The Sinister Background to YouTube and Patreon Platforming

Now that the dust has more or less settled about Sargon's removal from Patreon, let's analyse Patreon's own words as to why it happened and the sinister fallout from that.

Okay, so by now most will know that last year Sargon of Akaad aka Carl Benjamin was removed without warning from Patreon. Essentially for words he used on a live stream on someone else's account 10 months previously. The details of what he said can be seen on multiple accounts of the affair.

Then Matt Christiansen, another YouTube vlogger supported by Patreon patrons was approached by Patreon to explain the reason for Sargon's removal.

Listening to the transcript of that conversation, it doesn't come across well for Patreon. Effectively what we learn from the head of Patreon's "Trust and Safety" team is: (a) That Patreon don't actively seek bad content, but instead wait for reports from internet users. (b) that content could be from months or years ago on any platform on the internet and (c) Patreon's trust and Safety team look at that content and then make arbitrary decisions on whether to ban; there is no definitive terms and conditions statement that a Patreon account holder can view in order to stay on the right side of the fence, Patreon will just decide on a whim if they will remove the person.

We also learned there is no warning system, so the first thing an account holder knows is that they are removed. They are not given the opportunity to review the content, remove it or issue a public apology if that content cannot be removed. Instead Patreon pull the plug.

Finally Jaqueline Hart, the person in charge of Patreon's trust and safety team hints that the pressure is not coming from general internet users, but instead from payment processors.

This would fit with the removal of payment facilities from SubscribeStar, a competitor of Patreon's that suddenly lost payment facilities from PayPal and Stripe in the wake of the Sargon affair and the move by many Patreon account holders to SubscribeStar.

So the sinister aspect of this is that it's now Payment Processors who are the arbiters of what is allowed on the internet. Not politicians, or the public, but PayPal, Stripe, and card providers.

What business have payment providers in controlling what you ay on the internet? Since when have they been put in charge of that? That's the business of people we vote into power, our politicians. Payment providers have no business in being moral arbiters of internet content.

Just think for this a second: payment processors are trawling the internet for material they find offensive and will pull the plug on your account if it falls foul of their standards. Not that these so-called standards are published anywhere, or made public in any way, shape or form.

As an example, just think how Orwellian it is that if a card provider sees you at a protest on the internet, or you publish written material they deem offensive, they can stop your card from working.

This is the future folks: tow the line or you will be unpersonned. You will loose the facility to pay bills and you will lose the ability to withdraw cash. I dare say anyone that supports you by drawing cash out will be unpersonned too.

So how do you get round that? Get your employer to pay you in cash? How long before that's outlawed, if it isn't already. The governments of this world want a cashless society so they can do exactly this: and by this I mean control the population.

How long before card providers put pressure on employers? Lose you job, money, home, food... the list goes on, just because to espouse a certain viewpoint, or say the wrong words.

I'm not liking what I'm seeing if what Patreon is saying is true. I hope they are just squirming and trying to pass the buck and blame the payment processors. But what happened to SubscribeStar, Gab and to Alex Jones shows that they may have inadvertently let the cat out of the bag and told the cold clinical and frightening truth.