This is pretty interesting. People like Peterson get massive amounts of money through their Patreon. I would find it very hard to give that up. On the other hand, it seems necessary to do so to stay consistent with his values.
Why exactly won't the outcome of this be that their alternate platform is dominated by characters that ruin the brand and drive away normal customers? Thats's what happens every time this is tried elsewhere.
for a normal social media site that's an issue, for something like this where you only join the site to mainly support people you already know about it doesn't really matter.
Although I'd rather see some sort of open source project or crypto based platform instead of another centralized service that can be taken down by their payment processor. Brave browser and BAT could be the answer
>normal customers
also like the add that "normal" can change pretty quickly, ask women in post-revolution Iran. Within living memory alt-right would be considered normal by a large chunk of the population and people would be chasing people of color and LGBT off these platforms. The tools used to censor opponents today could be used against you tomorrow
That's exactly what will happen. These people don't seem to realize that it's not some institutional conspiracy that keeps their ideas on the fringe: It's the fact that most people find them and their ideas toxic, dumb, boring, and/or repellent.
There have been various "alt-right" versions of companies, like twitter, and they don't seem to take off. Patreon took a long time to grow before enough people heard of it, and understood what it was. Alt-right versions don't have the reach, since by definition, they're niche-focused.
They usually also run into problems with payment processors.
I think it would be healthy for these companies to be more like CloudFlare and get out of the business of determining how "good" a customer is when deciding to provide services. Aside from credit score and legitimacy of proceeds banks can't deny services based on how "good" a company or person is in real life. Once you begin qualifying your users based on their social score, I think we're going down a perilous road when it comes to basic services like these.
To add to this, I think YouTube is okay with having a ToS and denying service to people who violate their ToS (now uniformity of application of the ToS is a different subject). Using the service is not a platform and can't in and of itself create harm. Cash is not harmful. Using cash to buy a gun and using the gun in violence is harmful. Just because cash is a transaction enabler does not mean we deny access to cash to criminals.
The term "alt-right" is used so frequently by the left that it has lost any meaning. But if it is meant to refer to far-right extremist movements, I don't think that should apply to either Peterson, Harris or Rubin.
This is not that. The Intellectual Dark Web is starkly opposed to the alt-right (and any that consider group identity as paramount). The defining feature of the IDW is about open, honest discussion and debate of ideas. That is incompatible with identity politics.
Although whatever they do is often miscast as alt-right in part because the IDW defends free speech even when they don't agree with the content. Indeed Sam Harris deleted his Patreon account to protest the censoring of those he does not agree with. It's a principled stance and an important one.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Which brings another questions: are payment processors responsible for their inability to take off (maybe because of bias?), or is it the actual market that sees no interest in them?
To the extent that "alt-right" has any meaning at all, it seems quite wrong and perhaps disingenuous to suggest that a crowdfunding site focusing on the "Intellectual Dark Web" (IDW) would be "alt-right" in any sense.
Edit: Of course when I say something might "seem" disingenuous, I'm not blaming parent in any way for it! But this is a sort of claim that is sometimes made in an arguably insincere manner, as part of some partisan controversy or another, and it's important to be able to point this out.
From the headline I was expecting a porn thing rather than a right wing thing. But both groups have similar problems with reach and payment processing.
Ignoring whatever views you may have about him and those he associates with, at the end of one of Carl Benjamin/Sargon of Akkad's recent videos on his Patreon removal [0] he starts talking about 'alt-tech' (Gab, Voat, whatever this alt-Patreon ends up being) and tells his viewers to join with him 'to essentially build a new Internet that _they_ can't attack'.
This has me wondering about the long-feared Balkanisation of the Internet. It's always been assumed that nation state conflicts would bring this about [1,2], but this incident has me wondering if we might not see it come about based on ideology instead.
With all the fuss made about how people on social platforms live in filter bubbles, at least those bubbles coexisted on the same platforms and there might be at least some chance of piercing them. What's going to happen if we create two (or more) entirely separate service ecosystems for people to sort themselves into on political bases?
On the flipside, maybe this is a _feature_ of the market rather than a bug and everything'll work out fine [3]? It might even lead to a drive to develop resilient, distributed services that don't run the risk of a single provider being strongarmed or being able to revoke service on ideological grounds that everyone can benefit from.
Humans interpreted censorship as damage and routed around it long before they encoded that into the internet. Dissent seems like an inherent, impossible to isolate part of the human condition. They can create bubbles all they like, but some people will break out and keep the ladder down.
> ... "to essentially build a new Internet that _they_ can't attack".
This refutes any dialogue and is used mainly by people profiting off ideology (on all sides of arguments, not just right wing). Make sure 'you' belong to a special group and point to everyone which is not part of that group as bad and make sure the active followers feel the same way by making any claims needed (lies included).
I'm wondering when he starts selling vitamin supplements on the "new" internet. Just to give an example.
Peterson and Rubin are starting this because Patreon banned Yiannopoulos and Benjamin. Benjamin got banned for saying, among other things, “Maybe you're just acting like a n....r, mate? Have you considered that? Do you think white people act like this? White people are meant to be polite and respectful to one another, and you guys can't even act like white people, it's really amazing to me." Portraying Patreon’s action as being anti-conservative is pretty disingenuous unless “conservative” was suddenly redefined to mean “racist.”
What stops Patreon et al from becoming extremist? (On the left)
IMO, it has already happened. The far-left have already crossed lines that are tremendously damaging for society, while at the same time they point the finger at countries like China for engaging in the same kinds of actions they themselves are engaged in.
Free-speech is not just some alt-right or far-right conspiracy to oppress people. It's a fundamental value that our societies are built on. The idea of free-speech means that some people will say some extreme things, and free-speech is what enables you to point out their extremism so that people can be better informed.
Big tech has become extremist in its calculated attempts to deplatform (unperson) people. The people calling out this extremism sometimes have the undesirable effect that they catch the association of reactionaries on the opposite side (the far right). The people on the IDW have consistently made cases against extremism on the right, and in many ways, they are the limiting the extent of a potential radical right backlash that would otherwise come as a result of crackdowns on liberties from the left.
This is a phenomenal question. My gut tells me it has something to do with sequestered/topic-specific forums or boards. That linked with a karma system and ideologies have an environment that is almost cancerous.
High-karma posts and topics help to deter or teach new comers. They also serve to create a narrative and local extrema that begins to differ from more broadly held views.
Next, consider that a sequestered board also limits (even eliminates) any empathy a user may have had. No one thinks differently from them, no one has a differing opinion.
HN is in stark contrast to these other systems. The entire site may be self-contained, but there is no place for users to hide (in PMs, in sub-boards, etc.). If we want to be here (which I think we do) we have to deal with each other, listen to differing opinions, have real conversations. There is a karma system, and I'm not quite sure how it fits in...
Who says this site intends to NOT get extremist? Providing a platform for freedom of speech as an ultimate goal will end up with extremism, which chases the less extremist people away - which is why e.g. Reddit started to crack down on the fringes a while ago, to increase their mass appeal and not piss off potential advertisers.
If you run a platform where your members pay you a percentage though, you're not beholden to advertisers. You'd be beholden to law enforcement though.
They are focusing on intellectual content here, and the obvious way is to do it by invitation - if you are an Intellectual Dark Web (IDW) personality, acknowledged as such by existing members you'll get to play, otherwise you won't. This is quite different from how Voat, 4chan etc. work. At the end of the day, all worthwhile Internet spaces rely on moderation of some sort, and even HN is no exception.
So, I've have listened to quite a few of Jordan Peterson's talks to understand what was going on last time there was a controversy around him. I'm part of one of the demographics that was really angered about some of his conversations. After actually watching the content, I have seen nothing to worry or get mad about.
How could anyone think that "intellectual dark web" is any accurate to describe him?
There's nothing secret about what he does. He has podcasts, public talks and university classes that he uploads to his youtube channel.
It seems that the only way to create controversy around him is to clickbait stories and not actually listen to or describe his actual content.
Other than a profile / link aggregator called "intellectualdark.website" that hosts his profile, I don't see any relation at all.
Am I missing some details? Anyone has the full explanation?
---
Edit:
This is about the article's full title: “Top Patreon creators, of the 'Intellectual Dark Web,' say they're launching an alternate crowdfunding platform not 'susceptible to arbitrary censorship'”.
What the hell is with the editorializing in this submission headline? The original is "Top Patreon creators, of the 'Intellectual Dark Web,[...]'. The headline here creates the impression that Jordan Peterson et al are the most popular people on the platform. They're not[1].
> Now, here’s the issue. We know that things can go too far on the right, and we know that things can go too far on the left. But we don’t know what the markers are for going too far on the left. I would say that it’s ethically incumbent on those who are liberal or left-leaning to identity the markers of pathological extremism on the left and to distinguish themselves from the people who hold those pathological viewpoints — and I don’t see that that’s being done.
I think when sites like Patreon, Twitter, etc. start banning other view points in the name of "social justice" or "political correctness"... all the while being complete hypocrites to their own values... is when the left goes too far.
I wouldn't call that the left, but just that capitalist have found that they can profit more by sharing the values most people in their market share. Most Americans, for instance, are much more progressive on social issues.
It's just faux-activism, which doesn't address the actual system of oppression marginalized groups face.
Extreme leftism is when workers control the means of production and run companies democratically.
really? extreme leftism is pretty clear, it's communism. Saying that communism isn't recognized by most people on the left as "going too far" is pretty hard to believe.
[+] [-] abnry|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mpweiher|7 years ago|reply
I think it's safe to say that he is financially independent, and he doesn't strike me as the "can't ever get enough" kind of greedy.
[+] [-] tptacek|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beginningguava|7 years ago|reply
Although I'd rather see some sort of open source project or crypto based platform instead of another centralized service that can be taken down by their payment processor. Brave browser and BAT could be the answer
>normal customers also like the add that "normal" can change pretty quickly, ask women in post-revolution Iran. Within living memory alt-right would be considered normal by a large chunk of the population and people would be chasing people of color and LGBT off these platforms. The tools used to censor opponents today could be used against you tomorrow
[+] [-] gadders|7 years ago|reply
Unfortunately the definition of what is a "character that ruins the brand" keeps moving further and further to the left.
[+] [-] chasing|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jatsign|7 years ago|reply
They usually also run into problems with payment processors.
[+] [-] mc32|7 years ago|reply
To add to this, I think YouTube is okay with having a ToS and denying service to people who violate their ToS (now uniformity of application of the ToS is a different subject). Using the service is not a platform and can't in and of itself create harm. Cash is not harmful. Using cash to buy a gun and using the gun in violence is harmful. Just because cash is a transaction enabler does not mean we deny access to cash to criminals.
[+] [-] cm2187|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Reedx|7 years ago|reply
Although whatever they do is often miscast as alt-right in part because the IDW defends free speech even when they don't agree with the content. Indeed Sam Harris deleted his Patreon account to protest the censoring of those he does not agree with. It's a principled stance and an important one.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
[+] [-] joeyrideout|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m-p-3|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zozbot123|7 years ago|reply
Edit: Of course when I say something might "seem" disingenuous, I'm not blaming parent in any way for it! But this is a sort of claim that is sometimes made in an arguably insincere manner, as part of some partisan controversy or another, and it's important to be able to point this out.
[+] [-] opencl|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] EGreg|7 years ago|reply
1) End to end encrypted, with clients sharing keys as needed
2) Distributed hash tables route every activity to a few servers (per activity) which run consensus
3) Automatic rebalancing when some server is taken out
Simple? Well, this is the future. Not blockchains, but this.
MaidSAFE, Holochain, Intercoin and others are building it.
You can even make realtime push via sockets in this model, though anything realtime compromises anonymity.
[+] [-] DicIfTEx|7 years ago|reply
This has me wondering about the long-feared Balkanisation of the Internet. It's always been assumed that nation state conflicts would bring this about [1,2], but this incident has me wondering if we might not see it come about based on ideology instead.
With all the fuss made about how people on social platforms live in filter bubbles, at least those bubbles coexisted on the same platforms and there might be at least some chance of piercing them. What's going to happen if we create two (or more) entirely separate service ecosystems for people to sort themselves into on political bases?
On the flipside, maybe this is a _feature_ of the market rather than a bug and everything'll work out fine [3]? It might even lead to a drive to develop resilient, distributed services that don't run the risk of a single provider being strongarmed or being able to revoke service on ideological grounds that everyone can benefit from.
I'll be interested to see how this all develops.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXRx98gpuRY
[1] http://newdigitalage.com/
[2] https://www.rt.com/russia/446502-russia-legislators-internet...
[3] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/07/archipelago-and-atomic-...
[+] [-] Kye|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] consp|7 years ago|reply
This refutes any dialogue and is used mainly by people profiting off ideology (on all sides of arguments, not just right wing). Make sure 'you' belong to a special group and point to everyone which is not part of that group as bad and make sure the active followers feel the same way by making any claims needed (lies included).
I'm wondering when he starts selling vitamin supplements on the "new" internet. Just to give an example.
[+] [-] tekproxy|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Cthulhu_|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thecatspaw|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheodolphusRose|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raarts|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thecatspaw|7 years ago|reply
Looking at a similar story of voat here, which quickly became very rightwing and unwelcome to tame ideologies
[+] [-] sparkie|7 years ago|reply
IMO, it has already happened. The far-left have already crossed lines that are tremendously damaging for society, while at the same time they point the finger at countries like China for engaging in the same kinds of actions they themselves are engaged in.
Free-speech is not just some alt-right or far-right conspiracy to oppress people. It's a fundamental value that our societies are built on. The idea of free-speech means that some people will say some extreme things, and free-speech is what enables you to point out their extremism so that people can be better informed.
Big tech has become extremist in its calculated attempts to deplatform (unperson) people. The people calling out this extremism sometimes have the undesirable effect that they catch the association of reactionaries on the opposite side (the far right). The people on the IDW have consistently made cases against extremism on the right, and in many ways, they are the limiting the extent of a potential radical right backlash that would otherwise come as a result of crackdowns on liberties from the left.
[+] [-] all2|7 years ago|reply
High-karma posts and topics help to deter or teach new comers. They also serve to create a narrative and local extrema that begins to differ from more broadly held views.
Next, consider that a sequestered board also limits (even eliminates) any empathy a user may have had. No one thinks differently from them, no one has a differing opinion.
HN is in stark contrast to these other systems. The entire site may be self-contained, but there is no place for users to hide (in PMs, in sub-boards, etc.). If we want to be here (which I think we do) we have to deal with each other, listen to differing opinions, have real conversations. There is a karma system, and I'm not quite sure how it fits in...
\edit - stray characters
[+] [-] Cthulhu_|7 years ago|reply
If you run a platform where your members pay you a percentage though, you're not beholden to advertisers. You'd be beholden to law enforcement though.
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] zozbot123|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] digianarchist|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raarts|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hossbeast|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] charliebrownau|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Sujan|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Karawebnetwork|7 years ago|reply
How could anyone think that "intellectual dark web" is any accurate to describe him?
There's nothing secret about what he does. He has podcasts, public talks and university classes that he uploads to his youtube channel.
It seems that the only way to create controversy around him is to clickbait stories and not actually listen to or describe his actual content.
Other than a profile / link aggregator called "intellectualdark.website" that hosts his profile, I don't see any relation at all.
Am I missing some details? Anyone has the full explanation?
---
Edit:
This is about the article's full title: “Top Patreon creators, of the 'Intellectual Dark Web,' say they're launching an alternate crowdfunding platform not 'susceptible to arbitrary censorship'”.
[+] [-] charliebrownau|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kongDaKid|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] digianarchist|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] chx|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ghostly_s|7 years ago|reply
1. https://graphtreon.com/top-patreon-creators
[+] [-] hiddenSU|7 years ago|reply
> Now, here’s the issue. We know that things can go too far on the right, and we know that things can go too far on the left. But we don’t know what the markers are for going too far on the left. I would say that it’s ethically incumbent on those who are liberal or left-leaning to identity the markers of pathological extremism on the left and to distinguish themselves from the people who hold those pathological viewpoints — and I don’t see that that’s being done.
I think when sites like Patreon, Twitter, etc. start banning other view points in the name of "social justice" or "political correctness"... all the while being complete hypocrites to their own values... is when the left goes too far.
[+] [-] 49531|7 years ago|reply
It's just faux-activism, which doesn't address the actual system of oppression marginalized groups face.
Extreme leftism is when workers control the means of production and run companies democratically.
[+] [-] sparrc|7 years ago|reply