Any corporation that doesn't pull down The Sarkeesian Effect is being far more generous to the alt-right than the vast majority of corporations would be.
You really think The Sarkeesian Effect is alt-right?
This kind of misuse of labels suggests that either you are ignorant of the subject matter or you wish to smear your ideological opponents by associating them with a group that doesn't hold their values.
Which case are you referring to? Lauren Southern was literally attempting to block ships (thereby endangering life) so that goes beyond "speech" in my book.
True, but it shows that Patreon will make it a priority to refuse service to people they disagree with. If I were a creator in Patreon who in my spare time engaged in such activities, it's clear that Patreon is willing to ban my account. After all, it's easy to argue that the money coming in from my patrons is supporting my activities.
This is not good news for creators who are looking for a way to do something controversial, having been turned down by other providers like Youtube.
This is just false, they've made it a point not to block people they disagree with. This is a case of them blocking someone who was literally intentionally endangering the lives of people she disagreed with.
"If the politicians won't stop the boats, we'll stop the boats… and we'll be back with more boats..."
She was arrested by the Italian Coastguard for attempting to block a boat, she wasn't just reporting that someone else was doing it. She was clearly participating.
I apologize, I wasn't aware of that quote by her until you posted it, as I only watched her explanation. She definitely steps out of the lines of "reporter" when she said that.
However, my question still stands: what law or policy did Lauren break?
So in other words, corporations should be able to prevent any monetary transaction if they assume you're spending money on something they don't approve of? The only option is cash through the mail?
Where did they say they wanted to block ships ? All I've seen is that they wanted to film & document the ONG's activities, to see if they are not engaging in human trafficking.
See https://youtu.be/YmcK6GvgVPs?t=3m27s, Patreon's presentation of evidence that they were blocking ships, and that Southern was actively involved. Note that this evidence is video that Southern herself published before she realized that these actions would endanger her own income stream, rather than just people in the ocean.
For this to be the case, they would have to be applying the principle to everyone equally, which they apparently don't.
This has given pause to some people -- for example, Sam Harris, one of the top artists on Patreon, is evacuating the service (even though this is likely to cost him a fair bit of money) to avoid the future potential to be financially pressured over ideology.
Patreon's pretty down-the-line: don't advocate that people break the law and don't harass people. They've thrown antifa off their site. They throw alt-right shitheads off their site.
We've met a couple times, Jon, and I've heard you speak; despite your public persona being prickly, I kind of got the feeling you were wiser than this.
The thing is, the reason they gave her for banning in the initial letter they sent her is actually consistent with international law -- she was raising funds to send out a search and rescue ship which returns refugees to Libya.
The reason they gave was fundraising for a ship that was blocking SAR ships taking refugees to Italy. They included footage of her actions blocking such a ship in the past, together with her actual fundraising appeal in which she referred to stopping boats.
Not sure if it's against international law when conducted in international waters, but that's definitely against Patreon's content policy of fundraising for activities that endanger human life.
This is why we need a diverse ecosystem of these types of services. Patreon getting involved in policing the politics (not legality) of their users is annoying but not unexpected these days. What Patreon does as a service is absolutely nothing special and can easily be (and has been) copied, they just have what I assume is the first-mover advantage right now.
Or better yet a decentralized protocol to easily contribute to people you support that cannot be censored. A stable asset is still needed for this to work and a mature ecosystem around it. Not ready for mainstream, but if you are being denied service, there is always crypto currency.
The most worrying part is tech industry buying news media. Steve Jobs wife bought The Atlantic. Bezos bought the washingtonpost. As the news properties become cheaper and the money floods the tech industry, I'm sure they'll snap up some more.
We really need a more diversity media landscape. It's entirely liberal with pockets of conservatism. We need less liberal, more conservative and much more moderate media.
It's unhealthy for the media to be heavily skewed to one or the other side.
Not only that, we need this is academia and corporations and the banking sector. More diversity. More competing thoughts/ideas.
If you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; otherwise please don't comment until you do.