PC Principal V: What The Fuck Am I Reading

[Greatguardian]

Can't deny this, except the pretentious part thats on you, I'll leave the essays to people who are good with words and have the platform to reach hundreds of thousands of people and can actually assert some change on society. Thats not me, I'm small time, I'm nobody and I don't care about the wider community of regressive lefts or Neo-nazi rights or what they do with their free time because despite feel good propaganda, I can't change it. But I care about BG, and I'll keep my ramblings here.

You of course, free to ignore it cause it would be insane of me to imply you need to read and respond. Ya don't, and I don't hold it against you.

Bro you really think it ain't pretentious to publicly lament that folks aren't using their brains because they refuse to engage seriously with you when you hard pivot away from real life events and insist on waxing soporific on the moral implications of turning the most reductionist interpretation of those events into universal policy? Ok.

[Salodin]

Yes it could. Though following the line of conversation it was more a being done not just happening but I suppose that was not explicitly stated. Ok then rewind a little people get b& form a new platform and the same people who were a part of getting them b& help find ways to get the new one shutdown. Does that help?

The anyway was just a who cares how they do it. Let's say in this hypothetical LGBTwitter gets DDOS from 4chan, or mass copyright flagged, or had their webhost convinced to drop them, ditto payment processor, or harassed etc

Your hypotheticals make no sense, which was his point.

Patreon did this because they would eventually lose more money (or just make less) catering to and/or ignoring hate speech on their platform. If these people that were booted made their own platform, then it would follow that it doesnt matter how many on the left complained, those people on the left arent giving money to this new platform so why should they care? The reason this doesnt happen though is because there arent enough donating racists to keep those kind of platforms running, so they try and stay on patreon and Twitter to stay relevant until eventually being banned for their intolerance. Patreon only cares cause more tolerant people donated on the site than intolerant people.
It's easier to boot the intolerant and the small amount of donation fees they bring vs risking a bunch of progressive donators moving to another platform because patreon wont address hate speech on their platform.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Salodin]

I am more ok with it as it is a more natural death of an ideology rather than a forced silence.


Keep in mind, these are admittedly shaky statements. I just keep thinking how this would utterly suck if it were the reverse and I think this could easily bit progressives in the ass in the future.

Bite progressives where? The policy literally revolves around removing hate speech from the platform doesnt it? How is that a bad thing lol.

Is it the action itself, or the person it's happening to that is rustling yalls jimmies? If Hitler was banned from patreon, would yall be stanning so hard for this guy?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Karbuncle]

Bro you really think it ain't pretentious to publicly lament that folks aren't using their brains because they refuse to engage seriously with you when you hard pivot away from real life events and insist on waxing soporific on the moral implications of turning the most reductionist interpretation of those events into universal policy? Ok.

Arguing against being pretentious is pretentious is fuck I'm kinda backed against a wall here ain't I? Well I won't waste your time, I have no defense so sure I accept it as you say.

Patreon did this because they would eventually lose more money (or just make less) catering to and/or ignoring hate speech on their platform.

The policy literally revolves around removing hate speech from the platform doesnt it? How is that a bad thing lol.

I know you're arguing someone else my man so sorry for interjecting.

They are literally still doing this though, removing "unwanted" content that breaks their ToS is fine, they're allowed to do that, most complaints (At least I can only vouch for mine)its the biased and one sided way they are doing it and the fact at least one of the people banned have not broken any part of the ToS. I can only speak from a position in defense of Sargons ban because he's the only one I'm really educated on enough to feel confident talking about, but he didn't break a single section of their ToS. Their ToS only state that content put onto Patreon is subject to their ToS, nothing on his Patreon is against Patreons ToS.

They explained to him specifically why he was banned, all their statements in the video i posted and even one publicly available to view from the head of the Safety team that removed his account. He was banned because of his "Brand as a whole", they are effectively imposing their ToS on other websites and this isn't listed in their ToS, and spoiler, the video he was banned because Isn't on his channel at all, it was him arguing AGAINST Neo-Nazis on a Neo-Nazi channel and the video is posted on their Youtube channel not his, he was a "guest". None of this is in Patreons ToS and as in the video I provided, this is to the CEO's own WORDS and the written ToS you can read at any time.

They only prohibit this language on their own website and hateful behavior on their website, and if you look up the word that got Sargon banned through Patreon (I can't say it on BG as far as I know, the N word), you'll find several Patreon pages using that specific word still up and running.

[Yuri-G]

I think it's pretentious to say things like "waxing soporific" just saying

[thetruepandagod]

Bite progressives where? The policy literally revolves around removing hate speech from the platform doesnt it? How is that a bad thing lol.

Is it the action itself, or the person it's happening to that is rustling yalls jimmies? If Hitler was banned from patreon, would yall be stanning so hard for this guy?

I know nothing about Sam Harris outside of what some have said in this thread in relation to him, but I don't think anyone should be banned for literally any combination of words or letters.

[Salodin]

Yall keep acting like white people were just banned from patreon lmao. One dude got removed. A handful of others went into a self imposed exile like Luke Skywalker or something.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Salodin]

I know nothing about Sam Harris outside of what some have said in this thread in relation to him, but I don't think anyone should be banned for literally any combination of words or letters.

Any? Whatsoever?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[thetruepandagod]

Any? Whatsoever?

Literally none.

edit: ok I take that back. Personal information would be where I draw the line, such as someones home addresses/credit card information/social security etc

[Greatguardian]

Bite progressives where? The policy literally revolves around removing hate speech from the platform doesnt it? How is that a bad thing lol.

Is it the action itself, or the person it's happening to that is rustling yalls jimmies? If Hitler was banned from patreon, would yall be stanning so hard for this guy?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

You're not simplifying the situation enough.

What you first need to do is strip away all of the details. Like, all of them. Those just get in the way. Now you need to decide to frame this as censorship of speech based on political ideology. All framed? Good. Then all you need to do is think about the implications of turning that censorship into a universal policy that could potentially target political ideologies you ascribe to. Seem more dangerous now?

[Vandalhart]

Serious question to the people in this thread:


If twitter, facebook, etc. started banning people for calling transgenders by their chosen pronoun instead of their birth pronoun, would you all just say, "That's ok, at least we can post in on bg"?

Ya'll are ok with what's happening because it's towards ideologies you don't agree with. But this could have easily gone the other way. If those CEOs at the top had felt that it was better for their profit margins to be conservative, then my scenario would have been done. And there's nothing to say the pendulum won't swing the other way in the future.

I think that's what we're seeing with political leaders across the world, don't think it can't happen on social media, too.

Patreon/YouTube/twitter are free to do whatever they want. To me, it just seems like there is a bias and no consistency in regards to what side is being hit with displinary actions. The problem I see here is that Patreon specifically is acting against what the CEO, on record, said.

I don’t care what side they are on but it should be consistent.

[Salodin]

You're not simplifying the situation enough.

What you first need to do is strip away all of the details. Like, all of them. Those just get in the way. Now you need to decide to frame this as censorship of speech based on political ideology. All framed? Good. Then all you need to do is think about the implications of turning that censorship into a universal policy that could potentially target political ideologies you ascribe to. Seem more dangerous now?

Yes, it does. Too bad none of it is grounded in reality though.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Greatguardian]

I think it's pretentious to say things like "waxing soporific" just saying

totally man but what I'm going for here is the good, self-aware, so-pretentious-it's-funny kind of pretentious

[Salodin]

Patreon/YouTube/twitter are free to do whatever they want. To me, it just seems like there is a bias and no consistency in regards to what side is being hit with displinary actions. The problem I see here is that Patreon specifically is acting against what the CEO, on record, said.

I don’t care what side they are on but it should be consistent.

I agree, there shouldn't be bias. But you shouldn't hold the company to the CEOs word like the CEO is infallible or cant change his mind. I'm sure theres a spreadsheet somewhere that maps potential revenue from one white hate speeches compared to what they think they might lose in traffic if they dont address hate speech on their network. I guarantee you it was an easy choice to make.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Vandalhart]

Literally none.

edit: ok I take that back. Personal information would be where I draw the line, such as someones home addresses/credit card information/social security etc

You and I seem to agree. The addition I would make is the encitement of violence towards a specific person/group.

If they are calling people to action something should be done.

[Salodin]

You and I seem to agree. The addition I would make is the encitement of violence towards a specific person/group.

If they are calling people to action something should be done.

So I can talk about how terrible the Jews are for our society, but as long as I dont explicitly call for violence towards them you're cool? I should never be banned from any platform?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[thetruepandagod]

You and I seem to agree. The addition I would make is the encitement of violence towards a specific person/group.

If they are calling people to action something should be done.

I don't even think this should be bannable

[Salodin]

What if I never call for violence but one of my supporters, emboldened by my rhetoric, decides to take matters into their own hands and start mailing pipe bombs to the people I'm always complaining about. That's cool too right? Totally not my problem or fault? Asking for a friend.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Greatguardian]

Social Media is a dystopian nightmare anyway. Whatever gets people to split away from TwitBookChatterGram en masse and start building new platforms is better for society in the long run.

[Vandalhart]

I agree, there shouldn't be bias. But you shouldn't hold the company to the CEOs word like the CEO is infallible or cant change his mind. I'm sure theres a spreadsheet somewhere that maps potential revenue from one white hate speeches compared to what they think they might lose in traffic if they dont address hate speech on their network. I guarantee you it was an easy choice to make.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Valid point. I’m not necessarily finding fault with the CEO but there is a disconnect somewhere of his vision and what actually took place. He’s literally on record not long ago telling people that their fears are unfounded because it’s only content on Patreon and then the group responsible are taking behaviour out of context from interviews not on any of Sargon’s Patreon funded channels to ban him.


Sorry, I’m trying to address a few other points so I’m all over the place in replies. Doesn’t help I’m posting from my phone.