Hacker News Reader

Comment by dgudkov | Hacker News Reader

The missing question here -- why did Patreon do it? Is it because they are afraid of legal risk of not being able to defend themselves against a lawsuit? Or they are afraid of loss of revenue/capitalization if an online activist group launches a shame/smear campaign? Or it simply because it rubbed the wrong way someone in the company management?

Why did they do it?

View on HN

> Why did they do it?

My guess - their brand name seems to be always mentioned when people ask for donations.

I notice people don't just say "go to my donation page to give me money", they say "Give me money through Patreon".

So I guess that creates a bit of an optics issue when someone controversial is constantly saying the word "Patreon".

> Or it simply because it rubbed the wrong way someone in the company management?

This is most likely. For some people, the whole point of power is the ability to stomp on the face of your enemies.

This doesn't seem like a big mystery. It would not take a smear campaign or some kind of major boycott to cost a company that became too closely associated in the public imagination with alt-right whackjobs.

Too closely - meaning having a customer that said the N-word somewhere? I'm not picky, just trying to understand what "too closely" means in your answer.

The threshold that would have to be crossed - that was crossed, unless someone at the company took a decision to ban the guy just because he's obnoxious, which is possible - would be for the company to feel like its future earning potential were at risk because of reputational damage. I doubt the judgment on the part of the company is going to be as simple "a single user said one specific thing." How could it be?

Very interesting statement, considering that Sargon (the guy Patreon banned) was directing his offensive language AT the alt-right (i.e., he is against the alt-right, not part of it).

If you say so. My statement could be amended to include "and people even batshit crazier than the alt-right."

> Or they are afraid of loss of revenue/capitalization if an online activist group launches a shame/smear campaign?

This, pretty much. They see their established niche as that of hosting a well-defined, 'harmonious community' of creators, and if this requires "harmonizing away" some of these creators due to their slightly bothersome political stances, then so be it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com