Oh come on, they have a ToS like all other companies. It's not "censorship" to not do business with someone. Also, "the right" here is people like Milo and Lauren Southern who are out in the real world causing harm.
Their CEO Jack Conte a year ago said this exact thing was not covered by their TOS [1]. Patron also admitted that their current TOS text reasonably is worded to only cover what you do on platform. This was not on platform.
Regardless, it is very relevant that a payments platform has arbitrary subjective rules for taking people’s living away. Especially when those reasons are ideological.
I think censorship is changing a lot these days as speech moves from being a thing you do with your mouth towards a dialogue you establish throughout online communities. Not saying a company can’t have control, but to full out deny that their control can be equivalent to censorship is letting them off the hook for future problems that will become more and more of an issue for a free thinking society.
Not that our society is all that great at free thinking, but I don’t think we should be setting it up to continue making free thought harder. Even if it comes with some things we don’t like, we need to honor the pursuit of intellectual curiosity and exploration.
It is most definitely censorship. It is not state censorship, and it is not prohibited by the law, but it's definitely an activity targeted to suppress expression of ideas Patreon censors do not like, and it is clearly fitting every reasonable definition of censorship.
The fact that it's not state censorship and thus not aided by state repressive apparatus makes it less abhorrent, but still harmful enough. Especially given that this censorship effort is not solely done by Patreon: most major providers - each of them enjoying near-monopoly in their field - are currently engaged in a concentrated effort to suppress speech they deem offensive. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google, Apple, Patreon, Paypal, Visa, Mastercard - they all take concerted and persistent effort to make views and expressions they dislike unavailable on the Internet, or at least very, very hard to reach.
The effect, while not as drastic as censorship in a totalitarian state - you won't get jailed or shot for sharing a spicy joke, though you could lose your business, your job and your career - is definitely of the same kind and direction as the efforts of any totalitarian state. The goal is to make only conformant expression possible and to make people who do not conform, who want to challenge the reigning dogmas, feel afraid and be excluded from any Internet platform of notice. And until we have viable alternative to censorship platforms, the effects of this would be similar - though, obviously, less drastic - to the effects of state censorship.
But the fact that we are not in North Korea yet is not the reason to continue on the road to this direction - it's a wakeup call to turn around and walk away from it. Including walking away - as much as possible - from censorship platforms.
Again, you are confusing "something is not currently prohibited by US government" with "something is moral and ethical thing to do". US government is prohibited from exercising content-based censorship by US constitution. This does not mean a private business - which everybody knows is not prohibited by the US constitution from exercising censorship, so you can stop reminding everybody about it and pretending it somehow is a serious argument that somebody didn't hear first 1000 times - is right to produce censorship. The fact that doing this is legal is the lowest bar, but it's not an excuse that magically makes it OK. It just makes whoever does it to avoid jail. Fine, they're not in jail. They should still stop their attempts to institute censorship, even though we can't jail them for it.
> If you want to fight that, you have to fight capitalism.
Bullshit. People regularly fight legal actions by private corporations, and regularly win. Society has hundreds of ways for corporations to stop doing something that is legal but is seen by society as harmful. Capitalism is still alive and well.
Do these platforms have a social responsibility? You're technically correct. What about the people who depend on it who genuinely don't know any better?
Regardless, it is very relevant that a payments platform has arbitrary subjective rules for taking people’s living away. Especially when those reasons are ideological.
[1] https://youtu.be/mujKMPS2FcQ