[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.