It actually isn't! I've recently done most of the work of translating it to English. So anywhere Stripe Connect is, I am.
For example Subscribestar can no longer accept paypal payments. [1]
I have no plans to add anything but Stripe, no. I realize how vulnerable that makes me and my relationship with them but you have to trust someone. I have used Paypal before and I didn't like it at all.
For whoever is interested: this is the (Google translated) text in the Terms of 10er:
"The service must not be used for any illegal activity. Nor should the service be used in connection with violent, hateful, racist or similar activities. Brainbow defines in its own right what can be classified as being in one of these categories."
You are indeed not a competitor for Patreon. The biggest problem people seem to have with Patreon is exactly this: every company creating its own definition of hate speech, which could result in their customers (creators) being cut off their income for things they say, even on other platforms. Which effectively creates censorship, and a growing administrative cost for all companies.
Why not base it on what is legal by law in your country? Require a court order to have things removed.
Take Paypal and who ever to court in your country if they deny you service because of this and threaten to have their permits to do business in your country removed.
I’m not censoring nor silencing nor putting anyone in prison. But I’m politely refusing to receive your money and work with you.
Money isn’t everything.
Payment processors currently have too much power. They should be legally refrained from choosing their customers, just like telecom companies for example. In most free countries telecom companies are not allowed to refuse/block customers based on people's political views. And rightly so.
If you want free speech you need to protect all of it.
First, though fascism is isn't particularly well-defined, it is definitely better defined than that (since you're describing a tactic rather than an ideology), and that just isn't what fascism means[0], second, even if it was, it would still be possible to advocate for it without crossing that line and leave facilitation to other (usually covert) channels.
Still, although advocacy for fascist views would be legal, I have no particular problem with public platforms restricting speech that promotes those views[1].
The analogy elsewhere in this thread to the phone system is flawed, as that implies regulating private speech.
OTOH, so long as money equals speech, there is an argument for creating payment infra that is more along the lines of a public utility or common-carrier for transactions that may not discriminate, since there are other categories of public speech besides fascism that are often unjustly denied access to payment infra.
Missing from that page is the preamble in which he describes growing up under Mussolini.
> Purported "speech" that poses a clear and present danger is illegal.
Speech that leads to or implies violence at slightly greater remove is, however. Circulating pictures of targets with people's faces on; calling for violence or that people should arm themselves against an outgroup; that kind of thing.
Following this reasoning, GP's stance enables fascism.
Ah, why look at history when we can have hypothesis! I mean, you could have chosen some wrong or out of context examples of fascism to cite, but instead it's much easier to just pretend, right?