Adult Content Warning

This community may contain adult content that is not suitable for minors. By closing this dialog box or continuing to navigate this site, you certify that you are 18 years of age and consent to view adult content.

Intellectual Dark Web Dark Money

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Dcc001, Dec 16, 2018.

  1. Kampf Trinker

    Kampf Trinker
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    283
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    3,782
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Well, whatever their reasoning here they've been less coy about being pressured by financial institutions in the past.

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Beefy Phil

    Beefy Phil
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    5
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,618
    Twitter’s MAU is in decline and their ad revenue has stagnated in the last four to five years. Patreon has several existing competitors and lives in a space with an inherently low barrier of entry and high susceptibility to partisan alternatives on both sides of the aisle. The respective valuations of these companies are highly sensitive to public perception. Knowing that, they play to the extreme middle. They don’t want to take sides. They want to be as side-less as possible. Controversy is the nemesis of profit and the sworn enemy of an eventual buyout. It’s cheaper and easier to ban firebrands than take a stand. These businesses do not care about speech that is free.

    Also, hey guys.
     
  3. Juice

    Juice
    Expand Collapse
    Moderately Gender Fluid

    Reputation:
    808
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    8,352
    Location:
    Boston
    Wasn’t the suspicion that they had confused him with Richard Spencer, the neo-Nazi? Robert Spencer certainly isn’t that.
     
  4. Crown Royal

    Crown Royal
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    678
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    17,301
    Location:
    London, Ontario
    That was what I thought immediately after reading that.
     
  5. Clutch

    Clutch
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    395
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    3,208
    The only statement I've seen from MasterCard said that they notified Patreon about illegal content. Considering the subject he focused on, I would guess that the initial pressure came from one of the European governments that get very upset when anyone says something negative about Islam.
     
  6. Jimmy James

    Jimmy James
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    148
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,720
    Location:
    Washington. The state.
    I get that censoring speech is bad, but I don't think this is censorship. This looks like the free market at work. It's doesn't seem all that different from a white guy getting punched in the face by a black guy after the white guy screamed how much he hated black people, but used the n-word a bunch of times instead of black people.

    I can't understand how people can act shocked when they have to deal with the consequences of their words.
     
  7. Kampf Trinker

    Kampf Trinker
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    283
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    3,782
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Actually, it's completely different than that. How in the world did you draw that comparison?
     
  8. Dcc001

    Dcc001
    Expand Collapse
    New Bitch On Top

    Reputation:
    329
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,079
    Location:
    Sarnia, Ontario
    There’s a difference between facing reprecussions for your words (think the Dixie Chicks losing album sales when Natalie Mains spoke out against George W Bush) and a governing agency or multiple agencies banning together to expel the offensive person (think all the radio stations in America deciding to collectively pull their albums). One is valid; the other, in my opinion, is unacceptable targeting.

    Not liking a content creator’s opinion and actively trying to prohibit their platform feels a bit too 1984 for me.

    For example, they didn’t need to ban Milo. His schtick always had a brief shelf life and if left alone he would have run out of audience real quick. Let the market work, IMO.
     
  9. Jimmy James

    Jimmy James
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    148
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,720
    Location:
    Washington. The state.
    Unless I'm completely misreading this, it seems Patreon removed someone from their platform for using the n-word, regardless of the intent. It now seems that the person who said that word is now dealing with the consequence of saying the word. If someone says or does something that others find distasteful, the perpetrator has to understand that their actions have consequences, do they not? This doesn't seem like a ridiculous leap to me.

    There seems to be a disconnect between folks thinking that censorship and good business practice are the same thing. They aren't. Distasteful ideas can't be suppressed by the state. It can be by private enterprise.

    Woulda, coulda, shoulda. In my opinion, the market spoke when it decided to ban Milo from participating. One of the things about capitalism is that it has a propensity to protect itself from outside disruption. If capitalists believe something will prevent money from being made, they'll do what they can to smash that something.

    Edit: The radio station analogy would work if every radio station was owned by the state. In America anyway, this isn't the case, so it doesn't apply. Remember when Clear Channel didn't play a bunch of songs after 9/11? Clear Channel only cared about people's feelings inasmuch that it would cause damage to the company if their radio stations played songs that contained the line "my self-righteous suicide" after a bunch of fanatical Muslims slammed planes into the WTC. That is the market protecting itself from harm. Not censorship.
     
    #89 Jimmy James, Jan 3, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2019
  10. Dcc001

    Dcc001
    Expand Collapse
    New Bitch On Top

    Reputation:
    329
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,079
    Location:
    Sarnia, Ontario
    But in America, monopolies are forbidden. Collectively banning together and acting as one unit crosses the lines in a free market. Same as all the gas stations unilaterally keeping the same gas price at each pump, IMO.

    Letting the market decide would have been allowing a channel to die on its own or be bought by a competitor. The company making the judgement and stirring up the public after the fact is different.

    If Walmart stops selling Snickers because no one buys them, that’s fair. If the CEO of Walmart thinks the CEO of Snickers has a bad opinion of minorities and pulls all Snickers products then goes to target, Costco and other retailers and demands they also stop selling Snickers, that’s very different. I’m surprised you can’t see this distinction.
     
  11. Binary

    Binary
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    182
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,810
    @Dcc001 I'm not sure I understand why multiple companies making the same decision is not the free market.

    If the CEO of Snickers has a bad opinion of minorities, and a bunch of retailers all think, "oh, shit, that guy is toxic and we don't want to touch his product," and subsequently the d-bag in question has no place to sell Snickers... that's not a monopoly. That's the free market.

    It's not collusion just because a bunch of people agree.
     
  12. Jimmy James

    Jimmy James
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    148
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,720
    Location:
    Washington. The state.
    The Walmart example is, hilariously enough, collusion. And yes, this is illegal. Generally, you see things like this when, for example, price fixing is done by pharma companies to keep the prices of drugs high. If you're making the argument that tech companies do this out of some kind of concerted effort to stifle conservative speech, I sincerely doubt it. As Beefy Phil pointed out (wb back dude!):

     
  13. Nettdata

    Nettdata
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    1,658
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    16,863
    I'm kind of curious to see how this relates to price fixing... it's OK to make group decisions on one side of the market for ethical/moral reasons, but not financial ones?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing
     
  14. Jimmy James

    Jimmy James
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    148
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,720
    Location:
    Washington. The state.
    There seems to be an assumption here is that there's some kind of meeting where all the tech company CEO's collectively agree to do something that negatively affects a stakeholder, namely customers or competition. That would make it collusion, which is illegal.

    What I'm arguing is that there isn't any such meeting and that companies are doing this out of self-interest, not for any moral or ethical reasons. As someone who worked for EA, I'm sure you know better than most how self-serving large corporations are.
     
  15. Juice

    Juice
    Expand Collapse
    Moderately Gender Fluid

    Reputation:
    808
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    8,352
    Location:
    Boston
    Proving collusion is irrelevant. Im not even sure how actual collusion or cartel-like practices would work such with vastly different service providers. Whats happening is the TOS of these companies is being inconsistently applied, which is fairly obvious. I dont know the legal obligation of companies to provide service consistently to its customers. But if say they were considered a utility, then that changes things a bit. While the government may not be able to force specific policy changes or actions, it can force consistency in the services provided on behalf of the well-being of the users/customers.

    For instance, I think all 50 states have laws that an electricity provider cannot cut the power to a customer in winter months, even if a bill is unpaid.

    Im not advocating that they should be considered utilities necessarily, but thats how it would probably play out.
     
  16. Jimmy James

    Jimmy James
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    148
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,720
    Location:
    Washington. The state.
    I'm not certain on the legal requirement for consistent service either, but I tend to fall on the side of "bad service, bad company". Unless the company is big enough to write legislation and get it passed so they can perpetuate their shitty behavior, bad service tends to close down bad companies. If a company's terms of service aren't being applied uniformly, that's really up to a judge or arbitrator to ultimately decide.

    I think the thing that irritates me the most is that there is a belief that tech companies are conspiring to suppress conservative views. First of all, I'm not conservative, but if I were, I'd be doing everything I could to prevent people from equating conservatism with xenophobic, racist and sexist views. Views that seemingly weren't okay for people to publicly associate themselves with until recently. Secondly, I think I've made it pretty clear that corporations will generally act in their own self-interest above any moral or ethical reason.

    This seems like a talk radio conspiracy theory drummed up by people that want to get people out to vote.
     
  17. Juice

    Juice
    Expand Collapse
    Moderately Gender Fluid

    Reputation:
    808
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    8,352
    Location:
    Boston
    Right... don’t bother pulling that card. When people like Sarah Jeong not only get to keep their platform but also get a seat on the NYT editorial board, there is no moral high ground to be claimed.

    And lest anyone wants to call that “whataboutism,” well, yeah. That’s the point of this thread.
     
  18. Clutch

    Clutch
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    395
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    3,208
    I predict that vague legislation being passed in various jurisdictions with regard to net neutrality will complicate this down the road. As of right now, I very much doubt that most of the terms of service for these websites would hold up in court as legally binding for either side.
     
  19. Kampf Trinker

    Kampf Trinker
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    283
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    3,782
    Location:
    Minnesota
    What throws me for a loop is I see this and what you posted earlier as very different things. If someone says they are offended by a word, regardless of intent, I find that to be a very silly worldview, but at least it's tangible and coherent, regardless of whether or not I personally agree with it. However, to say that no matter how someone does something, or in what context, that's it's like shouting racial slurs at someone and professing to hate an ethnic group of people is where it gets nutty to me.

    I've seen that sort of reaction in a lot of places in regards to this incident. Most of the people that are in favor of him getting banned don't seem to be comfortable (or willing, or whatever their reasons) to simply say that they think banning someone is appropriate over saying a certain word. Instead, the reaction is "Well, he's alt right. He's super racist." That's fucking nonsense, and it's a sort of nonsense that has become increasingly common. You even see people saying things like "It's this kind of speech that gets minorities killed." What in the blue fuck are people even drawing these conclusions from? In case you don't know, he was insulting the alt right, so he called them niggers in a way to say that they act exactly how they pretend the black people they hate act. This was a group of racist trolls that has been harassing him at every opportunity for a couple years or so.

    It kind of goes back to the whole alt right thing. What does that term even mean at this point? In 2010 Richard Spencer launched a website, alternativeright.com, but it never had much of a following, and most people hadn't even heard of the term until the 2016 election, and people have been incessantly using the term ever since. The way I actually see alt right used most often is from people who want to label someone "alt right". It just seems to loosely mean "bad people!" rather than any sort of actual group or political ideology, because there is no consistency whatsoever in the ideology who is called "alt right". One day it'll be a classical liberal like Sargon who is alt right, then the next it's a conservative like Jordan Petersen, then it's a group of video gamers, then it's the daily stormer(actual neo nazis), then it's Pewdewpie, and so on. There's no actual common thread or belief system tying these people together. The term before it was well known seems to have been an identity for neo nazis, but now? It's like it's just used so people can say more and more bullshit, and see hate groups everywhere, no matter how ridiculous that assertion is. It's incredible to me how much this has blown up in the last 3-5 years.

    Are they? I think my view is more or less the same as yours. Generally speaking, whether or not a company decides to associate with, or platform someone is totally up to them. A few years ago I probably would have completely agreed that companies are just doing things for self interest and monetary reasons, but I'm not so sure anymore. Take the Sargon incident again. How are they acting in their self interest, in the sense that what they did/continue to do is a good business decision? They would have to be the most confused, deluded businessmen ever to reach a conclusion like that. Do you really think they're sticking with the ban solely based on what is best for their profit model? Do you really think that's why he was banned in the first place? It's worth noting that Sargon has said things in the past that offended way, way more people than the incident in question, which was relatively under the radar. He's hated by a lot of activist groups he criticizes.

    At this point, it looks to me like a lot of the tech companies (and other companies)are guided in their decision making at least in part by their politics. I agree with you that there isn't overt collusion or anything like that, but it's pretty clear that the line is being drawn in radically different places for different types of people, and it doesn't seem to simply be about how many people are offended.

    I don't care if a company wants to take action that I personally feel is unfair or misguided. It's their company, not mine. However, with the media increasingly becoming an echo chamber, and responses to anything some people don't like becoming a crazed babble of isms, misogyny, and conspiracy theory accusations it starts to irk me. It's a very dysfunctional, unhealthy way to have a public discourse. I don't see this issue as an inherently right wing thing at all. There is a very large and significant number of left wingers who are equally frustrated by this bullshit. There's also a side of the right wing that has a very spotty history in regards in censorship and free speech. I trust the free market to come up with alternatives for people that are banned for bad reasons. It's becoming increasingly hard to trust the market of free speech to ensure that truth prevails and important ideas are freely considered when people are so set on spinning people and their ideas into something they're clearly not. Maybe people will eventually exhaust themselves by preaching what they probably already do know is bullshit, but until that happens the partisanship will be increasingly toxic, and the way policies/ideas are discussed will be less and less effectual.
     
  20. Dcc001

    Dcc001
    Expand Collapse
    New Bitch On Top

    Reputation:
    329
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,079
    Location:
    Sarnia, Ontario
    Well there has certainly been collusion, if we’re using my Walmart example. YouTube, Twitter, iTunes and Facebook all pulled Alex Jones on the same day at almost the same time. No WAY was that an accident.

    And if a person or company does something that negatively affects their public persona, that then impacts sales, that’s the free market. I don’t think that’s what’s happened here. Particularly with Sargon, I think his politics rubbed the higher ups somewhere the wrong way and this is how they decided to leash him. That clip was from an obscure podcast an hour in and very clearly in a different context than overt racism. It smacks more of deliberate character assassination than legitimate outrage.

    An appropriate reaction was Michael Richards, when he lost his shit in a racist tirade at a club. THERE was overt actions that rightfully affected the performer’s career. What’s happening with specific content creators right now isn’t ground-up from the public, it’s the platforms themselves.