[toxik]

I sense you're making a false equivalence between explicit photographic material and political opinions. I think it is all right to remove sexual content, if that is your desire as a platform. It's a very different can of worms from political censorship.

As for Sam Harris, I have not heard him speak one way or the other on the topic. I think your argument sounds like attacking somebody critical to China because they were not critical over your favorite issue.

[throwawaygh]

“Naked human bodies unacceptable making sure human bodies drown to death acceptable” seems like a rather odd line.

[kleer001]

Nope, not that at all. That would be putting words into someone's mouth. Harris has made no comment on Sex Work/ers, nakedness, or the like.

Running a quick ddg search returns:

No results found for site:samharris.com sex

[kleer001]

Though, if anyone can quote him to the contrary, I'm happy to hear it and change my mind.

[curryst]

> explicit photographic material

Which the sex workers would refer to as their job. If we really want to talk about equivalency, one side wants to air their opinion about some matter, and on the other side are a bunch of people who just want to be able to work and get paid today.

People constantly view pornography solely from a consumption perspective. Yes, not being able to get porn on Patreon is a trivial problem for consumers. Not being able to produce porn is a serious problem for the creators.

Frankly, politics is probably a lot more poisonous to Patreon than porn is. Porn is usually quiet, they don't jam it in people's faces. Politics is all about saying controversial things for air time, which is going to cause them never ending headaches.