Carl Benjamin / Sargon of Akkad / Akkad Daily / The Thinkery / @not_sargon / @WarPlanPurple - Leader of the "Liberalists" & Droning Pseudo-Intellectual Boomer anti-SJW Activist, Applebees Waiter, Mass Shooter Whiteknight

[instythot]

Yeah, as much as I dislike Sargon, I'd be more likely to believe him on this ... or just assume that they didn't give him a reasonable amount of time to respond.

I'd be very inclined to believe there was an email in his inbox he didn't get to at all due to frantically contacting patreon support since waking up

 

[Chronic Perturbator]

Should probably have him saying "white niggers."

 

[Harbinger of Kali Yuga]

My experience getting banned from pretty much every social media platform (especially reddit and twitter) is is that they won't talk to you after they ban you, at all, ever, nor will they explain anything at all, in part so they don't get caught in a contradiction or double standards. That's the thing about social media, they never explain why they banned you, only list vague parts terms of services.

 

[JamFlowMan]

View attachment 609923
Lol, fucking skeptics doing what they do best, let's de-platform our enemies instead of focusing on the greater issue, exactly as I said they would. Why do these guys follow Sargon, Dankula seems far more aware of what's going on than him.

View attachment 609930
Now they want someone to go all Robert Bowers, screw optics, and shoot Ralph... these fucking people. I swear that they all fit the description of the Shadilay Strangler, all a bunch of actual incels, ready to kill for the Don. They have actually shit the bed and gone nuclear over the stepfather losing his income.

Also, still flogging the dead meme they killed.

Let's be honest, if Jim was kicked off Patreon there would be people on that side of the camp trying to get Sargon taken down too. The only difference is the screenshot wouldn't include a comment from Metokur saying "fuck yeah and after him Vee's next." Take from that what you will.

 

[Poiseon]

Let's be honest, if Jim was kicked off Patreon there would be people on that side of the camp trying to get Sargon taken down too. The only difference is the screenshot wouldn't include a comment from Metokur saying "fuck yeah and after him Vee's next." Take from that what you will.

I have felt a strange disturbance. It began my chest and now the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end. My inner Gaydar is activated. I can almost smell the retarded fucking internet war. Give it a few days, week top. It's gonna get stupid so fucking fast.
https://youtu.be/uvqJ1mTkEuY?t=11

 

[Rand /pol/]

 

[cecograph]

Screw all the talk about regulating the payment processors as natural monopolies. There are still way too many possibilities for technological and disruptive change on the internet, and government should not be stepping in this early to fuck things up by locking stuff down this horrible status quo with hand-tying legislation and precedents that will probably make no sense a decade from now. They should definitely not be stepping in as a knee-jerk reaction to a bunch of clowns being booted off an internet platform that is barely 5 years old. Those clowns, if they had had any sense, would have anticipated their bootings a long time ago and developed contingencies. It's not like they didn't have adequate warning. Hell, the real internet libertarians, the cypherpunks, where screaming all through the 90s that we need to stay the hell away from centralised tech, and that we need to revolutionise digital payments with cryptocurrency, precisely because of these possibilities for censorship. There's no excuse for only just figuring this stuff out now.

As for actual solutions, I am more than happy for government to intervene by helping develop and support new and disruptive standards-based APIs and protocols and then enforcing them against institutions like banks whose very existence is already based on a whole raft of government privileges. That's what things like Open Banking propose to do, with one of its aims being to better enable peer-to-peer lending, which could then be used to allow Paypal competitors to enter the market with much greater ease. Let paypal get competed with naturally by modernising banking processes for the internet. After that, disrupt the shit out of Facebook and Twitter by supporting the crap out of ActivityPub.

But for the love of God, don't go throwing rules and regulations at paypal that concede their monopoly. That's just giving in to a crappy anti-consumer status quo.

 

[mindlessobserver]

The Ancap crowd and the fuck brainlet Sargon crowd really need to take a step back here and realize there are more important issues at hand then corporations deciding who they should deal with and the money stream of an ex applebees waiter.

To address the Ancaps first, what is going on here is a direct assault on the principles of a free and open market. Patreon has a near total monopoly on online persistant crowdfunding. The reason for this is not natural either. You see, online funding companies like Patreon are not the payment processor. That network is handled by the credit card companies, and for the internet more broadly transaction underwriters like PayPal's Stripe. There were competitors to Patreon, and virtually all of them were blocked by the payment processors because they "supported the funding of hate" or other such things Silicon Valley deemed problematic. This is anathema to a free market. It would be akin to trying to open a competitor to McDonalds across the street, and for McDonalds to then go to your beef suppliers and telling them to stop delivering you beef. You could be making the far superior burgers to McDonalds, you could have plenty of customers who WANT to buy your Burgers, but you go out of business anyway. Because McDonalds cut your supply chain.

Incidentally, that is very, VERY illegal in the United States. The problem is the laws involving these behaviors are over a century old and have not been updated to cover the digital space. Something Silicon Valley is ruthlessly exploiting.

As for the fuck Sargon crowd, you need seperate the principle from the man. You may think he's an idiot brainlet with an overly large platform. You may even disagree with him. That is fine. What is not fine however is for someone to be driven out of the political debate by the actions of colluding corporate powers controlled by an opposing political ideology. This is a dangerous precedent to allow to stand. You may hate that Carl will be the face of this, and the idea of Benjamin v. Patreon in the Supreme Court of the United States challenging the constitutionality of Section 230 of the communications decency act and the legality of online payment processors deplatforming "hateful political speech", but the truth is you don't often get to choose the time and place of the battle.

Ever since they deplatformed Alex Jones its been one "problematic" online pundit after another. This time though Silicon Valley may have really stepped in it, because unlike the other online pundits he is actually considered a major figure in recognized political party. We could argue whether or not UKIP is a meme or if Carl is actually important to it, but the fact stands that his membership and the use of his platforms to advance UKIP as a political party gives an extra layer of official status to Carl that even Alex Jones lacked. The fact that this is a US based company targeting an individual in another nation also lands this in Federal Court by default. And the only way this can be resolved is if Carl takes it all the way to the Supreme Court and gets them to strike down section 230 for being unconstitutionally vague, as well as to apply a smack down on Silicon Valleys manifest illegal collusion.

 

[Superman93]

The Ancap crowd and the fuck brainlet Sargon crowd really need to take a step back here and realize there are more important issues at hand then corporations deciding who they should deal with and the money stream of an ex applebees waiter.

To address the Ancaps first, what is going on here is a direct assault on the principles of a free and open market. Patreon has a near total monopoly on online persistant crowdfunding. The reason for this is not natural either. You see, online funding companies like Patreon are not the payment processor. That network is handled by the credit card companies, and for the internet more broadly transaction underwriters like PayPal's Stripe. There were competitors to Patreon, and virtually all of them were blocked by the payment processors because they "supported the funding of hate" or other such things Silicon Valley deemed problematic. This is anathema to a free market. It would be akin to trying to open a competitor to McDonalds across the street, and for McDonalds to then go to your beef suppliers and telling them to stop delivering you beef. You could be making the far superior burgers to McDonalds, you could have plenty of customers who WANT to buy your Burgers, but you go out of business anyway. Because McDonalds cut your supply chain.

Incidentally, that is very, VERY illegal in the United States. The problem is the laws involving these behaviors are over a century old and have not been updated to cover the digital space. Something Silicon Valley is ruthlessly exploiting.

As for the fuck Sargon crowd, you need seperate the principle from the man. You may think he's an idiot brainlet with an overly large platform. You may even disagree with him. That is fine. What is not fine however is for someone to be driven out of the political debate by the actions of colluding corporate powers controlled by an opposing political ideology. This is a dangerous precedent to allow to stand. You may hate that Carl will be the face of this, and the idea of Benjamin v. Patreon in the Supreme Court of the United States challenging the constitutionality of Section 230 of the communications decency act and the legality of online payment processors deplatforming "hateful political speech", but the truth is you don't often get to choose the time and place of the battle.

Ever since they deplatformed Alex Jones its been one "problematic" online pundit after another. This time though Silicon Valley may have really stepped in it, because unlike the other online pundits he is actually considered a major figure in recognized political party. We could argue whether or not UKIP is a meme or if Carl is actually important to it, but the fact stands that his membership and the use of his platforms to advance UKIP as a political party gives an extra layer of official status of Carl that even Alex Jones lacked. The fact that this is a US based company targeting an individual in another nation also lands this in Federal Court by default. And the only way this can be resolved is if Carl takes it all the way to the Supreme Court and gets them to strike down section 230 for being unconstitutionally vague, as well as to apply a smack down on Silicon Valleys manifest illegal collusion.

Trying to make long worded out logical argument to the autistic denizens of kiwi farms

 

[mindlessobserver]

Trying to make long worded out logical argument to the autistic denizens of kiwi farms

True.

tl;dr, Sargon needs to sue. He will lose. At every level until the Supreme Court, where he needs to convince them to declare section 230 of the communications decency act unconstitutional. The lawsuit will cost around a million dollars plus or minus a few hundred thousand. Minimum.

 

[Rand /pol/]

To address the Ancaps first, what is going on here is a direct assault on the principles of a free and open market. Patreon has a near total monopoly on online persistant crowdfunding. The reason for this is not natural either. You see, online funding companies like Patreon are not the payment processor. That network is handled by the credit card companies, and for the internet more broadly transaction underwriters like PayPal's Stripe. There were competitors to Patreon, and virtually all of them were blocked by the payment processors because they "supported the funding of hate" or other such things Silicon Valley deemed problematic. This is anathema to a free market. It would be akin to trying to open a competitor to McDonalds across the street, and for McDonalds to then go to your beef suppliers and telling them to stop delivering you beef. You could be making the far superior burgers to McDonalds, you could have plenty of customers who WANT to buy your Burgers, but you go out of business anyway. Because McDonalds cut your supply chain.

The line between a small town bakery being forced to bake cakes for faggots and companies having to serve who they want is thin, I see it as all or nothing when it comes to right-to-discrininate.

 

[Superman93]

How funny would it be if mundane matt flagged his patreon? Jihadi Jarbo can't help himself

 

[mindlessobserver]

The line between a small town bakery being forced to bake cakes for faggots and companies having to serve who they want is thin, I see it as all or nothing when it comes to right-to-discrininate.

From where I sit, the issue is not Patreon telling Sargon to fuck off. Its Patreon telling Sargon to fuck off, and then going over to Paypal and telling them to make sure Patreons competitors also know to tell Sargon to fuck off. Then there is the issue of how the government used Section 230 of the CDA to sub contract censorship to the corporate world since the 1st amendment prevented them from doing it themselves. You can blame the Republicans for that one. They wanted to ban porn on the internet and now Silicon Valley is using the power they gave them to ban conservatives instead. Shakespearean ending to a misguided political effort.

 

[Medicated]

It's been happening to Left-Leaning people as well. Paypal canned the Proud Boys (From what I know of them, they're actually niggerhaters, but I only heard of them once they got canned.) AND an ANTIFA group. ANTIFA has had free rein to do as they please for years, and Paypal (A Fucking obsessed Left-wing company) canned their asses, after years of torching cars and assaulting people. There is definately a political angle in tech companies, and almost all of them are super left, but Carl's gotten more and more exceptional lately. He had $100,000 plus a year, that's a hefty cut for Patreon. It could be a combination of politics, him being a dumbshit, and other factors, but Carl has been actively trying and succeeding in the case of Ralph, to deplatform and smear others. Patreon could have just canned him for that.


Fired Rockets? The fuck, isn't she a reporter? When did she fire fucking rockets at anything?

So I'm guessing if you are left you can only torch a certain number of cars and beat a certain number of people before they take away your Patreon.

 

[deeman]

True.

tl;dr, Sargon needs to sue. He will lose. At every level until the Supreme Court, where he needs to convince them to declare section 230 of the communications decency act unconstitutional. The lawsuit will cost around a million dollars plus or minus a few hundred thousand. Minimum.

And afterwards he can try to start Patreon 2.0...

BTW did anyone follow up the fact that he hasn't paid any tax revenue? Think i heard it on the Killstream.

 

[mindlessobserver]

So I'm guessing if you are left you can only torch a certain number of cars and beat a certain number of people before they take away your Patreon.

The working conspiracy theory is that the media corporations and silicon valley are doing a divide and conquer strategy. Online media threatens their existence, so they want to destroy it. Once they are done mopping up the right wing, they will go for the uncontrolled leftists next. This is honestly a theory I believe. Old media is in a death spiral and desperation moves are a given. They will fail no matter what happens. Gutenberg created a social revolution by allowing our eyes to see endless information. No matter how many printing presses got smashed, the genie could not be put back in the bottle. The internet, and yes, Youtube, is a Gutenberg revolution. For the ears. Anyone can broadcast, and anyone can listen. No matter how many channels they smash, they won't put the genie back in the bottle.

My concern is what sort of precedents are established in the death throws. English Common Law is dependent on legal precedent to function, and the Internet presents a grave challenge to the fundamental bedrock of the American governing system which is based on English common law. This situation is a single nail. One, solitary insignificant nail, in the person of an Applebees waiter that wants to make big brain arguments against feminists and own the libs. The problem is that this one nail is not the only nail. It is one of many nails, being merrily hammered into the coffin that is being crafted for the liberal democracies.

Fukiyama was an idiot. History has not ended. I hated his thesis about how utopia was at hand now that there was a peaceful world order based on free trade and liberal values. This situation does not exist in a vacuum. It exists as part of an overall ideological world view that says the Peace of Westphalia is over, and that the State has now been replaced by a neo-liberal world order where the transnational corporations bind all the people of earth into the common purpose of peace and mutual profit/advancement. This is not a conspiracy theory. The fucktards say it openly and proudly. These mega tech corporations are not just entities interested in profit and shareholder value. They are political entities with a near messianic complex about how they are going to bring us, the unwashed masses into the light.




I am word vomiting again. tl;dr God died in the late 19th century, big brain thinkers invented numerous replacements for God in the 20th century, many people died over who the new god was, and liberalism won. In its victory it now seeks to usher in heaven on earth. And anyone who opposes it is a heretic who must burn. For the good of all. They are fools, and the backlash will come and it will be violent if the system has become so corrupt that it can no longer manage change. History has not ended. It can't end.

 

[AnOminous]

True.

tl;dr, Sargon needs to sue. He will lose. At every level until the Supreme Court, where he needs to convince them to declare section 230 of the communications decency act unconstitutional. The lawsuit will cost around a million dollars plus or minus a few hundred thousand. Minimum.

Why? That's utterly fucking insane and has nothing to do with any case he might have.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Why? That's utterly fucking insane and has nothing to do with any case he might have.

He doesn't have a case. Patreon is well within its rights to ban him because as a platform the law (namely section 230 of the CDA) gives them the right to deny services if they deem the content on their platform meets their definitions of offense. Any case he might have has to strike down this blanket immunity granted to internet platforms. Which is why I said he will lose at every level. No district or appellate court is going to side with him. This is just my layman view though. If you think he does have a case that can get around this, I would love to hear it because everything I am reading say's he's fucked. Him being fucked is independent of my angst over the situation and the problems it causes though.

 

[AnOminous]

He doesn't have a case. Patreon is well within its rights to ban him because as a platform the law (namely section 230 of the CDA) gives them the right to deny services. Any case he might have has to strike down this blanket immunity granted to internet platforms. Which is why I said he will lose at every level. No district or appellate court is going to side with him.

That has nothing to do with it. § 230 just immunizes third parties from liability for things other people say.

You could kick someone off your ISP with or without it.

 

[oddish]

Or you could invest in things that will keep value no matter what happen?

I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.