for a normal social media site that's an issue, for something like this where you only join the site to mainly support people you already know about it doesn't really matter.

Although I'd rather see some sort of open source project or crypto based platform instead of another centralized service that can be taken down by their payment processor. Brave browser and BAT could be the answer

>normal customers also like the add that "normal" can change pretty quickly, ask women in post-revolution Iran. Within living memory alt-right would be considered normal by a large chunk of the population and people would be chasing people of color and LGBT off these platforms. The tools used to censor opponents today could be used against you tomorrow

No, it's not that simple. The platform will start out hosting I.D.W. celebrities. But if it's an open platform and it aims to avoid "censorship", then the system converges on something like Gab, a place where those I.D.W. celebrities will not long feel comfortable calling home.

People seem to be comfortable sharing twitter with anti-semites like Louis Farrakhan. It doesn't mean everyone on twitter shares Farrakhan's views.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. I think Twitter should probably ban Farrakhan. Lots of people have in fact left Twitter because they believe it's too lax about toxic users. But nobody really believes Twitter is an anti-censorship platform; the whole premise of anti-censorship platforms is that Twitter does censor people.

But it's obvious to any user what the difference is between Twitter and a site like Gab. You have to dig to find white supremacists and holocaust denial on Twitter, through a mountain of celebrity gossip and banal conversations. Meanwhile, that stuff is showcased --- is the dominant conversation! --- on the alternative site.

And it's obvious why that's bound to happen: the users that get the most value from supposed non-censoring platforms are exactly the ones that want to broadcast hateful and alienating messages.

Unless you're comfortable talking about recipes or your new book or an upcoming lecture sandwiched between lectures about Jews controlling the media and sending all the black people back to Africa, you're not going to stick around on that platform. Peterson won't be able to do it; it'll destroy his brand.

So again my question is: how is this supposed to work? Maybe it's not really a Patreon competitor but something more like the old Deck blog advertising network, where you'll have to be yea cool to join.

Why do you keep drawing comparisons to social media platforms? Someone that acts as a patron to a specific content creator on Patreon doesn't have to know anything about any other creators using the platform to generate income. As the great grandparent stated it doesn't really matter. Crowdfunding and social media platforms serve different purposes and are compelled by different forces. In fact, I can't see any reason why this theoretical crowdfunding platform should ever need to disclose a full list of creators to any of its users.

>> the whole premise of anti-censorship platforms is that Twitter does censor people.

Yes, Twitter does censor people but in an extremely selective and politically motivated way.

I guess my general point was that just because someone publishes on Platform X, that doesn't mean they necessarily hold the same views as the majority of users on that platform.

I take your point about regular content being swamped by the crazies though. Maybe it's a problem of scale? Attract enough regular people to drown out the extremists.

Attracting enough regular people is exactly the thing that never happens with these platforms, and you can see why mathematically: the people who most want the service are precisely the least regular. The platform doesn't get an even share of users; its user acquisition is sharply biased towards the very worst (and worse still, the loudest worst). The user experience of the platform is quickly dominated by them, and the platform actively repels regular users.

If you join a platform that is obviously dominated by people talking about how Jews are lizard people, others will draw conclusions about you whether you approve of them or not. Which, of course, makes it even harder to attract the regular users that you weren't going to attract anyways because nobody wants to talk about their life next to someone yelling about "the Jews."

>> dominated by characters that ruin the brand

Unfortunately the definition of what is a "character that ruins the brand" keeps moving further and further to the left.

If that were true, my question would be even more salient.

I think the fact that Jordan Peterson, Nigel Farage etc are being described as far right and neo-nazis on here proves the point.

I'm sorry, proves what point? And how?

That's exactly what will happen. These people don't seem to realize that it's not some institutional conspiracy that keeps their ideas on the fringe: It's the fact that most people find them and their ideas toxic, dumb, boring, and/or repellent.

Carl Benjamin didn't break their rules and their "proof" stripped vital context to make it appear that he was saying the exact opposite of what he was saying. I have to assume this was on purpose because they went out of their way to make a transcript and could not have missed that; so people are fully justified in believing Patreon had it out for him.

If that were the case, why would there be a need for such efforts to shut them down?

The antidote to bad speech is more speech. Instead of attacking people, attack their arguments.

We have limited time on this earth. Sometimes we just have to say "I'm done arguing this over and over" and just move on. (Especially when the person on the other side is arguing in bad faith.)

No one has been shut down from continuing the "conversation" on their own platforms. You're not allowed to wander into Wal-Mart and sell whatever you want. You're also not allowed to wander onto Patreon and sell whatever you want.

This is about more than just Patreon.

It took a couple of days for SubscribeStar to have their paypal access removed once the loonies began their next witch hunt.

How far do we take the witch hunts before we decide enough is enough?

If everyone in the world decided not to trade with people they didn't agree with on everything, there would exist no trade.

Actually, I think we should take into account who we're doing business with when we do business. Make the world a better place: Support good people doing good things.

That kind of thinking is why black people would be given seats at the back of the bus.

You really need to stop making judgements about people.

That is a fatuous argument. You could make precisely the same argument about people who shun child molesters. People who shun white supremacists are not the same as white supremacists.

It's a different argument, because child molestation is a heinous crime, but white supremacy is in itself, not a criminal offence. Certain behaviours which may manifest as a result of white supremacy may be criminal.

We have legal systems which can deal with accusation of crimes. If you suspect somebody to be a child molester, you can report them. The legal system makes the judgement. It also prevents you from falsely accusing somebody of molestation if you do so without evidence or reasonable motive.

The same legal system should apply to anyone being or claiming to be white supremacist. Their action is not a crime unless they are inciting crime (ie, calling for racial genocide). If the latter is the case, then they should be prosecuted following the due process. Witch hunting is not due process.

I also think the same legal process should be applied to the far-left, who are frequently falsely accusing people of something they are not. Unfortunately, most people do not have the resources to fight anonymous twitter trolls for libel.

This case with Sargon can be seen as a pretty good example of your argument falling apart. He is frequently labeled as some kind of alt-right white supremacist, when it is precisely this he denounces publicly. (Yes, his words were not the most appropriate, but words are meaningless without context. Patreon specifically ignored the context.)

What has become of the left, is not that they're shunning white supremacists, but they are shunning anybody that they perceive to be a white supremacist. A whole different story. If you have loose definitions like "hate speech", then it is justified to take down anyone you perceive to be your political opponent according to your standards.

Another example case was the witch hunt against Kavanaugh. It seems the left are determined to dismantle the idea of due process and putting people before judge and jury for the sake of virtue signalling and social "justice" (an oxymoron).

I could not be less interested in any debate on an HN thread than I am in the one about whether injustices were done to "Sargon of Akkad" and Justice Kavanaugh.

People who shun white supremacists are not morally equivalent to white supremacists.

> People who shun white supremacists are not morally equivalent to white supremacists.

I'm not suggesting anything of the like. In fact, I will join you in shunning white supremacists, as I would shun supremacists of any race.

When "shunning" becomes more than denunciation, but taking action to unperson people and have them fired, cut off their finance, and make false accusations about their peers, I draw the line.

If you want to keep believing in the moral superiority of that kind of social justice, be my guest.

Brett Kavanaugh is so oppressed they only gave him a lifetime seat at the top of one of the three branches of our government, ensuring him several decades of making decisions which will impact all Americans. A great injustice.

Making judgements about people with whom you're doing business with based on their values and actions is perfectly fine. What isn't fine is making those judgements based on identity or on a general swath of people.

No, I would choose to avoid people and companies who support such racism.

But thank you for playing the role of "guy who argues in bad faith." I think we're done, here.

Check out Brandolini's Law for a slightly less short examination of this idea, but the tl;dr argument against this is that any effective refutation of a "bad idea" is necessarily more costly to produce and less likely to be remembered than the bad idea is. So unless we want to have some paid antishills to astroturf our platforms with the not-bad ideas, we need to come up with a better way.

> The antidote to bad speech is more speech.

That is just a foolish phrase by a Supreme Court Justice. Unfortunately, most Americans seem to take it as Gospel.

Many people all over the world disagree, including centrist and far-left people.

You can disagree all you want. The point is that you can't force your disagreement on me.

The only reason I've heard of Peterson is because of his criticism of using preferred pronouns. Here is an overview of some of the pronouns: https://lgbtqia.ucdavis.edu/educated/pronouns

To be specific, he wasn't criticising the use of preferred pronouns, he was criticising the Canadian government for forcing people to use these pronouns under penalty of law.

His protest was against government compelled speech.

Yeah, and it was a dumb protest because he misunderstood what the actual bill was about:

http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-crimi...

Quoting the article:

" In other words, pronoun misuse may become actionable, though the Human Rights Tribunals and courts. And the remedies? Monetary damages, non-financial remedies (for example, ceasing the discriminatory practice or reinstatement to job) and public interest remedies (for example, changing hiring practices or developing non-discriminatory policies and procedures). Jail time is not one of them."

Conveniently leaving out what happens if you don't pay a fine: you can end up in jail.

Another thing is they state things need to become really bad before you get prosecuted so it won't happen. Well that all depends on the political climate. Plenty examples in the world for that.

Lastly they mention other places in the law where speech is limited. But they point at places where certain speech is forbidden, not where it is compelled.

The entire article looks disingenuous.

No, he didn’t. He’s one of the few that looked into what it actually said and how it was to be interpreted. Everyone else misunderstood it, and that’s the problem. University lawyers agreed with him.

Yes, but spend some time watching him speak about preferred pronouns and it is clear he has inherent distaste for them.