Suggest all translation groups leave Patreon. Now before it's too late for you.

[Halo]

@BestBoy that's very interesting.
I'm still quite happy that a site that fucked over a bunch of artists is getting fucked over.

 

[BestBoy]

@doppler From my understanding, Section 230 protects "any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected." I don't know where you got your understanding of section 230, tbh. Now, your understanding of it may come true since a lot of US politicians are jockeying to completely dismantle section 230 making websites liable for the comments made on them. This would just lead to websites creating more stringent content rules in their TOS, which I assume most of the "free speech" crowd would hate.

As for this particular case, though, it doesn't really have anything to do with section 230. Benjamin and his fans filed tort interference claims saying Patreon interfered with the contracts between Benjamin and his fans when they banned him.

 

[blackyawgdom]

@doppler https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml

and https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200625/11032444780/author-section-230-chris-cox-says-all-critics-are-wrong-about-history-intent-230.shtml

 

[doppler]

@BestBoy The way section 230 is was written would not protect social media. The history of section 230, dates way back to the days of Compuserve. They were being sued for content they did not edit. Since they were editing other content, the suits were done because all content was not being "corrected". They argued they could not "in a timely manor" correct all content. They lobbied congress to be put under 230. Congress agreed to let Compuserve like services be protected by 230 as long as they did not editorialize. Want to edit or comment you could not be a platform. That went to wayside pretty fast.

Just saying: BTW, Qualified Immunity never was applied to police from day one. (like 230) It was for government employee's and departments. More lobbying police can now bash your head in if they "just think" it's justified. How many times have the police released a statement "We have investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong."

 

[BestBoy]

@doppler As the other user has stated, you're just plain wrong about section 230. The rulings in Cubby v. CompuServe and Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. are superseded by Section 230. You've also conflated the two cases. CompuServe wasn't editing content, and thus was not liable. Prodigy was editing content, and thus was found liable. Both of these occurred before Section 230 granted them immunity. So neither are relevant outside of their prompting Cox and Wyden to write up Section 230.

Seriously, read the links they provided. It'll clear up a lot of misconceptions about Section 230.

 

[bigtiddyoneesan]

@BestBoy

also wants the return of slavery in the US.
Slavery: Link

In reference to this accusation specifically, this is obviously a joke on Benjamin's part. For anyone who isn't aware, Shaun King is a guy on Twitter who vehemently claims to be black while it is very questionable if he actually is or not, as well as the percentage of 'black' he actually is (not like I personally give a darn what he his lmao).

Benjamin even stated above that he was obviously against slavery. The joke was that Shaun King would have to become a slave because of how intensely he defended being black, and (by extension) how King might go back on his identity claims in order to prevent becoming a slave, i.e. claim whichever race suits him best in his environment/political climate.

Yes, it was an edgy joke. If it were me, I personally would not make a joke like that on social media, as it's just asking to get people riled up. But to take that tweet so far out of context and read it so such a literal extent that you quote it as evidence of advocating for slavery? It's just simply not true.

Not like it's a huge deal this one time, but I see misinterpretations of this kind very often nowadays, so I just wanted to correct it for anyone who actually thought this guy (who does sound a bit crazy lol) actually wanted slavery. For the record, I don't follow Benjamin, nor do I follow King. And I don't intend for any vitriol to be read in my correction/post.

 

[Holo]

I think we've gone off topic.

It's probably not a bad idea for groups to pull their money and leave Patreon if there's a chance that they're going to go bust from all the impending lawsuits.

Question is where should they go?

 

[immortalartisan]

Gofundme?

 

[BestBoy]

@bigtiddyoneesan I don't have much opinion of King either, but there's really no reason to believe he isn't black. A birth certificate is just a piece of paper. My nephew's father isn't listed because his mother is a rotten excuse for a human being. Doesn't mean my brother isn't the biological father. So just the same, there's no reason to believe the man on the birth certificate is King's father and not the black man his mother had an affair with.

Regardless, I think your reading of his tweet is fair.

But given what I've seen of his bitchute livestreams, it seems he could embrace slavery at the drop of a hat if the mood ever struck him. It's not the first time he's used "I don't support this but..." as an excuse to spout off some nonsense. For instance, he used that same formula in regards to the numbers of dead from the Holocaust. First it was low like 9-10,000 dead and after someone complained he changed it to 9 billion dead.

Don't know if you looked Benjamin up, but he's got plenty of other stuff that might violate TOS on a website. I just picked the most blatantly bonkers stuff.

Thanks for the reply.

@holo

I don't think it's likely. Milo Yiannopolous just recently lost arbitration for this exact same case. Tort interference against Patreon. They may have switched to claiming Deceptive Practices, but realistically, Patreon is not on the hook for millions of dollars. This is just another alarmist post, imo.

 

[junna]

👻 just get off Patreon entirely and get back to old style mIRC groups "We do this as a hobby. We gain no profit. No tips. No money from this hobby"

The ones with a psa on their credits. Or sneaky places in the chapter

"If you paid real money for this, you have been ripped off"

 

[Halo]

Question is where should they go?

OnlyFans.

 

[Bentoki]

If all for-profit scanlation groups go under as a result of this then that's a good thing