these platforms doing the right thing for society at large? no. Are they doing what is best for their businesses health? There are definitely arguments for both sides in that…

I totally get where you're coming from. Though our conclusions differ, I think our reasoning is very similar.

I doubt these bans are purely mercenary. The CEO of Patreon seems to be doing this because he believes it's the right thing. If you watch his video responding to the ban of Lauren Southern last year[1] (a decision I agree with, BTW), he seems totally sincere. He also understands the magnitude of his responsibility to patrons.

I think Patreon is being penny wise and pound foolish. Their social signalling helps them grab a larger chunk of a smaller pie. Every high profile ban alienates a small fraction of users, but it's a different fraction every time. It doesn't take many before Patreon's reputation is bad enough to dissuade new creators from using it. It might already be too late for them to turn around.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmcK6GvgVPs

Post reply on HN