Comments 1 - 9 of 9 Search these comments
Why can companies that are financial transaction middlemen do so?
Mr Meechan, who described Patreon as his “main income”, told followers he was “beginning the process of switching over to SubscribeStar”. Mr Meechan made headlines in April of this year when he was fined £800 under the Communications Act for uploading a YouTube video featuring a dog making a “Nazi salute” while he shouted “gas the Jews”.
Free Market! S. V. can do as they please.
It was a fucking joke. It could have been in a Mel Brooks Movie.
But when you do:
PayPal shuts Russian crowdfunder’s account after alt-right influx
https://www.ft.com/content/7c4285b2-fe2f-11e8-ac00-57a2a826423e
Note FT seems to be very enthusiastic about banning SubscribeStar. Pretty sure the Big Business Papers see nationalist-populism/realism as a threat, not as easily manipulated as useful idiot SJWs for Globaloney causes.
As if Sargon of Akkad is AltRight, the guy is a liberal and not even a classical liberal.
Sargon was banned by Patreon last week.
Should companies involved with accepting donations be allowed to ban users for their speech? The telephone and electric company can't. Why can companies that are financial transaction middlemen do so?