[nippples]

If it's important to include the bit, then why stop the list there? What about apostates? Autists? Fat people? People who are otherwise unemployed?

I agree with the other poster. This feels like not only emotional blackmail, but tired, overused emotional blackmail. You can very reasonably bring up the angle of people who depend on the platform for their income without dragging around the identity politics baggage with it.

[Certhas]

Maybe it's just important to include that bit, because it actually reflects the experience of the authors? The community that signed the letter? Are those groups you mention actually disproportionately affected by this change?

Either way, this whole letter consisted of a few sentences that brought in the identity angle. These sentences correctly show that this change disproportionately affects some (minority) communities. Non discriminatory changes can have discriminatory effects. This is important.

The anti-PC crowd immediately latched onto these few sentences and now HN top upvoted thread is all about how the letter made the HN crowd feel uncomfortable.

When cis white men get threatened with losing their livelihoods by over-active PC campaigners, do you complain that the fact that they are cis white men features in the story? When these stories feature the fact that that man has three children to feed, do you complain about the emotional blackmail? Because I sure as heck don't remember any discussion threads on HN going: I agree that he shouldn't be fired over this, but why do they have to drag this tired, overused emotional blackmail into it?

[nippples]

> When cis white men get threatened with losing their livelihoods by over-active PC campaigners, do you complain that the fact that they are cis white men features in the story?

If they'd start their complaint with "we as white men" I'd get tired of reading it pretty early too.

> When these stories feature the fact that that man has three children to feed, do you complain about the emotional blackmail?

I'll admit I'm less tired of this particular brand of emotional blackmail. Having children is holding responsibility for other people's lives.

[rootlocus]

> These sentences correctly show that this change disproportionately affects some (minority) communities.

The letter didn't say anything about what makes the LGBT "disproportionately" affected by this change. What I read was

> We’re writing you today both as adult creators and concerned individuals about free, legal, expression. We’re deeply disappointed in your handling of clarity with regards to adult content on your platform, and the mixed messages we have been receiving.

Which seems like a reasonable concern. Followed non sequitur by:

> Not only that, the most vulnerable among us – disproportionately queer, trans, disabled, people of color and those whose first language is not English – are literally scared for our lives.

Why is Patreon having a fuzzy stand against pornography disproportionately affecting the LGBT community?

[Certhas]

> Why is Patreon having a fuzzy stand against pornography disproportionately affecting the LGBT community?

First of all, they say the vulnerable among them are disproportionately LGBT. They do not say that it affects an LGBT creator differently from a straight creator all else being equal.

Given that there are massive mainstream porn companies that cover most of the non-queer market, it stands to reason that the creators on Patreon are disproportionately queer. Thus any change on Patreon, postivie or negative, will affect queer performers disproportionately by that fact alone.

Changes that are not intrinsically discriminating, can have discriminatory effects.

If you will further grant that LGBT people suffer discrimination outside of Patreon, they will be over represented among the most vulnerable creators by that fact. Thus they will be disproportionately represented amongst the vulnerable content creators on patreon, affected by this change.

Let's take this to another area. Homeless youth shelters. Let's say a politician somewhere campaigns on closing down local homeless youth shelters.

You could say: Closing down these shelters would hit the most vulnerable among us – disproportionately queer, trans, disabled, people of color and those whose first language is not English - hardest.

Because, in fact, all these groups are strongly over represented among American homeless. Drastically in some cases:

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

[ankushnarula]

Just to clarify, the aforementioned disproportionate representation is with "street children" not homeless youth as a whole.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_children#United_States

[Certhas]

a) What does that clarify? What's the difference?

b) From the literature I looked at, and the very wikipedia article I linked, it is true for homeless youth as a whole.

E.g. the very first sentence in the abstract:

> A disproportionate number of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) youth experience homelessness each year in the United States.

in

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4098056/

[vacri]

> The anti-PC crowd immediately latched onto these few sentences and now HN top upvoted thread is all about how the letter made the HN crowd feel uncomfortable.

I'm pro-PC and have routinely come out in defence of the concept here on HN. Last year there was a rash of MRA crap on HN, and I was arguing against it regularly. I also have no problem with porn itself, and view it myself. Now, all this being said, the opening paragraph in the article is ridiculously overwrought and childish. It reeks of tribal politics - if you can't understand why "the other side" never accepts what you have to say, it's because of hyperbole like this. It's the left-wing's version of "Won't somebody think of the children" that gets stuck everywhere it can, regardless of veracity[1]?

Keep in mind that this is what the letter is basically implying: "Patreon has to support pornography because blacks/queers/disabled people will die if they don't". As someone else pointed out, it's positioning Patreon to be painted as a bigot if they don't back down. Patreon can't put in a rule saying "pornography is okay, but only if you're PoC/disabled/homosexual", so what the letter is actually demanding in real terms is full support of pornography. Did you notice that just like Patreon and the Supreme Court, the letter author did not provide a clear definition of pornography versus adult content, to perhaps guide Patreon? Since it's a fuzzy line no matter where it's drawn, the only way to satisfy the author is to allow porn outright.

The author is free to make those claims - business is business, and stretching the truth is pretty normal when your business is under siege - but we shouldn't be taking the comments on face value and defending them. They should be scrutinised like any other business missive.

> These sentences correctly show that this change disproportionately affects some (minority) communities.

The sentences claim it. They don't show it, correctly or otherwise.

> When cis white men get threatened with losing their livelihoods by over-active PC campaigners, do you complain that the fact that they are cis white men features in the story?

How often do those stories come up? Which livelihoods are being lost by over-active PC campaigners? But yes, here on HN if an article does lead off with a sob story, usually someone will complain, particularly if it's long-form journalism. Hell, people routinely complain about sensationalism in article titles here, often without even visiting the link.

--

[1] Possibly the most remotely-detached of these arguments I've seen so far: in my home state, the right-wing party argued against a new public holiday with "won't somebody think of the children". One more public holiday than the next state over > businesses will go there instead > your children won't have jobs. Seriously. "Won't somebody think of the children" used against a public holiday...

[Certhas]

You are correct that the article doesn't show it, but claims it.

So your point is that you think the claim is wrong? Because, as I've said elsewhere, I think it's prima facie extremely plausible. The idea that minorities are overrepresented amongst the most vulnerable populations, especially when several dimensions of marginalization intersect (in this case adult content creation) is not at all far fetched. Instead it seems fairly obvious.

As such I would put the burden of prove on you when you claim the authors misrepresent their community in order to advance their point.

Now I agree with your point that the fuzzy line is problematic. And patreon can't solve this on their own. I think regulation could, but which politician will stand up for that? The issue the authors have can't be completely resolved in this context, but patreon shifted their policy contrary to how they were marketing themselves to creators before (and what they got good press for). I think that's a good reason to be publicly upset and push back.

[vacri]

It's a bit rich that you require me to provide proof to back up my claims, but are happy to settle for 'plausible' in the article. Why am I held to the stricter standard? How can I disprove something where no solid claims are made in the first place? The article claims that Patreon cutting out that section of their business has made people afraid they're literally going to die as a result, and you think that's extremely plausible?

Only 3 days ago I mentioned I was getting tired of this current fad to dismiss commentary by demanding proof

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15529895

> So your point is that you think the claim is wrong?

In any case, I think there's some truth to what they say, but it's ridiculously overblown (hence "stretching the truth" above). They played the 'social duty to society's vulnerables' pretty hard, and yet plenty of those content creators are not vulnerable. Nor disabled. Nor are PoC. Nor are LGBT. Why do we assume PoC and LGBT are more vulnerable by default here? Where should the line of social responsibility be drawn? Should Patreon be shamed into a business model they don't want because of a single person who fits the 'vulnerable' description? 10 people? 100?

[Certhas]

You complained about their lack of proof first.

I have given arguments [1] why I think their claim is plausible. You haven't given any why you think it's wrong (other than a generic "why should it be true?", which is nothing if not demanding proof from them).

[1] The mentioned communities are overrepresented in any risk category, from drug addiction, to HIV, to homelessness (the sole exception I know of would be suicide). They tend to be more overrepresented when marginalisation dimensioons intersect, as they do here.