Patreon Is Banning QAnon, Joining Facebook, YouTube and Others (businessinsider.com) 172
Patreon is the latest tech company to take action on the QAnon conspiracy theory, announcing in a blog post Thursday morning that creators promoting the movement would be banned from the platform. Business Insider reports: Patreon, a membership platform that lets fans support creators and celebrities financially through subscriptions, previously hosted 14 QAnon influencers on the platform, according to a recent report from the progressive media watchdog Media Matters for America (MMFA). QAnon, the baseless far-right conspiracy theory that alleges President Donald Trump is fighting a deep-state cabal of human traffickers, has recently been banned or limited by Facebook, YouTube, Etsy, Spotify, Triller, and several other platforms. While many QAnon followers base their beliefs on "Q drops" from an anonymous "Q" figure on the messageboard 8kun, the movement is now spread by QAnon influencers who analyze and explain the "Q drops" for their followers.
Patreon creators who used the platform to earn money included some of the movement's top influencers, MMFA found, including Patriots Soapbox, Sean Morgan, Praying Medic, and InTheMatrixxx, all of which were already banned from YouTube. As of Thursday morning, soon after the company published its blog post, those four creators were still up and running on Patreon with QAnon references in their profiles. By Thursday afternoon, the four users were taken down from the platform. Patreon said that creators who have been identified by Patreon's Policy and Trust and Safety teams as QAnon-specific will be removed, but those "who have propagated some QAnon content, but are not dedicated to spreading QAnon disinformation, will have the opportunity to bring their campaigns into compliance with our updated guidelines."
Patreon creators who used the platform to earn money included some of the movement's top influencers, MMFA found, including Patriots Soapbox, Sean Morgan, Praying Medic, and InTheMatrixxx, all of which were already banned from YouTube. As of Thursday morning, soon after the company published its blog post, those four creators were still up and running on Patreon with QAnon references in their profiles. By Thursday afternoon, the four users were taken down from the platform. Patreon said that creators who have been identified by Patreon's Policy and Trust and Safety teams as QAnon-specific will be removed, but those "who have propagated some QAnon content, but are not dedicated to spreading QAnon disinformation, will have the opportunity to bring their campaigns into compliance with our updated guidelines."
Barbra couldn't have done it better (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I rather suspect the population of batshit crazy asshats hasn't changed at all.
Re: (Score:3)
I know numerous people who had never even heard of Q prior to the bans. They do now! I have always just ignored them but now it's hard to. I suspect Q is gaining new followers from all of this.
As a response to your unsubstantiated anecdote, here's mine. I think that the large majority of people under the influence of QAnon nonsense have never heard of QAnon. I think they hear bits and pieces of the conspiracy theories, and come to believe them, in contexts where the QAnon origin+context of the stories has been largely absent. If this is true, the effect you're describing (by which more people hear about QAnon) will be completely dwarfed by the suppression of its messages.
Re: (Score:2)
Hi, In response to both of you:
I am a realtor, I deal with different people of multiple economic level. After about 3 months of hearing about CP and hollywood, I did some reading about QAnon. then I read some of postings and stuff.
I then looked at my client base of who was spouting it ( I had more knowledge about this ) and sure enough, some of my client were.
I would say that it was mostly 50 years old or older reposting the CP attacks and then along with this a specific voting type message. I would like to
Re: (Score:2)
That's it exactly. The QAnon brand is toxic so they hide it until people are well down the rabbit hole.
Re: (Score:2)
If they start sending you articles set alight their pets immediately.
Re: (Score:3)
I know numerous people who had never even heard of Q prior to the bans.
I have a technical question: How do people who clearly have never watched the news or read a newspaper hear about the bans?
I will bet you that either they lied, they are incapable of understanding a conspiracy group when they see one, or you are lying in an effort to support free speech under the guise of a non-existent Streisand effect.
I suspect Q is gaining new followers from all of this.
Where? On their Twitter feed or their Facebook group? Humans don't go out of their way to dig up stupidity. That's kind of the reason for the bans. Conspiracy theories aren'
Why are they banning joining FB? (Score:4, Funny)
I know FB is evil and all, but I didn't know that Patreon put it and YouTube at the same level of evil as QAnon
Public Fatigue.... (Score:5, Interesting)
People aren't finding this shit funny or interesting anymore.
At some point censorship becomes a justified reality (even in a de-facto sense). Even though the government can't silence you- private entities can. Especially on their property.
These organizations are just responding to market realities anyway. They are losing business because of the affiliation. That's the only thing that motivates corporations... money.
In this case most of us will benefit from this "censorship" and sink happily back into the free flow of kitten pictures.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, the real problem is not Queer-Anon.
It's people taking them seriously.
A lesson to be learned from Trump's success (Score:3)
An interesting, yet uncomfortable, truth... some/too many of the people taking the Qnony, and the like, conspiracy theories seriously, are folks we might've previously considered too intelligent to fall for the hucksters. Yet, it's clear now that higher intelligence is no insulation blanket against false belief.
Perhaps ffor the world to seek a higher station, we need the voters of average to less than average intelligence to advance beyond our current station.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's people taking them seriously.
The real problem is that people in general have a trust for the materials they are exposed to, especially when that material claims to be on your side against some evil unknown boogeyman (they are against pedophiles, that's good right? I support Q-anon's efforts to. ... wait. dammit!)
The human mind is to fragile to be exposed to an endless barrage of bullshit, so while the government should have absolutely no say at all in this matter I support people and companies ridding bullshit from their feed.
Excellent (Score:5, Interesting)
These people need to be shown that they are not part of civilized society and that their messed-up ideas are _not_ welcome. They have done enough damage as it is with their anti-truth, anti-reality and anti-science stance. That is not to say I want them silenced, but any amplifier platforms (and Patreon is that as well) needs to shut them out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rioting and assault are already criminal acts. Please do not do any meaningless posturing, you are making the problem worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh you mean like Anti-Fa and BLM rioting, looting, burning down businesses and cities?
Why are they not being BANNED all over the place?
I don't give a shit what people SAY you can choose not to listen or read their bullshit. But if it turns into illegal action then something should be done.
This goes for BOTH the Radical Right and Radical Left. BOTH are to fucking blame for the current state of the United States. Both should be SHUT THE FUCK DOWN! Then and ONLY then we MIGHT have some civility in this country
Re: (Score:3)
The way you demonstrate ideas are not welcome is by ignoring them. Banning something that a person has to actively seek out anyway is silly. I bet most of us have never actually seen anything about QAnon other than meta-posts about how it is being banned. I'm not even sure it even exists, other than as a thing to be banned. Each summary of what QAnon means seems completely different from every other one, like the person writing it just made it up on the spot or Googled to see what it means today.
Re: (Score:2)
The way you demonstrate ideas are not welcome is by ignoring them.
Patreon can't ignore them. It's a financial service, either it helps them or it bans them, there is no eyes-shut-fingers-in-ears middle ground when they are processing payments.
Re: (Score:2)
The way you demonstrate ideas are not welcome is by ignoring them.
Patreon can't ignore them. It's a financial service, either it helps them or it bans them, there is no eyes-shut-fingers-in-ears middle ground when they are processing payments.
Exactly this. The dishonesty and cluelessness of so many people is staggering.
Re: (Score:2)
These people need to be shown that they are not part of civilized society and that their messed-up ideas are _not_ welcome. They have done enough damage as it is with their anti-truth, anti-reality and anti-science stance. That is not to say I want them silenced, but any amplifier platforms (and Patreon is that as well) needs to shut them out.
Something only a QAnon would say. Ban him!
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid statement is stupid. Seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
This is already happening with spurious accusations of racism. I heard people declare with all seriousness that a vote for Trump is racist action. Entirely new kinds of racism were invented - systemic racism, unconscious racism, white fragility... All of this is because attacking raci
Re: (Score:2)
My point went over your head, so let me explain.
No, it did not. I am perfectly aware how the relevant mechanisms work. You, on the other hand, are operating on a simplified model of reality that is inherently deficient.
Re: (Score:2)
You, on the other hand, are operating on a simplified model of reality that is inherently deficient.
This is an empty assertion. If your goal is to convince, you would not succeed with this approach.
Come on, stop beating around the bush (Score:2)
QAnon influencers who analyze and explain the "Q drops" for their followers
Priests. They're priests tending to their flocks. They're preaching the holy word and helping their congregations maintain their piety whenever they encounter a crisis of faith.
Whatever you may feel about this new religion, I think we can all agree that the most important thing right now is to ensure that they should not have to register as a non-profit organization when they apply for tax-exempt status.
Re: (Score:2)
No.
They are amplifying their revenue streams.
I don't care anymore. (Score:2)
Its their platform, their rules. This is my last place I have left open to post things (and I don't post things fringe anywhere). I've been trolled by china goons on reddit when covid first started and redditt censored my account 3 times (for no reason, I don't tweet political stuff, but I do read tweets that are off base because I like tabloid tin foil hat stuff...). Welcome to the future....
I've given up reddit and twitter, tossed away my discuss accounts. I really just don't want to even bother, if I am
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Back to kittens I guess. The power vacuum hasn't always existed. It just used to be full of actual meaningful content.
Re: (Score:2)
Just exercising editorial discretion (Score:4, Interesting)
Which is what is sorely, sorely missing from today's media. It's funny to see how many claim a threat to free speech when speech is the most unregulated it has ever been in popular media today.
Honestly, there's a whole generation that seemed to forget that newspapers, TV and books would be subject to things like checking and validation of facts and sources and making sure that subjects of an article would be allowed to comment (and those comments would be printed) so that news was clearly news and entertainment was clearly entertainment.
Today, you just get people complaining that they can't present things with no basis in fact as news on any platform they choose as a lamentable erosion of free speech, when that speech was never actually allowed to try and maintain the integrity of the press in its role as a necessary counterbalance to government and individual speech.
It wasn't perfect, but it was better than it is now. The problem isn't all major platforms using editorial discretion on what they allow (and profit from) on their platforms, it's how badly they do it.
Nobody is owed the legitimacy of a wide platform without none of the responsibilities that entails and no platform needs to threaten its very credibility or existence by allowing any one person or group equal access.
Don't like it? Make your own platform.
Re: (Score:2)
The lame stream media gave up on FACTUAL reporting a long, long, long,long,long time ago. So people started filling in with their "facts". So now we have NO ONE putting out the TRUTH! Everyone is putting out flat out lies in my opinion.
When there is actual factual reporting and NOT "opinion" news then I'll start believing things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Again, nobody is owed amplification and broad access. I didn't pretend private entities didn't choose what to publish. It's always been that way. My point is that this notion of free speech = no interference from major media has never existed and gaining access to that media required sustained effort in multiple markets. But, now, some people demand that any opinion or idea has has broad access and credibility with zero work. That a random rant is the same as a highly informed article from a trusted organiz
So? (Score:2)
Out of the frying pan, into the fire. Good luck with that.
Like a Kubrick movie (Score:2)
General: Try one of these Jamaican cigars, ambassador, they're pretty good.
Ambassador Desadeski: Thank you, no, I do not support the work of imperialist stooges.
General: Oh, only commie stooges, huh?
Goop and Homeopathy (Score:2)
If QAnon is OK, what about Antifa? (Score:2)
Here's a hypothetical for all you libertarians out there. Suppose radical anti-capitalists say corporate ownership is unacceptable, and people should destroy capitalist physical infrastructure. Think of the Oklahoma federal building bombing by Timot
Re: (Score:3)
promoting violence
Does QAnon do that? I've never bothered to hunt down and read their musings but I always got the impression they talk rather than invite action.
But since I agree that promoting violence is bad, why is it that this is a reason to cancel QAnon yet multiple Antifa groups - that explicitly pursue political objectives through the use of violence - continue to raise money via Patreon.
Something isn't adding up here.
Re: (Score:2)
... I'm also curious about how libertarian political thinking approaches opinions that attack fundamental libertarian principles.
I am speaking as someone in the UK, with libertarian tendencies. I am generally dead against cancel culture, no platforming, and so on. I also like to explore radical ideas, such as preferring individual liberties and diversity of opinions over rule by mega-corporations and entrenched power elites. I guess that makes me some kind of anarchist. Parp! Parp! Loony alarm activated!
I hear about QAnon, but nothing obliges me to believe a word of what they are saying. So personally, I do not feel that QAnon are a
Trump's not gonna like this I bet (Score:2)
Re:cancel culture (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, there is a right-wing bias.
Which side is pushing hate?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Shit you're right. Sorry George. *picks up petrol can and matches*. Now that my head is clear of wrong-think can you point me to the nearest 5G tower and alleged pedophile pizza parlor?
Re: (Score:2)
did you just seriously say "wrong think" unironically? you're the thing george orwell tried to warn us about.
All of the words in the sentence above, excluding "unironically", appeared in 1984 by George Orwell. (of course, he capitalized his name, but I swear I'm not pedantic) Does this mean that you, @nopenopenopenope are the thing that he tried to warn us about? Or is it possible to use words appropriately when their use is called for?
Re: (Score:2)
And planning to kidnap and murder the governor of Michigan means you're a Patriot!
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure it makes you an anarchist. You should get out of your bubble so that you don't embarrass yourself with such ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whooosh
Re:cancel culture (Score:5, Insightful)
Show us a case where Patreon is allowing its users to encourage the destruction of property and physical assault. I doubt you can, as that is almost certainly a violation of their terms of service.
QAnon are not "right leaning people." They are dangerous, violent conspiracy theorists. And, given their fixation on child rape, almost certainly pedophiles themselves. All that "research" they do is just a cover to look at CP.
But it is funny that you freely admit this is all political. Explains who no right wing politician is ever implicated by Q. Because this is simply a rebranding of the far right "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" blood libel. It has nothing to do with pedophiles, and everything to do with smearing innocent politicians in order to sway elections.
But more importantly, QAnon are bad for the brand of this commercial service. If you want to create a site that allows donations to pedophiles and slanderers, go right ahead.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
More importantly, I have seen no signs of a
Re: cancel culture (Score:3, Informative)
The whole "secret international cabal" is a classic antisemitic trope going back centuries. And of course Hollywood has always been associated with Judaism, generally in a negative light. And as for no violence, QAnon grew out of the Pizzagate conspiracy, where a guy drove up to the pizza parlor with an AR-15 and fired off a few rounds.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Again, they support BLM (Score:5, Insightful)
There was violence and riots associated with BLM, but that doesn't mean BLM is a terrorist movement. The purpose of the movement is to eliminate the demonstrable race bias in the application of force by the police.
Many people (and companies) took a hard look at BLM and decided the purpose of the movement was to bring about a more just society. For people that want a more just society, supporting BLM made sense. And they are free to do just that.
Many people took a hard look at QAnon and judged the purpose of the movement was to fling excrement. For those who didn't like excrement being flung around, withholding their support made sense. And they are free to do so.
I value critical thinking. For what it is worth, I took a hard look at QAnon. I judged the purpose of the movement was to fling as much monkey poo as possible in all directions. If there are more right-leaning people than lefties who subscribe to QAnon, then the only interesting question left is "why".
Re: (Score:2)
There was violence and riots associated with BLM, but that doesn't mean BLM is a terrorist movement. The purpose of the movement is to eliminate the demonstrable race bias in the application of force by the police.
The issue here is that on a per-interaction basis the police kill more white people than black. So why aren't BLM demanding that WLM?
They're promoting a political position, not a statistically supportable one. They do riot, they do use arson, they do murder people. Use of violence against civilian populations to promote a political cause is violence.
Many people (and companies) took a hard look at BLM and decided the purpose of the movement was to bring about a more just society.
Bullshit. They're virtue signalling. They've decided that being seen to support BLM is more valuable than being objective.
For people that want a more just society, supporting BLM made sense.
Now that's just utter bollocks. How is
Re:Again, they support BLM (Score:4, Insightful)
It's strange how every group everywhere turns out to be Marxists. Marxism is a specific thing, it's not everything, and it's not a general use insult like the f-word.
I'm amused by the forced false equivalence between QAnon and BLM. Quite a stretch of reasoning there given how different these two groups are.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So BLM were trained at the Marxist training school, along with every other group that ever existed except QAnon. QAnon are bringing the true message of the evils of pizza, or whatever other brain-dead nonsense the use to convince the utter morons that follow them.
Have you consider that maybe black people don't like to be killed by police?
Re: (Score:2)
You said it. Your craziness. Not mine.
Re: (Score:2)
Because only a paid Chinese op would deny your fantasy about Marxists training every single group that ever existed, except QAnon?
You know the Chinese want Trump to win right? They know it would work out badly for them for 4 years, but would also reduce US standing in the world so Chinese would be in a winning position once those 4 years are over.
Re: (Score:2)
What part of "free market" was unclear to you?
Your crackpot conspiracies just aren't selling in the marketplace of ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They are banning total wackjobs that are violating their terms of service, it just happens that this pack of loonies happen to be rightwingers.
It's pretty simple, break the rules and get the boot.
Or are you against law & order?
Re: (Score:2)
What a surprise, they're banning right leaning people.
Wow, nobody despises the right like the right. They're banning a bunch a-holes. By claiming they're anti-right you are essentially claiming all of the right are a-holes.
Re: (Score:2)
What a surprise, they're banning right leaning people. Wake me up when they ban the people who are literally encouraging destruction of property and physical assault.
Ok. WAKE UP! They are banning qanon.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're equating QANON conspiracy theorists with right wing people?
Gee, thanks.
Re:cancel culture (Score:5, Informative)
This is no different.
Actually, it is different.
In general, businesses are allowed to discriminate against anyone they don't like.
But they are not allowed to discriminate based on legally protected classes. These include race, religion, national origin, sex, age, and disability.
Adhering to a kooky ideology is not protected. Unless it is a religion.
Re: (Score:3)
All kooky ideology's are cults, and cults are just religions we don't like. Qanon is a cult.
Like this is all down to nitpicky nonsense. Qanon stuff doesn't pass the sniff test for being trash. These things wouldn't even be printed in rumor tabloids, and only Fox News ever fishes in the trash for things to elevate to news.
Facebook and Twitter get a lot of flack for allowing right-wing fictitious content to proliferate because their algorithms go "hey you looked at this thing, wanna look at this thing on the
Re:cancel culture (Score:5, Insightful)
In general, businesses are allowed to discriminate against anyone they don't like.
But they are not allowed to discriminate based on legally protected classes. These include race, religion, national origin, sex, age, and disability.
Adhering to a kooky ideology is not protected. Unless it is a religion.
That's because most religions around the world have more to do with culture, ethnicity, race, national origin, etc. than with philosophy. The concept of picking a religion based on one's beliefs is only common in a few countries. Even in Europe, one's religion is mostly based on birth.
The idea that religious adherents should be protected by the government is also based on a common and recurring history of discrimination that has resulted in a massive level of death, poverty, and other abuses, a history with abuses that are still ongoing. Uighurs, Rohinga, Copts, to name a few, and the list will unfortunately continue. Even in the US, there are instances of people being killed solely based on their perceived religion. Who knows how much more frequent such atrocities would be without the government laws in place.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the Reformation which was a mass migration from christians to a slightly different interpretation of christianism and the tolerance edicts emerging after some bloody warfare were merely the recognition of this new political landscape then to protect ethnics or culture.
Re: (Score:2)
This is different.
Read the goddam binding contract you agreed to on those private social media platforms.
The only right you have is to leave.
Re:cancel culture (Score:5, Insightful)
The baker claimed they only refused to bake a special cake which would have been a work of art. You can't force someone to produce a work of art as that is forced speech and goes against freedom of speech, this was not new or controversial. The couple claimed that they were denied service while being a protected class, the baker agreed with this part only for the special cake but didn't agree with having denied any service (such as a ready made standard cake). The couple couldn't show that they had been denied the non work of art cakes and lost.
Re: (Score:3)
And that is how it should be. Of course, the baker needs to sell regular goods to everybody. But it is quite clear that they can morally refuse custom orders that express views they do not agree with and the same should be true legally. Custom orders are also different in that they involve negotiation and limits on what can be done. For example, a business can refuse a custom order if they do not have capacity or if they are not confident they can deliver the quality needed. Bottom line is that for a custom
Re: (Score:2)
If it can be summarized as they can do what they like except for refusing to sell regular goods to a protected class when the reason is only why they are in a protected class then I agree (I think that's what you're saying, but in a roundabout way).
Re: (Score:2)
Essentially, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
You're absolutely right! China has come up with an excellent system....perhaps we can ask them to help implement it here in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Joe can put Hunter on it.
Re: (Score:2)
That kind of nepotism is more Trump's behavior. Not Republican, just Trump specifically.
Re: (Score:2)
"This should be more organized. I suggest the government make a law that nobody is allowed to put any content on the Internet or receive money until they've been determined Trustworthy and Safe through a background check and then through constant pervasive surveillance of their behavior; then they can be issued a provisional Internet Permit until they've established a sufficiently Trust and Safety score."
So who died and made these people "Trustworthy"? And who are they, and why should I "trust" them
Correction: Free speech, my ass (Score:2)
Should've spell-checked the subject line too. XD
Re:Feee speechy ass (Score:5, Insightful)
They have free speech. What is denied them here is free amplification and that is an entirely different thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for saying that.
I keep on correcting Realtors in my industry about
free speech and being part of a membership.
Re: (Score:2)
You are very welcome.
Re: (Score:2)
But either you have free speech, or you don't.
These are privately-held, non-governmental entities enforcing their terms of service.
It's 100% legal and has nothing to do with "freedom of speech".
Re: (Score:2)
As others also mention, free speech and censorship don't only apply to the gov't.
Self-censorship does exist.
The first amendment may only apply to them but not free speech in general.
Re: (Score:2)
They accepted the terms-of-service at account creation. They violated it. This is TOS enforcement.
Re: (Score:2)
They accepted the terms-of-service at account creation. They violated it. This is TOS enforcement.
Exactly. I'm always surprised at how many people don't understand this.
Whether or not it's "fair" is irrelevant. Those are the rules, find another platform if you can't behave yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
I concur. That doesn't however preclude a discussion regarding claims made by others and the extent to which they can be supported by evidence.
Banning someone because you don't like their claims does.
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to physical ownership it's been determined in the case of company towns that freedom of speech can outweigh property holders rights (Marsh v. Alabama). This has later been tried if it can be extended to distribution channels and it cannot as it was deemed that they didn't exercise “powers traditionally exclusive to the state." (Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck). Back to your original question, it is a long held principle that freedom of speech includes the freedom from forced
Re: (Score:2)
Marsh v. Alabama :
the biggest clarity or problem ( perspective ) with that ruling is that it's a company town, all the land is owned by 1 group.
That would bring into play a few issues and the first mistake was : Company town did not issue passes to visitors from other towns.
Meaning from my perspective, "it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's most likely a duck"
In real estate, we have easement's, some are created by people walking the same route daily and no blockage over a certain time period other
Re: (Score:2)
(you cannot jump on stage at a Taylor Swift concert simply because you really want millions of people to listen to your singing instead of hers).
Kanye would like to have a word with you.
If you control the venue, though, and you allow other people to spout outright lies about me that hurts my business, am I allowed to seek remuneration for the damage you allowed to happen?
Re: (Score:2)
Social media platforms do not possess the same exclusivity as a company town square or public access TV channel. Imagine the "company town square" case took place in an alternate reality where Star Trek transporters existed, and anyone can visit public land outside of corporate control, instantly and at no cost. Would the case still have been decided the same way?
Similarly, in the Community Access Corp. case, what if the plaintiff had the ability to broadcast their own channel and it magically could be tuned in by all the same people who had access to the public access channel?
The situations I've described above are fiction, but the ability to create your own site on the internet is not. Social media has no exclusivity over their town square, and you have no intrinsic right to access someone else's audience (you cannot jump on stage at a Taylor Swift concert simply because you really want millions of people to listen to your singing instead of hers).
Which is what I said, the bar you have to pass in order to claim a place on someones platform be it social media or town square is to show that they exercise “powers traditionally exclusive to the state." as determined in (Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck). Social media companies doesn't do that.
Re: (Score:2)
So is what yer spouting "dumb bullshit," or "advanced thought?"
Considering all the idiotic typos, I'm leaning towards, dumb bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
But either you have free speech, or you don't.
What an ignorant distillation of a complex topic. Here's a litmus test for you:
I want to put up a sign that says "I support nazzis killing jews" on your front lawn (misspelt because Slashdot is fighting against Godwin's law). What are you going to do:
a) support my free speech to say what I want where I want it (as you are doing now).
b) support your own free speech which includes the right to associate with what you believe in.
Why are you advocating we reduce Patreon's free speech rights in the name of free
Re: (Score:2)
The freedom is the freedom to say it without persecution.
If you can't be heard, come up with a sneakier way to get your message out. Disguise it as something else. Or build your own soapbox.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes there is such a thing as a deep state.
It's more traditional and less provocative to just call it "bureaucracy."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting misrepresentation of reality there.
Although now you mention it, I do see a lot of unsupported claims that Trump is a paedophile, and certainly there's a lot of violence on the streets from people that are voting against him.
Meanwhile the Republican party policies do indeed support treating women, black people and everybody else equally.
Maybe you're onto something here.