They also banned Carl Benjamin, leading to a mass exodus. They justified this by citing his use of a racial slur in a YouTube video, although the word was not used in the context of a racial slur.
In the USA there is some kind of Voldemort status given to this word where you cannot even use it out of context - it reminds me of that Jehovah sketch in Monty Python where that parody has now manifested itself into a reality that seemingly changes the course of companies.
For context, here is a censored version of the transcript that caused Carl Benjamin to get banned:
"I just can’t be bothered with people who chose to treat me like this. It’s really annoying. Like, I — . You’re acting like a bunch of n-----s, just so you know. You act like white n-----s. Exactly how you describe black people acting is the impression I get dealing with the Alt Right. I’m really, I’m just not in the mood to deal with this kind of disrespect.”
“Look, you carry on, but don’t expect me to then have a debate with one of your f--gots.…Like why would I bother?…Maybe you’re just acting like a n----r, mate? Have you considered that? Do you think white people act like this? White people are meant to be polite and respectful to one another, and you guys can’t even act like white people, it’s really amazing to me."
Seems quite ban-worthy to me, but of course each individual can judge for themselves. Do note that the whole section has a sorta racist slant best exemplified in the contrast between "white people are meant to be polite and respectful to one another" and supposed "black people" behavior.
Patreon and other platforms that engage in this kind of moral policing are always going to have an issue in that they must continually get more strict. As a platform, you can't easily defend to your profit source picking an arbitrary line between one offensive behavior (racism) and another (eugenics). At first that seems fine - nobody is going to defend racism or eugenics.
But remember that Patreon has a diverse user base and some of those users will be very offended by things that don't offend you or I such as drinking, same sex relationships or transgender rights. If Patreon (as a profit seeking entity) sees financial risk, it's always going to engage in the most aggressive enforcement of any potentially profit affecting content. This is happening with Youtube now with the crackdown on firearms content, legitimate coronavirus talk and swaths of political content on both sides of the aisle.
At some point we need a way to have platforms that allow any legal content, even when that content is really reprehensible. I don't know if that solution is legal or just an incentive problem, but the mainstream-ification of all internet content at some point needs to be halted before free speech is genuinely quite harmed.
Any platform that wants to can host all legal content. Nobody's preventing them, as an outside force - people are complaining, but the complaints have no force, other than people don't want to be there. Platforms with explicitly free-speech agendas (see: 4chan, voat, gab.ai, hatreon) have reputations as absolute cesspools of hatred and bigotry, and people who don't want to deal with that choose on their own not to go there.
I'm not saying platforms should be forced to host all legal content. Well moderated communities (HN as an example) have a lot of value.
The issue is that right now those platforms can't really exist. Even if the platforms themselves had an incentive structure to do so, credit card processors would cut them off or heavily punish them in fees and rates.
Let's say you wanted to legally sell NSFW content. Perfectly legal, nothing morally objectionable. Well, you can't host it on several server providers immediately because their TOS/AUP restrict it. Some providers may allow it with significant restrictions.
Once you find a place to host, you still need to accept money. Paypal, Amazon, Google Pay, et al are right out. You can't use Stripe last I checked. You may be able to use Authorize.net or another middleman but you'll have to post a bond and pay a much higher rate. They may still cut you off.
And that's all for perfectly legal non-morally questionable content! That's for porn which 80%+ of the population indulges in.
You can't have it both ways. If some site can choose not to host some content, then so can some server provider, some DNS provider, some colocation operator, some payment processor, and so on. It's the same deal.
And the above platforms DO exist, people CAN use them, and by God there's no shortage of porn on the internet.
Ah yes, Sargon of Akkad, of "I wouldn't even rape you" fame.
If anything, I'm pretty glad the absolutely despicable thing is no longer funded through them and kinda makes me want to contribute more money to Patreon somehow.
It was only a "mass exodus" in the minds of Carl Benjamin fans. In reality he was a notable individual but ultimately a drop in the bucket relative to all the other activity on Patreon.
Regardless of if it was a drop in the bucket to their revenue, their probable acts of tortious interference could cause material arbitration costs to them for deplatformed creators that chose to open arbitration cases against them: https://www.cernovich.com/patreon-mandatory-arbitration/
It seems they made the decision that they just didn't want that style of content on the platform – Benjamin, Harris, Peterson, etc, and the controversy, or risk of controversy that went with it.
I've been a follower of/contributor to some people in that sphere (though not Benjamin, to be clear), but I can understand Patreon making that choice and preferring to be a platform for creatives like musicians, filmmakers, writers, artists, etc.
Controversy seems to be a euphemism for "wrong" political views though. I'd be more sympathetic if they had a blanket "only creative professionals" policy.
It's not a political issue, that type of language is not acceptable anywhere in public society; even 30 years ago you couldn't speak like that and expect to retain any position of prominence. Try that here and you'd be banned very quickly. Patreon making the decision to explicitly rebuke that kind of language seems totally within the realm of defensive corporate PR.
In the USA there is some kind of Voldemort status given to this word where you cannot even use it out of context - it reminds me of that Jehovah sketch in Monty Python where that parody has now manifested itself into a reality that seemingly changes the course of companies.