Return to

Patreon Killing it Self off With its Decision to De-Platform Those They Don't Like?


You literally just did. Twice now in the last two posts, and you’ve made it clear that there is no acceptable use of the word unless your back (which honestly is a bit racist). Not including some letters doesn’t mean it somehow doesn’t count, you still said it, everyone knows you did, everyone knows what you were thinking.

So you should be banned under your own rules?

  • It is debatable if he really used hatespeech if you regard the whole statements with appropriate context.
  • Hate speech does not have a consice, unambiguous meaning any more in todays language
  • Using reasonable definitions of “Patreons Platform” he did not use the language in question on Patreons platform.
  • Yes, Patreon does not enforce its own rules consistently and bends them to the breaking point.

My problem with this decission is that there is no need for Patreon to create or enforce these arbitrary rules that are not even completely clear when there is no need and reason for it. Obviously Patreon should comply with the law but that’s it.

Not that it really matters, but I am frequently called a commie in this forum.


Or how about you let people decide how they want to talk and leave it up to the parties involved if they think it’s okay? I mean if that’s the way you want to conduct yourself great but that’s really as far as it goes…


@Eden: I can see where this is going so yes, if you feel that way, ban me.

@anotherriddle: I don’t think it’s debatable at all. You’re correct there is some degree of ambiguity in hate speech, there was none in this case.

It wasn’t on their platform, and if their TOS only talks about their platform they should absolutely change the rules to be clear. And those rules should absolutely be enforced consistently.

As for complying with the law, well, I think of it this way. I like porn. I don’t think there’s anything morally or ethically wrong with porn, so long as it stays within the law. I think porn should be allowed to flourish.

But would I want to work in porn? Not as an actor obviously, thanks for the flattery, but in production or IT support. Do I want to be associated with it, myself? To explain that to my family? Nah, I’ll pass.

Racists have the right to do their thing, legally. We have free speech in this country. But if I ran Patreon I’d ban 'em from my privately owned service too.


It’s not about that, and I hope you know that. People keep joking about this in this Forum and I am not sure when people really mean it.


Once I had a very similar concept of right and wrong and what constitutes hate speech. I found that this is a very arbitrary line that all sides can shift around to their liking. It’s not that easy.

I agree with that. However it would still be reason enough for me to look for an alternative platform when the rules are enforced consistently but are still arbitrary and can change any moment without reasonable notice.

This is your right but it is also easy to say when you are holding all the power. When you are on the receiving end of said power and you are even slightly on the “wrong” side of the line, you might think differently.


the eagerness to fall on your own sword shows that you don’t understand what Eden was trying to say. He was saying context matters. That’s the entire crux of the issue with Patreon, ie they refuse to regard the context of what Sargon said. You’ve just insulted white people, jewish people, and mexicans in one post, should we now label you as “alt-right” and blacklist you from interacting with L1T?


Context does matter, and the context in which the banned guy used that word was unequivocally racist.


Here is the interesting thing. On Patreon, right now there is a someone by the name of Dr Bones. Apparently he is a radical left wing warrior who, actually in his Patreon posting stated he wanted to start insurrection. And in his Overview championed that each dollar you send my way is a bullet in the chamber of a gun we’re building together. You could actually “Buy me some ammo.” After being reported in December he did change the overview and get rid of the obvious violation… but if someone says something you don’t like and not on Patreon you can be booted for that why is someone who actually advocates violence not booted from Patreon?

Another one is “Revolutionary Left Radio” where the founder on Twitter has openly supported armed confrontations for those that don’t share his views.

So why are these creators still allowed on Patreon? Dr Bones especially clearly violated the TOS on their own platform, and not just a little.


Yeah, that isn’t OK. He should have been banned also. It’s important to apply the rules fairly.


You’re avoiding the real question, but that’s okay. The fact you believe Sargon is alt-right shows me you have perhaps not done enough research to be well informed on who should be labeled as what.


But they aren’t, here are two examples of people on the far left advocating violence both ON Patreon and off… yet its acceptable. Remember what I said about slipper slope? This is it… not only in what they will remove and what they won’t, but who they apply the rule too.


I did about 5 minutes of reading, and found that he was a GamerGater, anti-feminist, misogynist, Islamophobic, Brexiteer, anti-immigrant, conspiracy theorist… who doesn’t consider himself to be alt-right. Well I’m just a simple country lawyer, and I don’t know about all that, but to me he’s walkin’ and talkin’ like a duck.


it shows. Anyway, your mind seems to be made up on this issue, so there’s not a lot more benefit I can see coming from further interaction.


I don’t really think whether he fits perfectly within the orthodoxy of the alt-right spectrum, if there is such a thing, is particularly pertinent to this discussion. He’s certainly alt-right-adjacent.


Well, considering that the defining characteristic of the Alt-Right is white nationalism, and he is not a white nationalist, I would say he’s right on that front.


I don’t really want to derail the thread to what Sargon is or isn’t, as there is no point trying to turn this into another us/them fest.


Yes, this is definitely a thing. It seems that people who argue hate speech doesn’t exist are often either speaking about it legally, or conflating the legal definition and the social definition. Certainly, speech that intends to convey hatred towards something/someone can exist. That is, by logical definition, hateful speech. However, the (American) government is constructed in such a way that it is not allowed to have an opinion on what is or is not hate speech. This has more to do with concentration of power (why should the government get to arbitrarily decide what is hateful?) and the fact that you are technically, legally allowed to hate other people. It’s probably not recommended, but it’s the right of an individual to decide to hate, just as much as it’s the right of other individuals to decide what personally qualifies as hate.

In the case of Patreon, they are allowed to decide for themselves and their platform what qualifies as speech that conveys hatred. Speech that is hateful undoubtedly exists. Everyone decides differently what it is (except for the government who isn’t allowed to venture there). Patreon has decided that some speech is hateful. They have also decided not to do business with people who say things they define as hateful.

To me, this is all perfectly fine and the way the system is supposed to work. Hate speech has no legal definition (or it shouldn’t), however, Patreon can decide what qualifies for hate speech when on their platform and remove people over it. In my opinion, this is censorship (whether I agree with the speech or not), and so I can decide my dollars won’t support it. To me, the real issues here are these:

  1. Patreon won’t clearly define what they actually consider hate speech, and instead it seems like they are keeping the qualification intentionally vague for some reason, such as to mask an anti-right agenda


  1. It’s because MasterCard is pressuring them into removing these things from their platform, because MasterCard has a history of social engineering. (i.e. the use of cash is undignified, use MasterCard instead, 2nd source) Which of course, social engineering by megabanks and transaction oligarchs is bad for everyone, and therefore I’m against that as well.


I’m sorry, but as an American, I cannot support just simply saying “inward” as being “hate speech”. Call me arrogant, brutish, ignorant, or whatever.

Second, it’s a word, not a weapon, not a tool, not an overreaching, totalitarian government. Inward is just a word.

Its original use was marred and tarnished with respect to history, and I get that some people are very sensitive to that. But, at the end of the day, it’s a word. It’s insulting to intelligence that people can’t say it with respect to context or quotation without sounding silly.

Plus, this whole “bad word” thing gets debunked in High School, does it not? You can cut someone down with perfectly clean words.

Also, giving credence to a group or race as the only ones allowed to use Inward or whatever else, lends itself to viewing them as superior, which is by definition racism. You don’t have to hate someone to be a racist, but viewing yourself as superior to other races is racism, I would argue.


I agree i just chose my words poorly i meant to say it’s not logical.

While most users on this forum will agree with your first point (seeing as we’re all like minded individuals here) I think the biggest issue with the general public, (and myself) is Patreon was the place to go after the adpocalypse to support you favorite youtubers. they were the beacon of hope where if ads weren’t gonna run you had your creators back. terms of service or not Patreon is betraying their own image and everything the stand for as far as the public is concerned.