Any corporation that doesn't pull down The Sarkeesian Effect is being far more generous to the alt-right than the vast majority of corporations would be.
You really think The Sarkeesian Effect is alt-right?
This kind of misuse of labels suggests that either you are ignorant of the subject matter or you wish to smear your ideological opponents by associating them with a group that doesn't hold their values.
Which case are you referring to? Lauren Southern was literally attempting to block ships (thereby endangering life) so that goes beyond "speech" in my book.
True, but it shows that Patreon will make it a priority to refuse service to people they disagree with. If I were a creator in Patreon who in my spare time engaged in such activities, it's clear that Patreon is willing to ban my account. After all, it's easy to argue that the money coming in from my patrons is supporting my activities.
This is not good news for creators who are looking for a way to do something controversial, having been turned down by other providers like Youtube.
This is just false, they've made it a point not to block people they disagree with. This is a case of them blocking someone who was literally intentionally endangering the lives of people she disagreed with.
"If the politicians won't stop the boats, we'll stop the boats… and we'll be back with more boats..."
She was arrested by the Italian Coastguard for attempting to block a boat, she wasn't just reporting that someone else was doing it. She was clearly participating.
I apologize, I wasn't aware of that quote by her until you posted it, as I only watched her explanation. She definitely steps out of the lines of "reporter" when she said that.
However, my question still stands: what law or policy did Lauren break?
Using her boat to physically block a ship from leaving the harbor and firing flares in that direction. That is definitely illegal.
The ship had no cargo at the time, but even if it was carrying tons of heroin and literal slaves, trying to block a large ship at night with a small boat is dangerous vigelantee behavior at best.
And it's most definitely illegal. Call the coast guard if you think something illegal is going on. The minute you start forcing ships to maneuver around you at night, your risking the lives on that ship and any ships they might hit trying to avoid you.
The rediculous part is that she was there to supposedly stop "human trafficking", but her and her boatmates were chanting "no illegal immigration" the entire time.
No one except these far right groups think that NGOs are working with smugglers to get people into Europe. And the far right groups don't care about it either as evidenced by what they were chanting and what they say on their website. They've just latched onto something they think they can use to justify their anti illegal immigrant stance.
There's no evidence of it. It's like an Italian renting a car and pulling out in front of trucks headed into the US because she says she thinks they might underage prostitutes in them.
It's not your job to enforce a foreign country's immigration policies, and it's definitely illegal to try to do it by endangering yourself and the crew of another ship.
The even more rediculous part is that the group she was working with has actually been accused of human trafficking after several of the crew of their ship requested asylum and said they paid to access the boat.
You're seriously arguing about the legality of using your boat to attempt to block a ship from leaving a harbor? I'm going to leave it to you to find the law the coast guard believed the violated when they arrested them. I don't speak Italian, so you have at it.
>Wrong. The Chief Prosecutor of Catania, Sicily thinks so:
And he's a far right politician who has zero evidence.
After he made that statement, the Italian Justice Minister asked him to open an investigation if he had any evidence, but he refused and stated it was merely a hypothesis and he had no actual evidence.
There's nothing but looney toons conspiracy theories to support this stuff about George Soros working with ISIS to smuggle in terrorists, it's complete nonsense.
I get it, you want to keep Europe white. Defend Europe wants to keep Europe white. Far right news sites and bloggers wants to keep Europe white.
You can say that without resorting to conspiracy theories, and trying to co-opt the international outrage against sex trafficking.
I get why you do it, out right saying that you want a white civilization isn't palatable to most people. But wrapping it up in language about "Western Civilization" and stopping human trafficking is so transparent that it's not worth the effort.
And if you do want to keep migrants out of Italy for whatever reason, the correct way to do it isn't by pulling your boat in front of a ship at night and firing flares at it.
So in other words, corporations should be able to prevent any monetary transaction if they assume you're spending money on something they don't approve of? The only option is cash through the mail?
Where did they say they wanted to block ships ? All I've seen is that they wanted to film & document the ONG's activities, to see if they are not engaging in human trafficking.
See https://youtu.be/YmcK6GvgVPs?t=3m27s, Patreon's presentation of evidence that they were blocking ships, and that Southern was actively involved. Note that this evidence is video that Southern herself published before she realized that these actions would endanger her own income stream, rather than just people in the ocean.
Lauren Southern. She was banned after throwing flares and attempting to block a ship (with no refugees on board) from leaving port to pick up refugees who she believes are being trafficked into Italy with the government's assistance.
She was arrested for participation in this act of protest and then Patreon made the claim that her activities could have caused loss of life (which is ridiculous).
The alt-right is not "middle-of-the-road conservative". The alt-right is literal-not-figurative fascism with memes and, occasionally, good dress sense. If you consider white supremacists (oh, sorry, white nationalists (oh, sorry, ethno-nationalists)) to be "middle of the road conservatives," there is a profoundly deeper problem in your calculus.
I didn't say that they are middle-of-the-road conservative. The alt-right is a meaningless catch all that currently means "conservatives or nationalists with strong opinions who I disagree with". For reference, I don't belong to the alt right, and I am economically conservative, socially moderately liberal.
What makes you think that Lauren Southern is a white supremacist?
Do you think that someone should be allowed to try to impede human trafficking operations?
Do you think that in the absence of these NGO ships going out to sea that so many people would be drowning on rafts in the middle of the ocean?
Because if Lauren is right, then you are suggesting that incentivizing a life-endangering risk for the purposes of being taken in to human trafficking is an ethical action.
Most likely the association goes alt-right->white nationalism->fascism.
The most common refutation is that the alt-right is not a white nationalist movement, but that is entirely beside the point. The alt-right is absolutely a nationalist and isolationist movement. It was also certainly started by white nationalists and white supremacists, and those two groups are still fully present and influential in the greater movement.
Nationalism, race-cleansing and isolationism are not necessarily fascism although they are intimately related. There are a great number of fascists in the movement, including many who call themselves libertarians, but there are also a lot of people who are anti-authoritarian. Actual, literal fascists believe the government may take ultimate control of the economy and people to accomplish the goals of the nation, particularly in times of "emergency", which most of them believe this is. They do not believe in democracy under any circumstances, only in an umbrella of direct dictatorial control.
So, taking that all together, does the alt-right overall meet the definition of fascism? Yeah, I think so. The alt-right's mandate is to prevent jobs from leaving the country, end international trade (mercantilism, in fact), and to bar immigrants. They're a little wishy-washy on foreign intervention and have strong opinions both ways. They want these goals to be accomplished through direct action by the president- convincing or ordering corporations to hire inside the country, and ordering an end to imports. They want to ban immigration for the safety of the country and many want to additionally protect cultural homogeneity. Trumps cabinet very much recalls Mousollini's corporatism, with energy company reps in charge of the EPA and secretary of state.
Trumps whole thing is a lone wolf against the rest of the government, trying to take control and convert it to what it should be. That applies to the government, economy, and society. His alt-right supporters support that in one or more categories. To the alt-right, Trump is the only one who can restore jobs where they should be, restore the people to who they should be, and fix how people act and the expectations they have of each other. That's pretty textbook fascism.
There's a lot of confusion out there due to a relatively brief appropriation of the term "alt-right" by a political tendency that is now more commonly termed "alt-lite".
The dividing line that's emerged is "civic nationalism" (alt-lite) vs "ethnic nationalism" (alt-right)
ie: anybody can be an American provided they adopt the right values and behave as an American, vs only white people can be American and everybody who is not white (+ jews) needs to be made to leave.
Needless to say, the latter tendency is especially packed with literally textbook fascism.
Probably true. So we fight them. It stinks and it sucks, but it's on all of us to do so to the best of our ability and those of us who were dealt a more fortunate set of life's lottery balls (and I say this as an affluent, straight, white, cis American) have a duty to use our good fortune to help others.
> She was arrested for participation in this act of protest and then Patreon made the claim that her activities could have caused loss of life (which is ridiculous).
You don't get to go into other countries, break their laws, and expect private corporations to back you to the hilt. They are under no obligation to put themselves at risk for your beliefs.
That isn't a reasonable expectation by any stretch of the imagination. Using the logic you are applying, you believe Patreon should be compelled to support the sales of "software" in the US even if its malware on the basis of free speech.
Patreon had no liability in this situation. Patreon doesn't support the sale of software, and software as speech is a much murkier area than... actual, literal speech.
This is effectively saying that investigative journalists shouldn't get too political in unpopular causes, lest they have their livelihood taken away from them. This is a suppression of free speech (not legally ofc) on a platform that syndicates political news and opinions.
“it appears that you are currently raising funds in order to take part in activities that are likely to cause loss of life."
This is taking a political stance; anyone on either side of rescue missions for refugees is funding something that is likely to cause loss of life. One is just politically en vogue.
> This is effectively saying that investigative journalists shouldn't get too political in unpopular causes, lest they have their livelihood taken away from them. This is a suppression of free speech (not legally ofc) on a platform that syndicates political news and opinions.
1) You are arguing now that journalists should have legal immunity.
> Patreon had no liability in this situation. Patreon doesn't support the sale of software, and software as speech is a much murkier area than... actual, literal speech.
2) She was taking actions that physically prevented other people from taking actions. That isn't literal speech and is much further from speech than software is.
> This is taking a political stance; anyone on either side of rescue missions for refugees is funding something that is likely to cause loss of life. One is just politically en vogue.
3) No. This is you attempting to frame outrageous criminal acts as "politics".
1)
There is a difference between legal immunity and the ability to raise funds -- for which she was banned according to the letter.
2)
Her reason for banning, according to the company's letter was fundraising. That is certainly a type of speech.
3)
Ships in the water circling to pick up people certainly makes them take riskier actions, or pushes the risk threshold low enough that people are willing to try.
I personally think that an open border solution would be much better for everyone. I also think that international law is valuable, and painting this situation in which these people are actually being transported by trafficking rings for at least some portion of their trip is not as black and white as you portray it. I'm personally against a modern day work and sex slave pipeline from Africa to Europe, and there is a non-negligible chance that that's what is happening here.
> Her reason for banning, according to the company's letter was fundraising. That is certainly a type of speech.
Fundraising to support a non-speech activity is not purely speech. e.g., if the activity is criminal, fundraising to support it is also criminal in virtually every jurisdiction on the planet, including those with the strongest free speech protections.
This is not necessarily true. I believe in the US, fundraising would make you an accessory, just as encouraging someone's criminal action where they have clear intent to commit a crime would be.
Fundraising for legal actions is certainly speech, and the effort Southern was supporting was in accordance with international law.
> This is not necessarily true. I believe in the US, fundraising would make you an accessory, just as encouraging someone's criminal action where they have clear intent to commit a crime would be.
And now you understand why they booted Lauren Southern. Money is fungible and she fund raised for an activity that was legally dubious.
It's not legally dubious. Fundraising money with an explicitly legal purpose is legal. The potential for misuse at some future date does not an accessory make
> It's not legally dubious. Fundraising money with an explicitly legal purpose is legal. The potential for misuse at some future date does not an accessory make
The purpose with patreon being to fund her "journalistic activities" which included the legally dubious action.
It's... not saying that at all. There is a difference between speech and action. There is a difference between risking your own life for a cause and endangering a political opponent's life for your cause.
Who are her political opponents? The migrants? Their lives are being endangered now, once by governments (who have pulled out of S&R missions) and now by NGOs, and they are very likely being trafficked into Italy. People do not realize that the Camorra and Cosa Nostra are actual things, and that the Italian Mafia is not a joke.
You seem to think, completely without any substantiation, that Lauren Southern is disingenuous when she thinks that people are drowning on styrofoam rafts and being trafficked. You can think that you should have strict immigration laws and still care about people drowning in the ocean.
As far as I can see, she's a politically active woman in her mid 20s who has some unpopular political opinions that is being decried as a murderer for having a different assessment of the situation.
Maybe I see this through a different lense because I sail, but carelessness like this on the water, especially at night, bothers me. To me this is like prank calling 911 and calling it "civil disobedience" -- something I would equally hope Patreon wouldn't support. The politics are not what sways me here, and I would agree that they should not be a factor.
Journalistic ethics prohibit journalists from taking action for one side or another. Investigative journalists should investigate political causes, and even specifically pursue ones they believe in; but their protection as journalists relies on them being observers and not actors.
For this to be the case, they would have to be applying the principle to everyone equally, which they apparently don't.
This has given pause to some people -- for example, Sam Harris, one of the top artists on Patreon, is evacuating the service (even though this is likely to cost him a fair bit of money) to avoid the future potential to be financially pressured over ideology.
Patreon's pretty down-the-line: don't advocate that people break the law and don't harass people. They've thrown antifa off their site. They throw alt-right shitheads off their site.
We've met a couple times, Jon, and I've heard you speak; despite your public persona being prickly, I kind of got the feeling you were wiser than this.
The thing is, the reason they gave her for banning in the initial letter they sent her is actually consistent with international law -- she was raising funds to send out a search and rescue ship which returns refugees to Libya.
The reason they gave was fundraising for a ship that was blocking SAR ships taking refugees to Italy. They included footage of her actions blocking such a ship in the past, together with her actual fundraising appeal in which she referred to stopping boats.
Not sure if it's against international law when conducted in international waters, but that's definitely against Patreon's content policy of fundraising for activities that endanger human life.
This is why we need a diverse ecosystem of these types of services. Patreon getting involved in policing the politics (not legality) of their users is annoying but not unexpected these days. What Patreon does as a service is absolutely nothing special and can easily be (and has been) copied, they just have what I assume is the first-mover advantage right now.
Or better yet a decentralized protocol to easily contribute to people you support that cannot be censored. A stable asset is still needed for this to work and a mature ecosystem around it. Not ready for mainstream, but if you are being denied service, there is always crypto currency.
The most worrying part is tech industry buying news media. Steve Jobs wife bought The Atlantic. Bezos bought the washingtonpost. As the news properties become cheaper and the money floods the tech industry, I'm sure they'll snap up some more.
We really need a more diversity media landscape. It's entirely liberal with pockets of conservatism. We need less liberal, more conservative and much more moderate media.
It's unhealthy for the media to be heavily skewed to one or the other side.
Not only that, we need this is academia and corporations and the banking sector. More diversity. More competing thoughts/ideas.
Better have the The Verge write a puff piece on them.