and then they can argue that a conduit, like an allegedly neutral platform, has no right banning people who didn't break any laws. much like a phone carrier can't drop my calls for saying I like unpopular person X Patreon isn't winning this one man. Shouldn't have gotten involved in politics. Businesses outside of the web understand this well.

They set the rules in their ToS and then when users tried to utilise their rights under that agreement, patreon changed the terms to try and stop them, that's bullshit, patreon clearly deserved to lose.

If the judge is already willing to point out that patreon changed their terms of service retroactively after being informed by 70 people they intend to go to arbitration, which patreon's terms of service requires, and has now ruled in favor of these 70 individuals in part because of this, you can bet your ass their status as a platform and what it means to be a conduit will be discussed at length in arbitration. Assuming they even get to arbitration because patreon might have to admit they can't afford it if they don't have cash. I doubt things will go well for them from there.

Considering the fact that there's now a standing federal level executive order to enforce platform neutrality in essence, what do you think could happen if the people tasked with this goal notice this little saga, start collecting evidence/info on patreon and then send it off to the FCC for consideration for enforcement...

I remember when gawker thought it'd be a good idea to make flippant remarks about theoretically publishing explicit images and video of child sexual abuse in front of a jury, look at gawker now, they did that to themselves, they could have settled and still actually exist afterwards.

The ones who fall hardest are almost always huge smartasses and showboating right before it happens. Patreon's been proud of their bias for years. It's probably going to bite them in the ass one day soon.

user:	idisagree
created:	July 30, 2020
karma:	24