I don't agree with his choice of words, and I think its kinda weird that he chose to express himself the way he did when there was a much easier way to go about making the same remark, but that said, it's simply amoral to try and cutoff someone's living and censor them just because the way they said something wasn't to your liking (to be clear I'm not talking about you in particular, but just people in general who think what patreon did was ok).
Actually Patreon rules had explicitly said they will only kick you off if you violate the rules on their website, so technically Sargon was not even breaking their rules.
The primary distinction between your example and what happened was Sargon was using the phrase in a context that made sense because he was talking to white supremacist, and turning the word against them. There is no such corresponding context for any tech talk.
Certainly Patreon has no obligation to keep anyone. I also don't have an obligation to like how they choose to moderate their platform.
According to what I've heard, those clear rules state that they apply to what is said as part of work that is funded by Patreon. This could be misinformation, though, and I'd be happy if someone corrects it here.
With that in mind, he made the remarks in question during a conversation that took place on somebody else's YouTube channel. It sounds like Patreon presumes that the guy's patronized work includes all public appearances. This seems like a stretch, or at least an ambiguity worth sorting out.
I'm not sure why people expect platforms that have ToS to be robotic about them. Companies are run by people. People get uncomfortable when you become known for spraying around racial epithets, and some are not going to want to work with you.
If I'm using some vendor and find out that I really don't like what their public persona is doing, I'm going to reevaluate that relationship.
This is why lawyers have jobs. In a situation like this, the reasonable thing to do is ambiguous, and opinions are strongly split in half. If there's an objective standard, everybody can just point to that. It's not the most communitarian thing, but it's a way to bypass conflict and move on.
Now the particular reason half of the people are up in arms here is that it's stifling to know that you could lose your whole livelihood over a choice of words on (arguably?) your own time. On the other hand it's a choice of words that the other half the people deem beyond the pale in any context. It's a bit of a mess, and I'm not sure whether this will resolve itself on a useful standard that a lawyer can point to, much less what that standard might be.
> I'm not sure why people expect platforms that have ToS to be robotic about them.
Being fair, being open, being honest isn't being "robotic". Treating people like more than something to exploit and throw away is what I would consider "robotic". The constant "it's a private company, brain off", that's what is robotic.
> Companies are run by people. People get uncomfortable when you become known for spraying around racial epithets, and some are not going to want to work with you.
Yeah, people. Not necessarily adult people. Take this man, for example:
Do you honestly think you know or have anything he doesn't? Wouldn't you rather think it's the other way around?
If you stand aside as mobs try to kill free speech on the internet, you're banking on them winning, on there never being a time where, if you can't show clear proof that you resisted, nobody wanting to work with you. I doubt you would just say "fair enough". I don't think you'd consider that a humane society just because the majority might claim it is.
> If I'm using some vendor and find out that I really don't like what their public persona is doing, I'm going to reevaluate that relationship.
This isn't just a vendor. We're talking about companies that provide services that really, realistically, should be utilities. You shouldn't get your water turned off for calling obese people names, or your electricity turned off for saying Hitler was right. That's a stone age level regression that not just shows a level of moral bankruptcy on par or worse of the views that are "fought" by these mobs, it also says that these views cannot be fought other than by fighting the people that hold them, virtually or even physically.
It's undoing progress and re-introduces "might is right" as a valid ideal. That is all. If you use Patreon in 2019, you have a.) no alternatives, b.) no clue, and/or c.) double standards, and I for one will not be working with you. A bad standard is a bad standard, a person with double standards is quicksand.
There are no clear rules that apply to all, there's just very vague, wishy washy words that are applied differently in different cases, which is "subjective" and "case-by-case":
I don't really care about his choice of words, it's the hateful intent behind them that makes his views wrongthink for me. It's possible to use the n-word in a way that makes me think Patreon is overreacting but reading the context he's definitely beyond the pale in a way that goes far past verbiage.
