Sam Harris Drops Patreon - Other Creators Follow

[DarthMetalliCube]

Errorist76 said:

DarthMetalliCube said:
I'm definitely getting the sense that there will very soon be a huge power vacuum/market demand for platforms that allow for free speech (it already seems to be starting). Since platforms like Patreon, Twitter, and Google no longer seem to wish to provide that, the consumers will flock to others that will. If the people are not getting the services they are looking for in the market from a particular provider, they'll gravitate towards one that will. If there is none, someone out there will inevitably create one. The beauty of the free market.. I think people should definitely keep their eyes out for a platform that seems to be on a mission right now to make some waves - Gab. But who knows, the revolution could come from a totally different, as of yet unknown company out of left field.

People seem to think that Silicon Valley is infallible, but I really don't think they are. They can collapse just as quickly as they've risen up if they continue to get further out of touch with what the masses want.

I find it interesting that people think racism should be covered by free speech. It should not.

I certainly don't condone racism, but if we're talking in the case of Sargon, then it sounds to me like the actual statement (while crudely and inappropriately worded) was taken out of context if you look into who he was actually criticizing, which were the ACTUAL racists. I think he was just using terms in a language those people could understand, harsh as it was. Of course there should be limits, but outside of direct threats to the safety of others, I don't see how you can start limiting speech without inevitably going down a slippery slope of totalitarianism.

Racist speech should not be encouraged, but I strongly feel that the repercussions should be organic - ie, let these people be criticized and hurt financially from fans/consumers directly by voicing their displeasure and/or refusing to provide income to these people, but I don't see why these giant corporations should act as the arbiters of speech and morality online. My solution is not a perfect one, but it's what I think is the most fair - simply let the markets decide accordingly and the voices of the people respond directly.

These companies should be there to offer a service to those who want it, nothing more, nothing less. They shouldn't act as the nanny state. It sort of sets a troubling, Authoritarian precedent from where I sit..