Market forces are not "the little guy", and the fact you think every single big-ass corporation marches in lock-step with each other shows the profound depths of your idiocy. China's been consistently eating the lunch of "woke capital" over the past few years despite the noise that gets made about it every now and then, and believe it or not, "THEY" can't simply turn off the money spigot for everyone regardless of what your doomer friends say.
Some absurd strawmanning, missing the point, and dumb non sequiturs about China. Disappointing.
Here it is again in case you missed it.
Because they're stupid, and if they keep doing it, they'll pay the price. Maybe not immediately, but over the long run you can't simply escape economics.
Yes, that's the point, they ignore market signals in favor of virtue signals.
I'm sure most of these companies don't do anything without a cost/benefit analysis. In Patreon's case, the cost of kicking Sargon off the platform was apparently worth the benefit of keeping most of its woke and normie userbase, even if the move initially cost Patreon a few million. When you're a multinational corporation whose profits are in the billions of dollars, losing a few million from a bunch of people you don't want as customers in the first place is no biggie.
Patreon wasn't going to lose anybody by keeping Sargon, nobody was going to quit because he was on there, and there was never even the suggestion that that was the case. The idea that they have a cost/benefit analysis at the highest levels whenever they delete someone is hilarious. There's a "content manager" type that gets together with their peers and then they hit a button, most likely.
I think a lot of these dumb moderation decisions are made at lower levels than people think, by low-paid functionaries and woke jannies. They're willing to take shitty jobs for shitty pay just to be able to yeet people. I think this is especially true on Twitter, where the sheer volume of material to moderate means having to hire lots of low quality people to do it.
Of course Patreon's profits aren't in the billions. I was referencing companies other than Patreon. Take Nike, for instance, a company that's made bank by riding the woke wave. No one there gives a flying fuck about Colin Kaepernick except as a marketing tool.
I just find it amusing they paid millions of dollars to a shitty football player for refusing to do his job, in order to virtue signal and sell their shoes made with slave labor in the Third World.
Market forces are highly attenuated in a virtual monopoly.
I see you touched on this. I need to learn some trigger discipline.
Didn't Dubs curtail anonymous voting in an effort to better identify trumpers? I believe he said so during the last summit.
Imagine thinking reeeera has any basis in reality
No biggie, I somewhat contradicted myself although you can see why. It's not so much that Twitter is permanently immune to these forces, though, but they almost have to kick off or ban a critical mass of people that is enough to support a competitor. And that means banning normies for saying normie things. If they don't purity spiral to that extent they can probably indefinitely get away with their current behavior.
Refused to comment to Kotaku when asked about the Harry Potter dev who made "anti-SJW" YouTube videos. That means they're COMPLICIT in the troon murdering.
Everyone knows Kotaku is peak professionalism and not a gossip rag larping as a gaming site!
Back in 2007 I doubt you could find one person who thought MySpace would be nothing more than a glib joke by 2010.
Honestly, "refuse to comment" is the absolute best move for a corporation to take. Let's say something did happen. 'Something bad'. Wouldn't it be better to handle it internally instead of allowing a fucking mob to screech outside your proverbial corporate offices about matters they don't understand - like what is or isn't appropriate punishment for 'something bad'?
