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

711–720 of 789 posts

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

#711

Post by jfnixon »

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…

Isn't that more or less the argument against Net Neutrality? Why must the pipes carry all content without favor, but content aggregators are free to discriminate against viewpoints?

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

#712

Post by [deleted] »

dgudkov wrote: post #472
justin66 wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Too closely - meaning having a customer that said the N-word somewhere? I'm not picky, just trying to understand what "too closely" means in your answer.

[deleted]

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

#713

Post by justin66 »

Bill_Dimm wrote: post #577
justin66 wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

If you say so. My statement could be amended to include "and people even batshit crazier than the alt-right."

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

#714

Post by asabjorn »

StavrosK wrote: post #706
asabjorn wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The social justice belief you cite that a group gets harmed by forbidden words, even if none in that group heard it and it was targeted at some other groups folly, is just that; a belief. What proof do you have that is not belief that supports your claim that he targeted black people? The evidence clearly shows he was not targeting blacks. Before the regressive left dug this up I suspect no black person saw it. It wa…

> However, pretty weak of you to vote me down instead Ugh, first of all, stop assuming I downvoted you, I only now saw your reply. Second of all, it's not about actively harming people in that specific instance, it's about perpetuating the perception. Using a word as an insult implies that the target group is inferior and to be associated with it is undesirable. That's why I don't like people calling others "niggers"…

Well, did you downvote me once you saw it?

With regards to your offense that is fine when it is used in this way. However, what is your evidence that anyone in that group was there as collateral damage? The target was alt-rights in a livestream with 3000 views in total, and the context of his words clearly doesn’t match your characterization.

I think no one is fooled at this point by activists working hard to find something to be offended by, so that they can use it to attack a viewpoint opponent.

Maybe Patreon will becomes the first example of a company that gets serious damage by pandering to activists.

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

#715

Post by dorfsmay »

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…

> The government, soapboxes, homes and places of business that are happy to have them.

But if say ISPs start blocking non-beige content, then freedom of speech is dead. Shouldn't there be a minimum internet infrastructure where people can say whatever they want? Aren't CDNs part of that infrastructure?

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

#716

Post by StavrosK »

asabjorn wrote: post #714
StavrosK wrote: post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, pretty weak of you to vote me down instead Ugh, first of all, stop assuming I downvoted you, I only now saw your reply. Second of all, it's not about actively harming people in that specific instance, it's about perpetuating the perception. Using a word as an insult implies that the target group is inferior and to be associated with it is undesirable. That's why I don't like people calling others "niggers"…

Well, did you downvote me once you saw it? With regards to your offense that is fine when it is used in this way. However, what is your evidence that anyone in that group was there as collateral damage? The target was alt-rights in a livestream with 3000 views in total, and the context of his words clearly doesn’t match your characterization. I think no one is fooled at this point by activists working hard to find so…

> Well, did you downvote me once you saw it?

No.

> what is your evidence that anyone in that group was there as collateral damage

It doesn't matter if there was damage, it's the principle.

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

#717

Post by vanattab »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #636
FakeComments wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s just not true — consequences for not having their children vaccinated are legislated lots of places; the arguments against anti-vaxers are often appeals to the same authorities that happily over-prescribed opiates and based around shaming them; etc.

I'm talking about what people say , not what they do with their children. But can you be more specific? What consequences can you name, especially in the US? I'm not aware of there being almost anything in the US, except that they might not be allowed into some schools, which barely even counts as a punishment. And yet the idea proliferates wildly.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41504796

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

#718

Post by Lkjhmnbv »

zimpenfish wrote: post #646
Lkjhmnbv wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you do away with unpopular opinions when people decide they disagree with you?

If they're unpopular opinions, people are already disagreeing, aren't they? Anyway, the same way we do away with anything - gather support, shun the opinion makers, educate the rest, make it economically unviable to support the position, etc.

[flagged]

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

#719

Post by justin66 »

dgudkov wrote: post #472
justin66 wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Too closely - meaning having a customer that said the N-word somewhere? I'm not picky, just trying to understand what "too closely" means in your answer.

The threshold that would have to be crossed - that was crossed, unless someone at the company took a decision to ban the guy just because he's obnoxious, which is possible - would be for the company to feel like its future earning potential were at risk because of reputational damage. I doubt the judgment on the part of the company is going to be as simple "a single user said one specific thing." How could it be?

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

#720

Post by kristofferR »

bunderbunder wrote: post #701
kristofferR wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> If you are only allowed to speak freely when noone can hear you No one? Hyperbole like this only serves to muddy the waters. Furthermore, I'm curious if those who believe that having access to social media needs to be considered a fundamental right really have the courage of their convictions: If this is the case, then we've got bigger problems than whether or not Milo Yiannopoulos can use it to act like a tool in…

I'm not sure if you're joking or not, since the LifeLine program (nicknamed ObamaPhone by the right) has provided deeply government subsidized phone access since 1985 and cellular providers already are required to provide coverage to unprofitable, but inhabited areas.
Post reply on HN