[bryanrasmussen]

no - I don't know who's been banned, but people are seeming sort of evasive about who has been banned and well, I was thinking who would be likely to be the opposite of Patreon on the political/opinion spectrum and that have had an upswing in social visibility in the last year or so and 'nazis' came to mind.

I certainly don't think all the people I don't agree with are Nazis, although I do think all of them are to some degree wrong.

If you would like I can expand on my definition of nazi but I think it is likely to be a pretty middle of the road European definition of nazi, in the end.

[vetinari]

I'm also an European, and in we have certain laws, wrt nazism, fascism and communism (in short: promoting them is a crime). Therefore, from this point of view, who is a nazi or who is not is up to the courts to decide, based on some evidence. Unless a judge says so, addressing anyone as a nazi is a libel.

For the people who were banned, it was more of digital mob lynch than any appearance of rational thought.

I usually do not put people who do I do not agree with into the being wrong box. Maybe they considered some argument I didn't, and that's how they came to their conclusion. Of course, the opposite is also possible, therefore the discussion, with exchange of the arguments, is the best approach.

Pre-labeling someone with the intent to smear their character damages the discussion. Preventing them to say their argument ("de-platforming") does the same.

[bryanrasmussen]

well I suppose Patreon is an American company, and they can be sued for libel under American law - unless some of the people banned are European in which case they can be sued also under whatever European law is relevant. At any rate I thought maybe Patreon said they were banning people for being 'nazis' and wondered if that was the case? Or if there is a list that can be provided of the people banned and the reasons given.

[vetinari]

The reasons why Patreon banned them are very murky and unclean; they never said exactly why. Saying exactly why gives the opponent a way to argue; being unclear doesn't. Something about "manifest observable behavior", which in short is "whatever we do not like", without explicitly defining what it exactly is.

AFAIK, the people who were banned were Canadians.

It's not that Youtube is any better; they are also banning and demonetizing people without being able to point out objective specifics.

Edit: the brigade is here.

[krapp]

>The reasons why Patreon banned them are very murky and unclean; they never said exactly why.

And yet you're certain the reasons were politically motivated.

[vetinari]

> And yet you're certain the reasons were politically motivated.

Ideological. Between the point of view that these banned were arguing for, ideological leaning of Patreon management and the shifty argument for the ban, it doesn't take much brainpower to figure it out. In other words: it it wasn't ideologically motivated, they wouldn't have a problem with giving a straight answer.