Source
r/Bitcoin•
camraid

Paypal bans Patreon and Subscribestar users and they need guidance into Crypto, for freedoms sake.

There's a war going on the internet for journalists outside of the mainstream. They are being deplatformed censored and banned, it's not moral in the least, and needs to be addressed.

At very least, investigate this terrible phenomenon yourself, lend your advice to affected people and do whatever you can to stop this. They need uncensorable money, they need knowledge and help.

Words do not hurt people, even nasty ones.

Posted Dec 15, 2018, 8:53 AM UTC

82102
RageTester•

ban PayPal already!

24
sammyb67•

Paypal isn’t looking for any legit competition, crypto puts them out of business

16
NotFromReddit•

Do they have any existing competitors? If not, that could be a new gap in the market.

1
spektred•

Crypto does not put them out of business. PayPal is a payment processor and as such, they can use gateways (like coinbase) to provide instant liquidity.

If they innovate and change to accommodate crypto (as they have already begun to do) they won't be disrupted.

0
Sherlockcoin•

What? They've baned the entire Patreon and Subscribestar?

10
igadjeed•

No, Patreon banned a handful of hate speech proponents after complaints from the credit card companies or PayPal
Some of these people moved their donation collection to Subscribestar, and then PayPal "banned" Subscribestar

8†
ninja200k•

A lot of the people banned weren't hate speech proponents. First I don't agree with hate speech in general, but second the big people deplatformed were not spouting hate against anyone, they were just on the right.

42
SaltedSeaBass•

Hate speech isn't real. You've been duped.

36
austinaccount•

When you say stuff like this normal people know to discount you. Whether or not you believe hate speech should be legal doesn't negate the fact that it exists and private individuals and companies can choose not to support it.

5†
SaltedSeaBass•

I don't care whether anyone agrees with me or not. Truth isn't dependent on popularity. Hate speech is a term invented by central planners with the intent of invalidating freedom of speech by segmenting and outlawing certain parts of speech and selectively enforcing these laws to control the flow of information and silence any political opposition.

If your point is that saying: "I hate [insert person/ethnicity/political group]" is 'hate speech' because it includes the word hate then you are missing the point. We don't differentiate other speech by calling it "supportive speech", "critical speech" etc. because all speech is free. This is assuming you live in the US where the Constitution actually grants you that right.

37
subversive07•

I listen to one of the YouTubers patreon censored. Articulate and well thought-out counter arguments to the progressive dominance in culture and media is not a hate speech. Its an argument that is winning. Hence the resorting to censorship and deplatforming. It's all you can do when you are losing the narrative.

18
Lordtygon•

True and they accept the backlash that comes from it. Censorship is all forms but especially of right-wing shitposters like this is a pretty hot-button issue right now and they HAD to know this would cause controversy. If they did not...well...I too like the smell of bleach, but I do not think it is a good idea for them to sniff it this long.

2†
[deleted]•

[deleted]

2
Parti_zanu•

as a generalization, this one is as dumb as one can get

1†
ICantReadThis•

Today I learned that calling white supremacists the N word counts as hate speech now.

15
impfireball•

Yeah, you see it's apparently not okay to use the word that they use back at them. Because the word has to retain its power in the hands of white supremacists, for some reason...

1
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
Sherlockcoin•

No... you should use your knowledge do distinguish news from fake news.. here we are talking about regular people ... some of them even left leaning centrists... they just want people to be 100% left and don't question the establishment or else they are all gone...

1
[deleted]•

[removed]

1
AntiIntellectual•

t. bootlicker

0
impfireball•

Patreon is muscling out competitors. This is business as usual. IF you don't like big corporations you should be against patreon - this isn't even an issue of free speech. But if you also support free speech, then you should again be against it.

1
Sherlockcoin•

There is a lawyer working on this case ...

https://youtuberlaw.com/

We want the Federal Trade Commission to investigate Paypal and Stripe for wrongfully suppressing competition.

I wonder how long it takes... Still waiting to see the results... last update is from Feb

1
igadjeed•

they need knowledge

They can read all the same Web pages everybody else reads
Accepting Bitcoin donations is simple

Persuading their supporters to buy Bitcoin to donate - not so simple. No guidance can help this. Their donation income lives or dies by the number of supporters willing to adopt Bitcoin

5
NullFlex•

This is accurate

2
bloodywala•

There needs to be a wallet that can send 5 dollars a month in btc each month automatically like a patreon sub does. In conjuction with the tally website.

5
spektred•

I'm sure it will be on its way. Crypto development is still on-going.

1
MrRGnome•

You could just cron or windows task schedule your payments. There shouldn't be a mechanism for recurring pull-style payment requests.

0
Waswasz•

Whats new with paypal? Is this a new statement?

4
nodws•

WSJ demonizing bitcoin in 3,2,1

3
zomgitsduke•

I see nothing about patreon being banned.

2
georgehank2nd•

Dunning-Krugerrands are not the answer, but just more bullshit of a different color.

2
ElmerFudd57•

This is what you get when you start asking these tech companies to become the "fake news" police. People complained about Facebook letting these conspiracy theorists post nonsense. Now Apple is ready to take on the role of messiah. Patreon and PayPal are ready also but be careful what you wish for because the genie won't give you what you want but what they want for you. I'm ready to drop my PayPal account and I will never have a Patreon account unless I open one so that I can cancel it.

2
WeirdHovercraftredditor for 4 weeks•

!lntip 10

1
lntipbot•

Hi u/WeirdHovercraft, thanks for tipping u/camraid 10 satoshis!

^(More info) ^| ^(Balance) ^| [^(Deposit)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=lntipbot&subject=deposit&message=!deposit 10000) ^| [^(Withdraw)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=lntipbot&subject=withdraw&message=!withdraw put_invoice_here) ^| ^(Something wrong? Have a question?) ^(Send me a message)

1
billyhatcher312•

jesus i didnt know they did this shit its fucking pathetic paypal needs to go down cause theyre being stupid to people who want to use them

1
DefiantVerse•

Words do not hurt people, even nasty ones.

Sure they do.

0†
CrapCloud•

Hurt feelings are not the same as physical assault. It's not even close.

12
Parti_zanu•

this comment proves that you can be right and dumb in the same time

5
CrapCloud•

Only a snowflake would say such a thing.

-2†
daywreckerdiesel•

Physical assault is not the same thing as murder. It's not even close. Therefore, physical assault is not a problem.

5
CrapCloud•

Thanks for a perfect example of a straw man argument. I think you kids all want to live in a brave new world?

3
daywreckerdiesel•

Dear idiot: Analogies are not straw men.

4
drewcifer0•

Psychological distress can be so severe that it results in suicide. By your logic a paper cut would hurt more, but how bad would that paper cut have to be before you'd kill yourself to make the pain go away?

1†
CrapCloud•

Now what if that paper came from books that had ideas that I somehow took offense to, should I call the firemen to burn them?

3
drewcifer0•

Maybe take it up with the author? I didn't say anything about recourse anyway though. I merely pointed out that words can indeed hurt people and there are differing degrees of metal pain just like with physical pain.

-1
DefiantVerse•

Well if you're going to move the goal posts...

-1
CrapCloud•

Can you explain why you think I have moved the goal post?

2
xitthematrix•

"Move the goal posts" is just one of the new approved phrases that snowflakes use these days to virtue signal. See also: micro aggression, not okay, problematic, dog whistle, and ackshually.

5
Turil•

Only if you let them.

Words are just sounds. You are the one to decide that they have meaning. If they upset you, then it's you who are upsetting yourself with them.

12
daywreckerdiesel•

That sounds like a good argument for not giving a shit about someone getting deplatformed. Words are just sounds, who gives a fuck if some vile bigot can't make a bunch of noise in public using someone else's property?

If words are just sounds, then there is no need for free speech. If you believe in 'free speech', you clearly believe words are powerful.

4
Turil•

I think you might be responding to someone else here. Or you're really confused about what I've said.

Of course there is a need for everyone to be able to express themselves freely, no matter what those sensory outputs happen to be. One of the most basic needs for all organisms is freedom to output solids, liquids, gases, and energy. Energy includes all forms of electromagnetic waves (of which sound is one). Repress that freedom, and everyone suffers, in the long run, do to sickness, and the repercussions of that physical and mental illness.

Words are only powerful when you believe they are. The reader/listener give words their power, not the speaker.

3
daywreckerdiesel•

If words only have the power we as individual receivers give them, then free speech is not important.

3
CrapCloud•

So people should be free to speak as long as we agree with what they say? I don't think it's very nice to go around being a jerk but choosing and enforcing what words people can and cannot say is dangerous.

2
daywreckerdiesel•

Not at all. I'm saying private people and organizations should be able to decide who uses their property. Nobody's free speech is being violated, because everyone can go stand on a street corner and say whatever they want.

'Free speech' doesn't give you a right to come into my house and start screaming at me. I know, that's a 'dangerous' thought, but it's true.

2
Turil•

Having said that, we also need to realize that if you are hosting an event/venue, then you also need to be free to decide what you are showcasing there.

So... the solution to everyone being free to express themselves the way that suits their needs best, is to have a fully public venue, where you're free to come and go, to move around, and to be free to choose to watch/listen/read/hear whatever sorts of things you're most interested in, without extended interruptions. I see this as being the next internet, which will be more of what the original creators of the internet intended: a bottom up, fully decentralized free-form space where everyone has their own address. Websites are what we're each supposed to have, not forced to ask for permission to use large corporations' websites. We also need equal access to the internet, unconditionally. This means free websites for everyone who asks for one, and free internet service as well. (And free communication devices as well. At least minimal ones that allow for basic internet use.)

This also means that we need a better system for organizing our internet content, and making things more universal, so that we can easily find content we're looking for, and connect with those we're most interested in talking to (or listening to). A real web/network, where all the nodes have equal access, and anyone can offer and receive information with anyone else. And anyone can refuse an offer, as well, of course.

This decentralized sort of system protects everyone's freedom of expression, since no one else can censor you, while also allowing you to not have to hear/read/see whatever someone else is offering, beyond an initial notification, if you aren't ready to, or capable of, dealing with it usefully at that time (or ever).

1
DefiantVerse•

The meaning of words are socially decided upon, not individually. And to say that the pain of hurtful words is self-inflicted is idiotic.

2
Turil•

The meaning of words is up to you. There is no objective meaning. You choose to interpret things as being unpleasant, pleasant, or neutral, depending on the context that you imagine things being said in.

I can say "I love the way you're doing that." and you can take it to be a compliment, an insult, or just simple information. And this happens regardless of what actually mean. Your interpretation is all that matters to you. And how you decide to take it will affect your emotions.

(This is why sarcasm is something that many folks on the Autism end of the brain type range don't understand, for example.)

2
daywreckerdiesel•

If interpreting the meaning of words is subjective there is no need to protect free speech because it's indistinguishable from random sounds yelled into a void.

1
xmrdude•

Snowflakes aren't people.

6