Political censorship online



  • So censorship of alternative views online has just jumped another level.

    Patreon has now started indiscriminately kicking creators off for 'wrong think'. Bitchute/Milo/James Allsup and as of a few hours ago Sargon of Akkad. I could maybe see some sort of tenuous TOS argument for the other 3 (don't know anything about Allsup) but the removal of Sargon means that this is purely a political exercise where only corporate establishment or left wing extremists view are allowed on the internet.

    Sargon is centre left politically, he is a classical liberal through and through. He debates against both lefty extremists and the alt-right. I had dinner with him on my recent trip to the UK and can 100% confirm he is a genuine normal bloke. Now this move by Patreon has cut off his primary source of income which he relies on to keep his family fed which is just appalling.

    A few months back the first to be removed from Patreon was Lauren Southern, this created a huge stir with many abandoning the service until Dave Rubin got the CEO Jack Conte on the Rubin Report to quell fears stating the only reason she was removed because she was on camera committing a crime (firing a flare gun..) and that it had nothing to do with Political reasons.

    At this point if Sargon can go then no one is safe. Tim Pool, Rubin, Jordan Peterson, PJW, Styx, Gad Saad. If anyone wants to make some easy millions right now all you need to do is come up with a decentralized alternative to Patreon as Patreon is pretty intent on shooting itself in the face.



  • @rembrandt said in Fake News:

    So censorship of alternative views online has just jumped another level.

    Patreon has now started indiscriminately kicking creators off for 'wrong think'. Bitchute/Milo/James Allsup and as of a few hours ago Sargon of Akkad. I could maybe see some sort of tenuous TOS argument for the other 3 (don't know anything about Allsup) but the removal of Sargon means that this is purely a political exercise where only corporate establishment or left wing extremists view are allowed on the internet.

    Sargon is centre left politically, he is a classical liberal through and through. He debates against both lefty extremists and the alt-right. I had dinner with him on my recent trip to the UK and can 100% confirm he is a genuine normal bloke. Now this move by Patreon has cut off his primary source of income which he relies on to keep his family fed which is just appalling.

    A few months back the first to be removed from Patreon was Lauren Southern, this created a huge stir with many abandoning the service until Dave Rubin got the CEO Jack Conte on the Rubin Report to quell fears stating the only reason she was removed because she was on camera committing a crime (firing a flare gun..) and that it had nothing to do with Political reasons.

    At this point if Sargon can go then no one is safe. Tim Pool, Rubin, Jordan Peterson, PJW, Styx, Gad Saad. If anyone wants to make some easy millions right now all you need to do is come up with a decentralized alternative to Patreon as Patreon is pretty intent on shooting itself in the face.

    I call bullshit on the LS move. I'll bet they were just looking for an excuse. This Sargon thing is bizarre. He's hated by the Alt-Right and had a nasty debate with Richard Spencer. He goes out of his way to communicate his exact thoughts and ideas. The usual band of SJWs have been trying to get him off Patroen for ages. Why give him the arse now?



  • Patreon is a businesses. They have no obligation to host anyone they don't want.

    Milo for one has proven what a fucking parasite he is. He just says controversial bullshit to get attention, but has no substance and is in debt to just about everyone he dealt with. It's dressed up as free speech but he's no champion of anyone but Milo.



  • @nta said in Political censorship online:

    Pattern is a businesses. They have no obligation to host anyone they don't want.

    Milo for one has proven what a fucking parasite he is. He just says controversial bullshit to get attention, but has no substance and is in debt to just about everyone he dealt with. It's dressed up as free speech but he's no champion of anyone but Milo.

    That's nice, but what about Sargon?

    Given that a private business can do what it wants would you agree that, for example, a baker should be able to refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding? It's a private business right?



  • @nta said in Political censorship online:

    Pattern is a businesses. They have no obligation to host anyone they don't want.

    Of course, it's a private business. There is still something interesting going on here related to freedom of speech.
    In this instance it is not about the government, it's about the wider culture which has become more intolerant of hearing competing ideas
    (or maybe the culture is just accommodating the loudest complainers?)

    The Sargon case is interesting from the little I know about it. He's a left leaning classical liberal. Something that wasn't particularly unusual in the 1990's.
    He's been on Patreon for four years and has largely been saying the same things.
    In that time he built up an audience (somehow?? I think he is tedious and smug) and was earning a decent amount (earning details here)

    However he is on the wrong side of a few issues that have become blasphemy to the new church ladies of the progressive left.
    So did Sargon suddenly change and do something worthy of being banned or did Patreon change?
    And yes, of course Patreon has the right to change.. but it would be interesting to know for other creators. Particularly when you see the amount of money involved





  • @nta said in Political censorship online:

    Pattern is a businesses. They have no obligation to host anyone they don't want.

    Milo for one has proven what a fucking parasite he is. He just says controversial bullshit to get attention, but has no substance and is in debt to just about everyone he dealt with. It's dressed up as free speech but he's no champion of anyone but Milo.

    The others are nothing like Milo, I have no sympathy for him but I don’t see why they deserve this treatment.

    It’ll be interesting to see what other platforms join in . It’s always surprised me that YouTube has no real competition, if anything positive comes out of this lunacy I hope that it’s opening the door to some alternative.



  • It’s all starting to get very reminiscent of McCarthyism and the communist witch-hunts. Which is very ironic.



  • @rancid-schnitzel said in Political censorship online:

    Given that a private business can do what it wants would you agree that, for example, a baker should be able to refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding? It's a private business right?

    I agree with that as an example, sure. Depends at what point it becomes discrimination in the eyes of the law.

    And if a business wants to turn down revenue in the basis of their beliefs, or some reputational risk, then good luck to them.



  • With Youtube and Google, I think it is more interesting that they ahve protection under section 230, yet behave like this. So NTA is completely wrong that beng a business makes it fine for them to behave like this. They are already treated differently to other business and have special protection.



  • @baron-silas-greenback wrong about what?



  • @nta said in Political censorship online:

    @rancid-schnitzel said in Political censorship online:

    Given that a private business can do what it wants would you agree that, for example, a baker should be able to refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding? It's a private business right?

    I agree with that as an example, sure. Depends at what point it becomes discrimination in the eyes of the law.

    And if a business wants to turn down revenue in the basis of their beliefs, or some reputational risk, then good luck to them.

    That's fine, but then doesn't mean they should be immune from criticism. This kind of censorship is particularly concerning when these companies have become so big and powerful that they have a virtual monopoly situation.



  • @rancid-schnitzel agreed. Patreon probably stand to lose a stack of extra business from other people who use the platform and are supporters of the banned personalities.

    Patreon seems to have decided this is some kind of reputational risk and activated their TS & Cs.

    Is it actually censorship? I assume these people are still posting in YouTube or other social media - you just can't get paid via Patreon. So maybe it's discrimination but I'm assuming the Ts&Cs are pretty tight on that regard.



  • @nta said in Political censorship online:

    @rancid-schnitzel agreed. Patreon probably stand to lose a stack of extra business from other people who use the platform and are supporters of the banned personalities.

    Patreon seems to have decided this is some kind of reputational risk and activated their TS & Cs.

    Is it actually censorship? I assume these people are still posting in YouTube or other social media - you just can't get paid via Patreon. So maybe it's discrimination but I'm assuming the Ts&Cs are pretty tight on that regard.

    It is absolutely censorship, and suppression of anybody that doesn’t think the same way they do.

    You are not taking into account this is not happening in isolation, on just one service.



  • Bottom line is its a father who has lost his primary source of income just before christmas for the crime of standing up against extremism Patreon are free to ban whomever they want but its pretty scary when it's peoples income at stake and when the TOS hasn't even been violated.

    It's literally silicon valley near monopolies determining what is 'wrong think'and punishing people accordingly.
    Scary times. He has set up another platform for funding but this is linked to PayPal who have also been strong armed into removing support from people so most likely only temporary.

    https://www.subscribestar.com/sargon

    What is up with these authoritarian tech ceos being effeminate men?



  • @kirwan said in Political censorship online:

    You are not taking into account this is not happening in isolation, on just one service.

    In regard to this thread, we're talking about Patreon. Happy to look at other examples of e.g. Sargon being axed from YouTube or other platforms



  • @rembrandt said in Political censorship online:

    What is up with these authoritarian tech ceos being effeminate men?

    Uh, what does that have to do with anything?



  • @nta said in Political censorship online:

    @rembrandt said in Political censorship online:

    What is up with these authoritarian tech ceos being effeminate men?

    Uh, what does that have to do with anything?

    Just an observation. Most CEOs I've known in my time have been very blokey blokes, sort of stereotypical alpha type guys or even manly type women. Changing times maybe.

    Actually just to add to this, its very common with antifa as well.



  • I'm not sure I really buy the "private company, they can do what they want so nothing to see here" argument. I reckon it's pretty concerning when massive corporations that control the major plarforms for communication and the flow of information are not buying into the value of free speech. May not be strictly illegal but our society is founded on values like freedom of speech and freedom of expression, it's important that as many people as possible hold those as more important than anything else. These corporates are taking a massive step in the wrong direction in trying to censor views they deem "offensive".



  • The good doctor is getting involved. At one point he was the most supported person on Patreon, may still be.