This is absolutely the right move. As stated, freedom of speech does not include the right to incite actions that would endanger others.
In the case of the QAnon conspiracy theory, there have been numerous recorded instances of real world violence, doxings, and other harms against others being committed in the name of the QAnon conspiracy theory. Additionally, in the U.S., the FBI has identified QAnon as a part of a group of “conspiracy theory-driven domestic extremists”.
So yes, freedom of speech ends when it causes real harm to society. Also, freedom of speech does not apply to private platforms like Patreon.
Many people are shocked to learn that the First Amendment free speech guarantee, along with all constitutional rights, only protects us against the government. So, if the government interferes with your freedom of speech, you can bring a First Amendment lawsuit to challenge that. And that’s true whether we’re talking about a federal government official or a state or local government official. But guess what? Facebook, Twitter, the other social media platforms are not the government. They are private sector entities, and therefore, they have no First Amendment obligation to protect your freedom of speech.
Don’t get me wrong - I believe QAnon are idiots, but they have the right to be idiots. And I agree that Patreon have the right to ban them.
I’m still asking ANYONE to articulate an objective standard so we know what is acceptable and what is not.
If the actions of individuals can lead to the banning of groups or ideologies to ‘prevent genocide’, how do you distinguish between QAnon and ‘ Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius ’?
I have never said that Patreon must accept everyone; I’ve simply asked for an objective standard for banning someone. The discussions about free speech were philosophical and part of trying to determine what is, and what is not, acceptable, so that we know what we can, and cannot say.
Hey Michael,
Yes, I think an objective standard would be useful… and I’m sure that’s quite the challenge.
I guess I can take a stab though.
In my opinion, the standard should be that if your content espouses ideas that either directly or implicitly cause harm to a group or person in society, then it should be reviewed. Along those same lines, if your content is associated with a group or cult that is known to incite violence, etc. then again, it should be reviewed.
I think a more fair process could also be implemented by which Patreon asks to speak with the creator, express their concerns to the creator, and make a determination if their Patreon can continue based on how they respond to the complaint, which may require some modifications to their content if they wish to remain on the platform.
Bottom line though, conspiracy theorists are dangerous to society. They have far outgrown the ridiculous but mostly harmless claims relating to chem trails and are delving into areas of thought that should be squelched immediately due to the fact that if more people believe in them it will have significantly negative ramifications on so many aspects of our lives.
I certainly don’t think “hurt feelings” applies but I get your point. I think it is more like any content that would encourage violence, doxing, etc.
Of course, libel and slander could be in there, but that’s a super gray area left mostly to judges and juries.
I think I saw a post on Twitter recently about the Government Official in charge of the wall in Mexico being temporarily banned on the platform and his point was that there are muslim groups that threaten violence against jews that are not suspended. I think he made a fair point that a no tolerance policy would be good.
Thank you to everyone who has engaged in this conversation. We appreciate the passion, substance, and candor of the exchange.
In regards to the question around standards for what is permissible on Patreon we would direct creators back to our community and benefits guidelines, which can be found at Patreon.com/policy.
We use “guidelines” on Patreon versus “objective standards” as the basis for our policies because we don’t want to tell creators what to create or the types of content that would be most permissible for funding through the platform. Our guidelines are meant to inform creators of the types of behaviors and benefits that Patreon will not fund for the reasons that we specified up above.
We decided to take action against QAnon-dedicated creators because of both the threats of harm and actual harm that the conspiracy theory has generated, in addition to the other points mentioned above. When we are assessing potential and actual harms we typically are looking for real-world physical instances, but will also consider online threats, bullying, and harassment as well, especially if it is trending from online into the physical world. This distinction is in part why we felt it was important to still allow for creators who discuss the QAnon conspiracy theory from a news, analysis, or satire standpoint to remain on Patreon. We believe that this can generally be done in such a way that does not propagate the most harmful elements of the conspiracy theory.
While a quick search on Patreon can turn up a number of different named pages for creators, Antifa, or otherwise, a name is by no means violative on its own. QAnon conspiracy theory-dedicated creators as a whole were in violation of our Community Guidelines. As long as a creator follows those guidelines, they will have a home on Patreon.
This page still makes me LOL. You say “we have zero tolerance when it comes to…sexualized depiction of minors” but then say, two paragraphs later:
As a result, when reviewing these types of creations, the Trust and Safety team will take into consideration context including personal, historical or educational narrative. For example, survivor stories or fiction such as Game of Thrones or Lolita are allowed on Patreon.
Those two statements are in direct contradiction and provide no guidance at all. What is ‘zero tolerance’ if exceptions are permitted based on subjective judgment?
Edited to add - for GoT I’m referring to the books where, for example Sansa Stark is underage (not the HBO series where they made her older).
Also edited to add: US Law is different for text versus images/video. Text is generally protected by the 1st Amendment, even if there are minors involved; images and videos are not.
Well, this thread aged well. I’m not a degreed historian, but from where I sit it looks like the events of Jan 6 provide a useful perspective here.
On the one hand, if I’m a person whose lifeblood is publishing ideas (e.g. academics), the idea that organizations are restricting the flow of ideas is dangerous and intolerable. Unless the rules are so transparent that I can satisfy myself that I, personally, will never be silenced under any circumstances, those rules are unacceptable.
On the other hand, we have violent fascists who are sufficiently large in number, though widely dispersed through society, that the only thing they need to achieve their material goals is the tools to discover one another and organize. Unmoderated spaces to communicate, plan, and fundraise is the only missing ingredient for the violence that follows.
For this reason, unrestricted free speech will always be at odds with the communicated precursors to violence, things like hate propaganda, criminal conspiracy, and stochastic terrorism.
The marketplace of ideas is worth protecting against many things, but when it becomes a staging area for the implementation of violence and exploitation, counter-action becomes necessary. Opposing discussion is inadequate.
Degreed historians have been warning us for some time that QAnon and its funders were part of a rise of actual, implemented fascism; if anything, Patreon, YouTube and Facebook acted far too late, not too early. Patreon is simply declining to provide material support to overtly criminal plotting.
Only if your entire livelihood depends on Patreon income. It’s your choice to set up your business in such a dependent way. But yes, if you do, that’s how it works. Not just with Patreon—with ANY(!) such dependent business relationship. You have your freedom of expression in a free country and private companies can have the freedom not to support, let alone help fund your activities. Those freedoms can collide and if they do, the platform will usually have the upper hand. That’s the nature of it.
I also don’t understand why there is the repeated demand of “objective standards”. As KyeFox already said in the third comment, it’s a goal we can try to get close to, but it is ultimately impossible to achieve. Like the idea, that we allow everything and just “fight bad speech with good speech”. It’s a good idea on paper, but as history shows, doesn’t always work in reality. It’s like saying “let’s sit down with all burglars and convince them that getting a legal job is the better choice for them and society. That will solve it!”. Sometimes you have to step in and act to prevent harm instead of just “talking” or “not interacting with bad actors” as suggested.
Platforms can set boundaries what is allowed and what isn’t on them and might adjust the boundaries over time if necessary. The line will ultimately be arbitrary (and probably fuzzy), but there will be a line. The question “if they ban QAnon today, will they ban all conservatives tomorrow” is by definition the slippery slope fallacy. And phrases such as “suppressing dissent” don’t help in this regard. They are misleading at best, if not dishonest, since they assert motivations and goals that might not even be there. The judgement (to limit/ban) isn’t necessarily based on a judgement of “dissent” (—dissent to what?). And “not allowing on one platform” doesn’t have the same meaning as “suppressing [something]”. If an authoritarian leader tries to prevent the publication of a critical book about him or her across the entire country, that’s suppression. If one book store decides not to list a certain book, I wouldn’t use the word suppression or censorship. Just because they decide not to sell something, doesn’t mean they actively want it to disappear or use any kind of force to achieve this supposed goal — which are both typical connotations of “suppression”. And I see Patreon just like that one book store as one of many many way to acquire funding online.
One man’s disinformation is another man’s truth.
Yes and no. This sentences describes what people believe(!) to be true, not what is true. I hope we all understand the difference between objective and subjective and don’t need to explain that here.
Given the rest of your post was basically a clear statement you don’t believe in freedom of expression, I’ll address this point.
It’s not about Patreon, per see, but about certain ideas being banned from all platforms, or platforms themselves being deplatformed. These things ALWAYS get out of control. And the most telling thing is that the progressive left has completely flipped on its view of free speech.
Believing in private property and freedom of association does not make one a bigot. I’ve never managed nor run a business in that way, but others are free to do so if they choose. Your ‘gotcha’ is actually an ad hominem AND a lie.
sorry lol do these forums flag the word homophobe or are moderators active and just ignoring peoples pleas for answers to literally anything we’ve been asking them. anyway whatever yes, as stated, businesses are not obligated to take peoples business
I’m not a degreed historian, but from where I sit it looks like the events of Jan 6 provide a useful perspective here.