
Patreon as a Platform Is in Trouble - felix1996
https://little-noko.tumblr.com/post/625211319027679232/patreon-as-a-platform-is-in-trouble-important
======
dgellow
The post is missing context. That's what I can find:

\- Owen Benjamin has been removed from Patreon late 2019

\- His fans file suits against Patreon claiming they interfered in their
economic relationship with a content creator

\- Under Patreon terms of service at the time, such a complaint has to be
settled via arbitration under California's laws

\- On January 1 Patreon changed their terms to ban users from filing
complaints when someone is removed from the platform

\- Patreon initiated a counter-suit against 72 complainers

\- That has been denied Friday, Patreon will have to pay up to $10k per
arbitration case

\- Under California laws the updated terms of service can cause other legal
issues (?)

\- Patreon is now exposed to other lawsuits regarding other personalities
removed from their platform

~~~
sweisman
The ToS say you waive your right to a jury trial or participating in a class
action. Both are wrong. By stating those conditions, Patreon is guilty of
deceptive practices. Which is illegal. All Patreon users can file a demand for
arbitration now, regardless of whether or not someone they backed was
deplatformed.

------
sweisman
To understand what is going on, a summary of the legal repartee going on is as
follows, written by Vox Day, who formulated the legal strategy and to my
understanding, basically wrote all the legal briefs.

The crazy thing is that neither the lawyers nor the Trust & Safety people even
read the Terms and Community Guidelines. I mean, one can excuse the gammas and
the armchair lawyers for not knowing what the relevant rules and laws are,
they're mostly reacting to what they've seen floating around the Internet.

But it's downright bizarre to me how the freaking lawyers don't even know what
they're talking about. They'll write dozens of filings all based on the same
false premise.

WE KICKED OWEN OFF BECAUSE HE POSTED HATE SPEECH ON OUR PLATFORM!

No, he didn't.

OKAY, WE KICKED HIM OFF BECAUSE HE POSTED HATE SPEECH ON INSTAGRAM AND WE
POLICE OFF-PLATFORM SPEECH TOO!

Instagram is free.

WHAT? SO WHAT?

So Owen's Patreon account didn't fund his Instagram posts. Instagram is free.

WELL, UM, WE DID IT BECAUSE HE POSTED SOMETHING ON FACEBOOK!

Facebook is free too.

TWITTER?

That's free too.

WELL, HE MADE VIDEOS! ON YOUTUBE. HE FUNDED THOSE ON PATREON!

No, he didn't. He was monetized directly on YouTube and he never created a
Patreon video project.

WE CAN KICK OFF ANYONE WE WANT FOR NO REASON AT ALL!

Allow me to introduce you to the Unruh Civil Rights Act of 1959....

~~~
lliamander
I think the thing people sometimes forget is that at the core of all of this
drama is a substantive issue (and the reason for the arbitration claims),
namely:

* Can Patreon kick someone off who did not violate their terms of service?

* Does kicking someone off in this manner constitute tortious interference?

It's actually somewhat unfortunate that this is going through arbitration, if
only because we likely won't ever get the full details of the judgement.

However, it is clear that, in addition to the central issue under arbitration,
there are a number of errors that Patreon has made that are not working in
their favor.

~~~
sweisman
My understanding is that NDAs only apply to settlements, not to actual
judgements. Also, no one wants to settle.

~~~
lliamander
I hope we get to see judgments. This is potentially a big deal for consumer
rights.

------
numpad0
Is there actual risk of imminent crash in Patreon? I do know they have/had
content policy/cultural disagreement issues but

~~~
Arnt
Patreon required binding arbitration in case of certain disputes and promised
to pay certain fees, then pissed off a creator, who couldn't do anything. His
backers could, though, and several thousand of them requested arbitration.

Paying the arbitration fees several thousand times will be a real strain (the
total sum is in the millions IIRC), and the working hours won't be easy
either. So Patreon tried to group the disputes together, which failed a few
days ago.

Now some creators are worried that Patreon might break down and take their
money along (ie. the money that Patreon collected last month and would
disburse next month).

~~~
sweisman
There were originally about 100 backers, plus the creator himself, filing
claims.

Since then, I believe at least another hundred have decided to join the fun.

Patreon Delenda Est.

------
Havoc
They seem to be creators. Where is this ideal that the whole platform is at
risk coming from?

~~~
sweisman
Patreon is on the hook for all arbitration costs, minus $250 that the
aggrieved consumer must pay as a filing fee.

The risk is because Patreon's liability is open-ended. Each arbitration is a
MINIMUM of $10K, and escalates from there, depending on the number and nature
of claims.

If the claimants are not motivated by money, and they are not, they can push
each arbitration to a full hearing and decision, rather than accept a
settlement offer. Since they violated their own ToS by suing in court and
doing so in a class action (two separate violations), they are in serious
peril.

If they do that, Patreon could easily end up paying $100K per user.

Finally, ANY Patreon user can file a claim because of how badly they've
botched the multiple revisions to the ToS since then.

~~~
Havoc
ah right...googling this suggests it's connected to this news article I missed
3 days prior

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24009301](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24009301)

------
smart_jackal
It deserves to be in trouble considering they blatantly tried to kill speech
of Saragon of Akkad and a few others. Monopoly shouldn't be abused in this
manner.

~~~
Sephr
In what way does Patreon hold a monopoly?

