[ithkuil]

It's a shame we live in a society where most of the discourse has to be polarized. If you're a victim you can either be blameless or else it's victim blaming.

From the information I could find it appears vice engaged in immoral behavior and she responded in kind.

Furthermore she didn't so that in order to protect herself but in order to retaliate.

While I don't agree with the morality if her retaliation, that doesn't automatically make Vice's position any better. They are still much worse. For one they are a company with legal department etc and should know better.

As for whether she has legal recourse or not… a honest question:

According to Wikipedia she had an agreement with Vice which they broke. What kind of agreement is an agreement that cannot be upheld in court. Can an american company just do what they please anywhere in the world?

[BrandonM]

Retaliating is a legitimate form of protection. Of course, it doesn't help retroactively, but a realistic risk of retaliation keeps people honest. It's a key part of game theory in the tit-for-tat strategy to the prisoner's dilemma: https://ncase.me/trust/

[ithkuil]

Sure, after having tried other approaches. She has a fan base that can exert pressure.

People have personality. If her personality is to say "fuck you, I'll fight you back using your same weapon" then my personality can be "I don't like that, I prefer a society where people don't react to force with force and being jerks to jerks"

EDIT: just to be clear; she's free to choose her strategy, but here we were talking about whether patreon should side with her and exempt her from their policies. They are not in a position where they can fully judge who's right