It does matter *when* the act occurred, because if you really want to get into territory of anything potentially influencing the vote, no matter how minor, before or after declared candidacy, major or minor poll... I demand the immediate arrest of Russel Brand for conducting foreign interference of our elections in 2008.
Celebrity endorsements influence elections... right? Well he asked Americans to vote for Obama (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAhpZFqpK74), and they did. Worse, it was foreigner doing so. Eeeek!
I know it's warm and cuddly having your anti-Trump goggles on. Screaming Orange Man Bad! all of the time. When you take them off though and look at things a good bit more level headed, you see things aren't as horrible as you see, and the kind of 'crimes' you alleged are either not crimes, didn't happen, or have occurred in other forms for years.
Am I condoning poll rigging? No, I just recognize it's nothing new.
Since the Foundation was used as a personal Trump check book for both private and election activities, there are likely a litany of laws broken.
Possibly, though you note I was speaking related to campaign funds. Can we stay on topic please?
There's several ongoing investigations so we're only beginning to scratch the surface of this shit storm
There are, and they relate to this particular matter... how?
I recall Bill Clinton having many investigations against him while in the Whitehouse... how did that turn out again?
In other news today Giuliani now claims - contrary to 18 months of loudmouthing - "I never said there was no collusion".. And they called Kerry "flip-flop/flip-flop". Giuliani must be running for cover or he's just insane, I wouldn't rule out either.
What does that have to do with the topic at hand? I have a guess... but I won't spoil it yet.
The realty is the Mueller investigation alone has thus far resulted in 36+ indictments, guilty pleas (9) and people in Jail (4). Incoming House Intelligence chair Adam Schiff will be handing over tons of documents to Meuller (where and Nunes woundn't) and will likely implicate Don Trump Jr. in lying before the House Intelligence committee. I'm going to invest my money in popcorn for this one.
Again... you seem to be moving the goal posts from campaign finance laws.
Trumpkins continually cry "What laws were broken?"....
Except... I'm not a Trump fan, I do however believe in due process for all.
Campaign finance laws, fraud (Trump U), IRS rules (Tim Tebow helmit), election laws by emailing foreign officials to solicit political contributions, illegally using a superpac, trade laws to Cuba, copywrite infringement....and a long yet to be determined list... Sorry Trumpkins, the OompaLoompa king will ultimately go down painfully.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is real. Get help, please.
I was even less a fan of Obama than I am of Trump, but I didn't spend so much energy collecting and regurgitating so many yet to be proven conspiracy theories.
A second similar effort related to rig a Drudge Report poll of potential Republican candidates worked, according to the Journal. Trump placed fifth in that poll, conducted in February 2015, before he announced his candidacy for the White House.
Most don't notice, but few candidates jump in as an officially declared candidate, instead they 'form a committee to explore the option of running' (or some such similar nonsense.
Kirsten Gillibrand could engage in the exact same kind of poll rigging today, and use her exploratory committee funds to do it legally... because she's not an actual declared candidate.
I'm sorry that you are unable to process basic statements of fact, or answer questions which reveal the origins of the 'gerrymandering' you claim exists in the senate, as well as who was responsible for it and why.
Words have meaning, you perhaps should learn them, as they are part of the whole 'rules' thing you lament my mentioning.
I acknowledge and accept your admission of defeat.
Well said, finally someone with some understanding of the system and why it is as it is.
My one disagreement with you... is that dark back rooms can always be virtualized and done over similar distance communication methods.
Sure, it could be mandated that they use mediums which record and log for the public record... little stops them from throwing Signal or WhatsApp on a personal phone and still acting nefariously.
Plus, when has congress ever voted to limit their own power?
Why then did the progressives opt to game the vote back when they pushed for and ratified the 17th amendment?
They are the ones who brought the popular vote into play for the senate?
Granted, you can make a similar argument about the size of the house of representatives (which hasn't changed much, also since the progressive era) given district populations can vary between at large states and within a particular state.
But again, you seem to be on the side of those who wish to change the meaning of words to suit your own needs, rather than respecting the rules as they are, and trying to change them through legit means, rather than bellyaching when they don't go your way.
Look, you asked how the Senate could have a Republican majority without sub-state level gerrymandering.
No... I was asking how exactly gerrymandering was responsible for a Republican majority. That is a different thing.
When I showed you the math,
You showed one set of math. Did you know in baseball... it's not the team with the most runs who necessarily win the world series? In football, it's not the team with the most rushing yard or passing yards who win games? It's as if... there are rules to each, which you are quick to ignore.
you flipped into the standard "There's only States! No US population!" mode.
Except that's where I started, and having read and understand the history of the constitution...
Well, why did you ask your goddamned question if you already knew the answer?
The answer was quite clear. Shame you opted to join those who like changing the meaning of words and whining about results when they don't go your way.
For note: I didn't vote for Trump, I'm not a fan, I'm just mature enough to recognize that we will survive 8 years of Trump, the same way we did 8 years of Obama (and that one moved the overton window so far that the other was inevitable).
However you try to spin it, you cannot deny the simple fact that the party in control of the Senate represents the will of a not-even-close minority of US voters.
Again, that's not what the senate is about. Perhaps in addition to reading the Constitution, you should add the federalist & anti-federalist papers to the mix. When the progressives ratified the 17th amendment, they could have changed this, they could have even abolished the senate and had a unicameral legislator to better represent the will of the voters (similar to what Nebraska eventually did).
Except they didn't, even they seemed to recognized the value of the speed bump effect of the senate.
Would you prefer the old method... where states were left to appoint senators, in rare cased by popular votes, but more commonly by decisions of the state legislators... whose districts could be gerrymandered?
Thats right... despite your claims, the Senate is actually less gerrymanderable today than... 120 years ago.
That outcome is indistinguishable from gerrymandering, intentional or not.
Except words, have meaning, and you are trying to change the meaning of a word, which has a specific intent requirement, to apply to a natural result of unintentional acts (by some), and deliberate acts to do just the (opposite by others).
I'm sorry, I will not endorse your abuse of the english language.
Read it, plenty. Which part should I be referencing?
While on the subject of reading, you may want to have a look at a dictionary, because...
then you'd realize that the Senate has had gerrymandering baked into its definition since day one.
Strange definition you have invented, where the founding fathers, not to mention subsequent congressional bodies which admitted new states to the union later happened to modify the borders hundreds of years ago... just to screw the Democrats today.
It's amazing how they knew where major population centers would be, and how they would vote, eh?
The Republicans hold 53 seats after receiving 35 million votes, while the Democrats hold only 45 seats even though they got 53 million votes.
If you had the familiarity with constitution you claim, you would know the popular vote nationwide is worthless, deliberatly. The 17th amendment (a mistake in my mind) even points this out.
Such a shame that we all know the rules going in, but only the Democrats whine when things dont go their way.
Maybe next time Hillary will campaign in Wisconsin, or was it the Russians who convinced Jill Stein voters to vote for her in numbers larger than Hillary lost to Trump by?
It's so hard keeping up with the excuses when the rules are so old.
Last year I was in the midst of a job search, and putting up the "I'm actively looking for a job" flag on LinkedIn was plenty useful.
Granted in some ways it's like being a single girl on a dating site where you get inundated with interested parties, forcing you to wade through them and find the good ones.
I'm actually in my current job because of it, making it the first time I got a job not due to me reaching out first, but because of a company or it's agents doing so.
And do what? Create a resolution which will die in the Senate? Hell, the last time the Senate voted on a related resolution they were opposed to NN: https://www.congress.gov/bill/...
I'm just learning about this exploit now, so am going to have to do some reading... though wonder if this was done as a server optimization issue where the server doesn't have to do the work of "Can Player_A see Player_B?" based on building geometry, but instead simply distance.
Aside from that, I'm rather surprised that the traffic was so easy to sniff overall. Granted all of the traffic was UDP based... in [Current Year], is it too expensive to have some level of encryption on top of that (block based, not stream)?
My wife (who I got into Doctor Who years ago) has been the biggest pusher-back in the house. It takes quite a bit of effort to sit down and watch an episode, and then at the end it's her who complaints of how preachy it.
GDPR does require them to explain certain things and show what data they have.
That is what GDPR says, however enforcing that is another matter, doubly so on an American company.
Milo attempted a similar thing previously regarding Twitter to no success.
Okay, so you were just expressing general outrage at their shunning for thoughtcrime, fair enough.
No outrage, only pointing out the double standard many are employing and how it will bite them.
As for the public space argument, it could get very messy when other countries decide they want the same thing.
Yup, see previous statement on GDPR, or even the new Cloud Act passed in the US.
Also, the public space argument probably wouldn't help people like Sargon because their Twitter bans were for stuff that would get you ejected from privately owned public spaces too, i.e. not expressing a political opinion but harassment.
Again, you keep using the word 'harassment' and accepting it as applicable, seemingly never considering or being aware of the actual context.
What exactly was Sargon banned from Twitter for? I don't think we ever got an official explanation. Had he previously tweeted gay porn at members of the alt-right? Yup. Is that harassment? I don't think so, in fact it's probably a pretty good way to get people to leave you alone.
Officially, Milo was banned for targeted harassment of Leslie Jones, though again, was it?
Recall, she said (indirectly in response to an article he wrote about the movie):
Ok I have been called Apes, sent pics of their asses,even got a pic with semen on my face. I'm tryin to figure out what human means. I'm out
To which he replied:
If at first you don’t succeed (because your work is terrible), play the victim. EVERYONE GETS HATE MAIL FFS
To my eyes, that is not harassment, it is him sharing his opinion of her behavior and the film. Harsh, yes, though accurate. Do you think Ghostbusters 2016 tanked because of sexism? or because it was a legitimately bad movie?
She then replied:
@Nero you have been reported I hope the lock your Acct
To which he replied, in traditional grammar nazi fashion (or is that harassment now too?):
Barely literate. America needs better schools!
Funny thing, during that same period, Leslie Jones was explicitly calling for her followers to harass at least one person who said unkind things to her.
Again, one of them explicitly broke the Twitter rules, the other didn't and was banned.
In fact if it happened in real life someone would probably call the cops.
The cops might come, but that doesn't mean you are summarily banned, we've processes for that.
Okay, so what exactly did you mean by calling it "thought crime"?
I'm fine with the dictionary definition: "an instance of unorthodox or controversial thinking, considered as a criminal offense or as socially unacceptable."
That does seem to fit both what you've said Sargon & Milo did wrong.
We also saw the same mentality/outrage over Kevin Heart getting booted from the Oscars, or that Heisman trophy winner now being under attack. It'll be interesting to see who acts differently down the line as a result.
Lets just ignore the celebs who have used the same language, because they are sufficiently woke, so for now, the mob doesn't feel the urge to go after them.
And yes I see that you are complaining that Patreon didn't give you sufficient explanation of their actions.
Nor did they give sufficient explanation of their actions to the people the booted, nor those they are trying to convince to stay on the platform. Quite a few people have switched to SubscribeStar since.
One thing I should note: I've never used Patreon or SubscribeStar, not as a giver nor a receiver.
I mostly agree for services like Patreon that become people's livelihoods. There are employment issues. For stuff like Twitter not so much, all it would do is help trolls and their supporters would just keep arguing it anyway.
What if one's employment is related to social media? Recall the lawsuits over Trump blocking them on Twitter. Their claim was their job was made more difficult by not being able to easily read/reply to certain tweets.
Yes, one is President, the other is a private company. However these sites become the biggest public space ever known, even if privately owned. This also applies to the privately owned infrastructure/services which individuals/companies need to use in order to participate or access other systems.
Every time one of these private companies uses their lawful authority to ban people they disapprove of, the closer they are to the feds getting involved, doubly so when we see the simultaneous bootings of individuals/groups from multiple platforms near simultaneously.
At no time have I said both men are angels and should be free of criticism, I even pointed out:
Granted, they are free to change their terms, or enforce them as they see fit
Which is exactly what they are doing. At no time have I disputed their legal right to do what they did, I am pointing out that there exercise of that right has chilling effects going forward, and will likely end up with regulation on them and other providers.
But how do you preserve other people's freedom to criticise his statement
You mean the sort of thing Sargon was well known for related to different topics/people? Or is that/this harassment?
their freedom to disassociate themselves with him, and their freedom to hold the opinion that he is a bad person?
I've said they do not have that right, I am simply seeking honesty and transparency. Patreon has engaged in neither.
Again, Patreon's stated reason for kicking Milo off the platform was not because of his words from years ago which condoned relations between older and under age males. Had they said that, there would be less of an issue now. Had it been part of their terms and conditions, it would be something that all would know to be aware of and that one day they would declare people thought criminals for previous acts.
Here is the most disturbing thing about all of this: the people driving these de-platforming campaigns are effectively lynch mobs, seeking to punish people for thought crimes for which there is no absolution or forgiveness.
In the criminal justice world, we at least have accepted processes. If you are accused of a crime, an impartial judge/jury is tasked with determining guilt, the accused is has the right to competent counsel, and if convicted and they go to jail, there is a usually time limit to that, and upon release and having 'paid' ones debt to society, they are able to live their lives free of continued molestation by busybodies, outside of a few areas. Even then, we've the concept of a pardon.
Nothing like that exists with these lynch mobs, they determine on their own who is guilty and who should be targeted. You yourself have done so here, implicitly ignoring the unlawful calls for violence on the Chapo Trap House podcast, which also runs afoul of the Patreon rules.
Sargon used his Patreon money to go harass people. It's on video.
Except that's not why they said they kicked him off.
And 'harass' is a rather subjective thing. If someone flings poo over the wall and some is sent back at them... is it harassment? Or is it a difference of opinion and fact checking?
Not to mention all the other stuff he's said over the years, including multiple uses of the n word.
"Use" of the n word? Remind me... was he going around calling black people it? Or was he using it in a specific context?
Also... if use of the n word is verboten, should we now see if any black rappers using the site have ever uttered it?
Milo... Where to start?
Maybe with... facts?
Outing students against their will is certainly enough by itself.
Except he did no such thing. Ridiculing someone who is already out is a separate thing, which is what he did.
Not to mention that little incident that got him fired from basically everywhere.
Little incident... you mean words from months earlier coming to light? Once upon a time... we called what both of them did thought crimes.
Funny thing, also on a podcast/show that wasn't his own.
Again, we are talking terms of service on the site... and you've yet to establish how any of these activities, off the site do that.
They both brought it in themselves. They both flirted with getting banned as part of their act, playing the victim. They must have thought Patreon would never ban them after all these years.
You've so little awareness. Milo hadn't been on Patreon for years, he'd been on it for hours.
You can say Sargon flirted with getting banned for years, except according to their terms and conditions, as well as the public statements of their CEO... he did nothing wrong.
Granted, they are free to change their terms, or enforce them as they see fit.. however in doing so, they show their true colors and send others scrambling from the site not knowing if/when something they once said/did will get them banned, costing them a sizable portion of their income.
You lament me not giving specifics... then you make accusations without providing specifics?
Maybe? Exactly what else did he do which violated their terms? Don't forget that that 'final straw' you suggest, is separate from Patreon, and separate from any of his channels. Per both their current written terms, as well as the CEO's interview on the Rubin Report, specifically saying they only cared about what was on their site.
The second person is Milo. You can say he's a horrible person or whatever else, however Patreon confirmed that they banned him for his *previous* association with the Proud Boys.
The third is the 'Chapo Trap House' podcast. I am struggling to remember the name of the journalist who was #4.
I would expect such a law would require equal treatment under the 'policies' in place, as well as an abolishment of 'hate speech' rules.
Over the weekend we saw a prominent youtuber kicked off Patreon for having used a racial slur when mocking the alt-right, on a video from 10 months ago, that was on someone elses channel and was never posted to Patreon.
They week before they kicked someone off because of a *previous* association with a group which a third party has labeled a 'hate group'.
Conversely, they apparently had no problem with a popular left-leaning podcast telling viewers/listeners (rather emphatically) to kill themselves and those around them... which was posted to the site.
Up until recently a 'journalist' on the site was quite up front that they were not only seeking to start a (non political revolution, and mentioned the use of firearms to achieve it (since edited).
Like it or not, at some point many of these sites are going to be regulated under "privately owned public space" type laws, or perhaps even as utilities.
I'm not calling for it, it's just an obvious result of the degree of power these companies have over so much communication, and the arbitrary nature their policies are enforced.
Plenty of Ancient Alien's episodes on YouTube, which come from the History Channel (which is usually legit).
Where would they go? They seem popular enough to run for 13 seasons.
Those are just innocent conspiracy theories? Ever stop to think about the racism of them? Suggesting that PoC wouldn't have been able to build the pyramids and other ancient structures on their own... but only with the help of aliens was it possible.
I'd been slowly trickling about 300gb/month for a year to remote endpoint, even asking a former employer if I could use their bandwidth at night to trickle it up. They said no.
Fast forward a bit, got a new job at a better company, they scoffed at the idea of refusing such a simple thing... and they are ok with it during daylight hours. I've now ~5 tb sitting between two data backup providers... just in case my home burns down... along with one of them.
It's not 3 consecutive billing cycles. It's three billing cycles, period. They give you two 'courtesy months', after which they are gone.
But why believe me when I'm on Comcast and have data to support what I'm saying. Looking back over the last 10 (complete months), I only went over my cap twice:
Year Month Usage 2018/10 893 2018/9 1029 (oops, 5 gigs over, minus one courtesy month!) 2018/8 1003 2018/7 2089 (I knew I was going to go over on day 10, so went nuts on an offsite backup project... which cost me a courtesy month) 2018/6 1011 2018/5 942 2018/4 1003 2018/3 1021 2018/2 1021 2018/1 985
And a quick look at the bandwidth reporting page of theirs says a little red icon, next to which is the text: "You have used 2 of 2 courtesy months in which you can exceed your data usage plan without charge.", and clicking on the more info link has a popup which says: "Going forward, if you exceed your data usage plan you will be charged $10.00 for each 50GB of additional data provided, but charges will not exceed $200 each month, no matter how much you use. Or you can purchase our Unlimited Data option for $50 additional a month."
That does not sound like the wording or data of it requiring three consecutive billing cycles... because if it was, I'd be happy to be good 1 or 2 months out of three, going wild in a specific "backup all the things" month.
Slashdot Mirror
It does matter *when* the act occurred, because if you really want to get into territory of anything potentially influencing the vote, no matter how minor, before or after declared candidacy, major or minor poll... I demand the immediate arrest of Russel Brand for conducting foreign interference of our elections in 2008.
Celebrity endorsements influence elections... right? Well he asked Americans to vote for Obama (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAhpZFqpK74), and they did. Worse, it was foreigner doing so. Eeeek!
I know it's warm and cuddly having your anti-Trump goggles on. Screaming Orange Man Bad! all of the time. When you take them off though and look at things a good bit more level headed, you see things aren't as horrible as you see, and the kind of 'crimes' you alleged are either not crimes, didn't happen, or have occurred in other forms for years.
Am I condoning poll rigging? No, I just recognize it's nothing new.
Ahh more moving of the goal posts.
That order came what? 18 months after what I quoted above: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1...
Possibly, though you note I was speaking related to campaign funds. Can we stay on topic please?
There are, and they relate to this particular matter... how?
I recall Bill Clinton having many investigations against him while in the Whitehouse... how did that turn out again?
What does that have to do with the topic at hand? I have a guess... but I won't spoil it yet.
Again... you seem to be moving the goal posts from campaign finance laws.
Except... I'm not a Trump fan, I do however believe in due process for all.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is real. Get help, please.
I was even less a fan of Obama than I am of Trump, but I didn't spend so much energy collecting and regurgitating so many yet to be proven conspiracy theories.
Did it involve campaign funds?
The summary above references 2014. TFA mentions:
Most don't notice, but few candidates jump in as an officially declared candidate, instead they 'form a committee to explore the option of running' (or some such similar nonsense.
Kirsten Gillibrand could engage in the exact same kind of poll rigging today, and use her exploratory committee funds to do it legally... because she's not an actual declared candidate.
I'm sorry that you are unable to process basic statements of fact, or answer questions which reveal the origins of the 'gerrymandering' you claim exists in the senate, as well as who was responsible for it and why.
Words have meaning, you perhaps should learn them, as they are part of the whole 'rules' thing you lament my mentioning.
I acknowledge and accept your admission of defeat.
Well said, finally someone with some understanding of the system and why it is as it is.
My one disagreement with you... is that dark back rooms can always be virtualized and done over similar distance communication methods.
Sure, it could be mandated that they use mediums which record and log for the public record... little stops them from throwing Signal or WhatsApp on a personal phone and still acting nefariously.
Plus, when has congress ever voted to limit their own power?
Why then did the progressives opt to game the vote back when they pushed for and ratified the 17th amendment?
They are the ones who brought the popular vote into play for the senate?
Granted, you can make a similar argument about the size of the house of representatives (which hasn't changed much, also since the progressive era) given district populations can vary between at large states and within a particular state.
But again, you seem to be on the side of those who wish to change the meaning of words to suit your own needs, rather than respecting the rules as they are, and trying to change them through legit means, rather than bellyaching when they don't go your way.
No... I was asking how exactly gerrymandering was responsible for a Republican majority. That is a different thing.
You showed one set of math. Did you know in baseball... it's not the team with the most runs who necessarily win the world series? In football, it's not the team with the most rushing yard or passing yards who win games? It's as if... there are rules to each, which you are quick to ignore.
Except that's where I started, and having read and understand the history of the constitution...
The answer was quite clear. Shame you opted to join those who like changing the meaning of words and whining about results when they don't go your way.
For note: I didn't vote for Trump, I'm not a fan, I'm just mature enough to recognize that we will survive 8 years of Trump, the same way we did 8 years of Obama (and that one moved the overton window so far that the other was inevitable).
Again, that's not what the senate is about. Perhaps in addition to reading the Constitution, you should add the federalist & anti-federalist papers to the mix. When the progressives ratified the 17th amendment, they could have changed this, they could have even abolished the senate and had a unicameral legislator to better represent the will of the voters (similar to what Nebraska eventually did).
Except they didn't, even they seemed to recognized the value of the speed bump effect of the senate.
Would you prefer the old method... where states were left to appoint senators, in rare cased by popular votes, but more commonly by decisions of the state legislators... whose districts could be gerrymandered?
Thats right... despite your claims, the Senate is actually less gerrymanderable today than... 120 years ago.
Except words, have meaning, and you are trying to change the meaning of a word, which has a specific intent requirement, to apply to a natural result of unintentional acts (by some), and deliberate acts to do just the (opposite by others).
I'm sorry, I will not endorse your abuse of the english language.
Read it, plenty. Which part should I be referencing?
While on the subject of reading, you may want to have a look at a dictionary, because...
Strange definition you have invented, where the founding fathers, not to mention subsequent congressional bodies which admitted new states to the union later happened to modify the borders hundreds of years ago... just to screw the Democrats today.
It's amazing how they knew where major population centers would be, and how they would vote, eh?
If you had the familiarity with constitution you claim, you would know the popular vote nationwide is worthless, deliberatly. The 17th amendment (a mistake in my mind) even points this out.
Such a shame that we all know the rules going in, but only the Democrats whine when things dont go their way.
Maybe next time Hillary will campaign in Wisconsin, or was it the Russians who convinced Jill Stein voters to vote for her in numbers larger than Hillary lost to Trump by?
It's so hard keeping up with the excuses when the rules are so old.
How exactly does this mythical gerrymandering affect Senate results... when they are based on state-wide votes?
Most recently in 2018, we saw the Democrats win the body would could be gerrymandered, and lose ground in the one which cannot.
Are you suggesting *gasp* Democrats gerrymandered themselves into power in 2019?
Except I'd argue it is.
Last year I was in the midst of a job search, and putting up the "I'm actively looking for a job" flag on LinkedIn was plenty useful.
Granted in some ways it's like being a single girl on a dating site where you get inundated with interested parties, forcing you to wade through them and find the good ones.
I'm actually in my current job because of it, making it the first time I got a job not due to me reaching out first, but because of a company or it's agents doing so.
And do what? Create a resolution which will die in the Senate? Hell, the last time the Senate voted on a related resolution they were opposed to NN: https://www.congress.gov/bill/...
I'm just learning about this exploit now, so am going to have to do some reading... though wonder if this was done as a server optimization issue where the server doesn't have to do the work of "Can Player_A see Player_B?" based on building geometry, but instead simply distance.
Aside from that, I'm rather surprised that the traffic was so easy to sniff overall. Granted all of the traffic was UDP based... in [Current Year], is it too expensive to have some level of encryption on top of that (block based, not stream)?
My wife (who I got into Doctor Who years ago) has been the biggest pusher-back in the house. It takes quite a bit of effort to sit down and watch an episode, and then at the end it's her who complaints of how preachy it.
That is what GDPR says, however enforcing that is another matter, doubly so on an American company.
Milo attempted a similar thing previously regarding Twitter to no success.
No outrage, only pointing out the double standard many are employing and how it will bite them.
Yup, see previous statement on GDPR, or even the new Cloud Act passed in the US.
Again, you keep using the word 'harassment' and accepting it as applicable, seemingly never considering or being aware of the actual context.
What exactly was Sargon banned from Twitter for? I don't think we ever got an official explanation. Had he previously tweeted gay porn at members of the alt-right? Yup. Is that harassment? I don't think so, in fact it's probably a pretty good way to get people to leave you alone.
Officially, Milo was banned for targeted harassment of Leslie Jones, though again, was it?
Recall, she said (indirectly in response to an article he wrote about the movie):
To which he replied:
To my eyes, that is not harassment, it is him sharing his opinion of her behavior and the film. Harsh, yes, though accurate. Do you think Ghostbusters 2016 tanked because of sexism? or because it was a legitimately bad movie?
She then replied:
To which he replied, in traditional grammar nazi fashion (or is that harassment now too?):
Funny thing, during that same period, Leslie Jones was explicitly calling for her followers to harass at least one person who said unkind things to her.
Again, one of them explicitly broke the Twitter rules, the other didn't and was banned.
The cops might come, but that doesn't mean you are summarily banned, we've processes for that.
I'm fine with the dictionary definition: "an instance of unorthodox or controversial thinking, considered as a criminal offense or as socially unacceptable."
That does seem to fit both what you've said Sargon & Milo did wrong.
We also saw the same mentality/outrage over Kevin Heart getting booted from the Oscars, or that Heisman trophy winner now being under attack. It'll be interesting to see who acts differently down the line as a result.
Lets just ignore the celebs who have used the same language, because they are sufficiently woke, so for now, the mob doesn't feel the urge to go after them.
Nor did they give sufficient explanation of their actions to the people the booted, nor those they are trying to convince to stay on the platform. Quite a few people have switched to SubscribeStar since.
One thing I should note: I've never used Patreon or SubscribeStar, not as a giver nor a receiver.
What if one's employment is related to social media? Recall the lawsuits over Trump blocking them on Twitter. Their claim was their job was made more difficult by not being able to easily read/reply to certain tweets.
Yes, one is President, the other is a private company. However these sites become the biggest public space ever known, even if privately owned. This also applies to the privately owned infrastructure/services which individuals/companies need to use in order to participate or access other systems.
Every time one of these private companies uses their lawful authority to ban people they disapprove of, the closer they are to the feds getting involved, doubly so when we see the simultaneous bootings of individuals/groups from multiple platforms near simultaneously.
At no time have I said both men are angels and should be free of criticism, I even pointed out:
Which is exactly what they are doing. At no time have I disputed their legal right to do what they did, I am pointing out that there exercise of that right has chilling effects going forward, and will likely end up with regulation on them and other providers.
You mean the sort of thing Sargon was well known for related to different topics/people? Or is that/this harassment?
I've said they do not have that right, I am simply seeking honesty and transparency. Patreon has engaged in neither.
Again, Patreon's stated reason for kicking Milo off the platform was not because of his words from years ago which condoned relations between older and under age males. Had they said that, there would be less of an issue now. Had it been part of their terms and conditions, it would be something that all would know to be aware of and that one day they would declare people thought criminals for previous acts.
Here is the most disturbing thing about all of this: the people driving these de-platforming campaigns are effectively lynch mobs, seeking to punish people for thought crimes for which there is no absolution or forgiveness.
In the criminal justice world, we at least have accepted processes. If you are accused of a crime, an impartial judge/jury is tasked with determining guilt, the accused is has the right to competent counsel, and if convicted and they go to jail, there is a usually time limit to that, and upon release and having 'paid' ones debt to society, they are able to live their lives free of continued molestation by busybodies, outside of a few areas. Even then, we've the concept of a pardon.
Nothing like that exists with these lynch mobs, they determine on their own who is guilty and who should be targeted. You yourself have done so here, implicitly ignoring the unlawful calls for violence on the Chapo Trap House podcast, which also runs afoul of the Patreon rules.
Except that's not why they said they kicked him off.
And 'harass' is a rather subjective thing. If someone flings poo over the wall and some is sent back at them... is it harassment? Or is it a difference of opinion and fact checking?
"Use" of the n word? Remind me... was he going around calling black people it? Or was he using it in a specific context?
Also... if use of the n word is verboten, should we now see if any black rappers using the site have ever uttered it?
Maybe with... facts?
Except he did no such thing. Ridiculing someone who is already out is a separate thing, which is what he did.
Little incident... you mean words from months earlier coming to light? Once upon a time... we called what both of them did thought crimes.
Funny thing, also on a podcast/show that wasn't his own.
Again, we are talking terms of service on the site... and you've yet to establish how any of these activities, off the site do that.
You've so little awareness. Milo hadn't been on Patreon for years, he'd been on it for hours.
You can say Sargon flirted with getting banned for years, except according to their terms and conditions, as well as the public statements of their CEO... he did nothing wrong.
Granted, they are free to change their terms, or enforce them as they see fit.. however in doing so, they show their true colors and send others scrambling from the site not knowing if/when something they once said/did will get them banned, costing them a sizable portion of their income.
What a wonderful world you wish to live in.
You lament me not giving specifics... then you make accusations without providing specifics?
Maybe? Exactly what else did he do which violated their terms? Don't forget that that 'final straw' you suggest, is separate from Patreon, and separate from any of his channels. Per both their current written terms, as well as the CEO's interview on the Rubin Report, specifically saying they only cared about what was on their site.
The second person is Milo. You can say he's a horrible person or whatever else, however Patreon confirmed that they banned him for his *previous* association with the Proud Boys.
The third is the 'Chapo Trap House' podcast. I am struggling to remember the name of the journalist who was #4.
I would expect such a law would require equal treatment under the 'policies' in place, as well as an abolishment of 'hate speech' rules.
Over the weekend we saw a prominent youtuber kicked off Patreon for having used a racial slur when mocking the alt-right, on a video from 10 months ago, that was on someone elses channel and was never posted to Patreon.
They week before they kicked someone off because of a *previous* association with a group which a third party has labeled a 'hate group'.
Conversely, they apparently had no problem with a popular left-leaning podcast telling viewers/listeners (rather emphatically) to kill themselves and those around them... which was posted to the site.
Up until recently a 'journalist' on the site was quite up front that they were not only seeking to start a (non political revolution, and mentioned the use of firearms to achieve it (since edited).
Yet.
Like it or not, at some point many of these sites are going to be regulated under "privately owned public space" type laws, or perhaps even as utilities.
I'm not calling for it, it's just an obvious result of the degree of power these companies have over so much communication, and the arbitrary nature their policies are enforced.
Plenty of Ancient Alien's episodes on YouTube, which come from the History Channel (which is usually legit).
Where would they go? They seem popular enough to run for 13 seasons.
Those are just innocent conspiracy theories? Ever stop to think about the racism of them? Suggesting that PoC wouldn't have been able to build the pyramids and other ancient structures on their own... but only with the help of aliens was it possible.
I'm pretty sure the passengers & crew of US Airways Flight 1549 would disagree.
Sounds great... if you have a wide enough pipe with which to receive.
I'd been slowly trickling about 300gb/month for a year to remote endpoint, even asking a former employer if I could use their bandwidth at night to trickle it up. They said no.
Fast forward a bit, got a new job at a better company, they scoffed at the idea of refusing such a simple thing... and they are ok with it during daylight hours. I've now ~5 tb sitting between two data backup providers... just in case my home burns down... along with one of them.
It's not 3 consecutive billing cycles. It's three billing cycles, period. They give you two 'courtesy months', after which they are gone.
But why believe me when I'm on Comcast and have data to support what I'm saying. Looking back over the last 10 (complete months), I only went over my cap twice:
Year Month Usage
2018/10 893
2018/9 1029 (oops, 5 gigs over, minus one courtesy month!)
2018/8 1003
2018/7 2089 (I knew I was going to go over on day 10, so went nuts on an offsite backup project... which cost me a courtesy month)
2018/6 1011
2018/5 942
2018/4 1003
2018/3 1021
2018/2 1021
2018/1 985
And a quick look at the bandwidth reporting page of theirs says a little red icon, next to which is the text: "You have used 2 of 2 courtesy months in which you can exceed your data usage plan without charge.", and clicking on the more info link has a popup which says: "Going forward, if you exceed your data usage plan you will be charged $10.00 for each 50GB of additional data provided, but charges will not exceed $200 each month, no matter how much you use. Or you can purchase our Unlimited Data option for $50 additional a month."
That does not sound like the wording or data of it requiring three consecutive billing cycles... because if it was, I'd be happy to be good 1 or 2 months out of three, going wild in a specific "backup all the things" month.