[idisagree]

and then they can argue that a conduit, like an allegedly neutral platform, has no right banning people who didn't break any laws. much like a phone carrier can't drop my calls for saying I like unpopular person X Patreon isn't winning this one man. Shouldn't have gotten involved in politics. Businesses outside of the web understand this well.

They set the rules in their ToS and then when users tried to utilise their rights under that agreement, patreon changed the terms to try and stop them, that's bullshit, patreon clearly deserved to lose.

If the judge is already willing to point out that patreon changed their terms of service retroactively after being informed by 70 people they intend to go to arbitration, which patreon's terms of service requires, and has now ruled in favor of these 70 individuals in part because of this, you can bet your ass their status as a platform and what it means to be a conduit will be discussed at length in arbitration. Assuming they even get to arbitration because patreon might have to admit they can't afford it if they don't have cash. I doubt things will go well for them from there.

Considering the fact that there's now a standing federal level executive order to enforce platform neutrality in essence, what do you think could happen if the people tasked with this goal notice this little saga, start collecting evidence/info on patreon and then send it off to the FCC for consideration for enforcement...

I remember when gawker thought it'd be a good idea to make flippant remarks about theoretically publishing explicit images and video of child sexual abuse in front of a jury, look at gawker now, they did that to themselves, they could have settled and still actually exist afterwards.

The ones who fall hardest are almost always huge smartasses and showboating right before it happens. Patreon's been proud of their bias for years. It's probably going to bite them in the ass one day soon.

[charliediep0]

Where is it said that conduits must be neutral? Their TOS enables them to banhammer anyone they deem violates their TOS, presumably. The only motive Owen and his fans have is to bleed Patreon dry of money, no matter how the actual legal case behind it pans out. If that's the only viable attack they can muster, then Patreon would probably file for bankruptcy and set up shop somewhere else, if it really came down to it. Otherwise, we have to focus on the original reason behind the lawsuit, which is focused on the reasons why Owen was banned from Patreon, for violating the TOS rules on hate speech. I'm not aware if Patreon can retroactively amend their own TOS to take away the litigant's ability to extract payment for their legal fees, but that will be decided by a judge.

Still, I would avoid calling Patreon a platform, because it doesn't enable people to post freely as you would a social media platform like Twitter. It's just a payment processor like Paypal, it seems. Even Paypal comes with TOS.

[aurizon]

If I am a printer and print jobs that start out OK and then end up porn or right wing racist stuff, and I refuse those jobs, you feel you can sue to force me to do your stuff? Good luck. Patreon ran into a law of unintended consequences, and I sure the right level of court will set this right, of course the arbitrators union and the lawyers union will whine away with your self serving whining.!!!

[aocfan42]

I agree. Just like print shops, bakeries should also be able to refuse custom work to people they don't like/disagree with.

[aurizon]

That would depend on the work. Something like Congratulations to John and Harry on their wedding, would be OK, as it is much like John and Joan.... fully legal. Some rabid christians might refuse - crush them rightly. Promoting nazi/racist stuff - all should refuse...

[bambamnorth]

This case is more like If someone came in and asked you to print pornography and you did it for them but refused others because you didn’t like their type of porno.