I understand the authors concerns, and obviously the content was illegal. I just don't know what more Patreon could realistically do to limit this content. Severely limit new accounts unless a...
“The safety of our community is paramount on Patreon,” a Patreon spokesperson told me in an email. “Alongside prohibiting pornography and access to AI-generation tools that produce sexually explicit images, Patreon has zero tolerance for works featuring non-consensual intimate imagery. We require any works involving permitted sexual expression to include an unambiguous indication of consent. We will remove accounts found to be in violation of our policies.
The spokesperson added that “Combining proactive detection measures, human moderators, and robust user reporting flows, we work to quickly enforce against accounts and works that put the safety and wellbeing of our community at risk. We also work with industry-leading reporting partners and law enforcement agencies, where appropriate. We will continue to update our guidelines and operational procedures to address new challenges and threats to our community.”
I understand the authors concerns, and obviously the content was illegal. I just don't know what more Patreon could realistically do to limit this content. Severely limit new accounts unless a real human understands what content is being promoted on Patreon? Even if they do that, someone could just lie, and it seems difficult to verify secret folders on Discord etc.
I think the tech platforms have manage to trick society to think that it's reasonable to run a massively profitable platform without sufficient employees to moderate the platform. That's not how...
I think the tech platforms have manage to trick society to think that it's reasonable to run a massively profitable platform without sufficient employees to moderate the platform.
That's not how business in other areas are regulated. Regulation of online spaces is obviously required to avoid the breakdown of society. Regulation is not bad, regulation and public oversight are strengths when dealing with increasingly large, gigantic and global platform companies.
If myr site requires human pre-approval before any and all user-submitted content is published not to break serious laws, then maybe my platform needs to hire all those employees or shut down if I can't afford to.
They tricked nobody, they just did it. One of the most frustrating aspects of today is how no company has a decent service desk anymore. You can see the fraying everywhere. Moderation pushed to...
They tricked nobody, they just did it.
One of the most frustrating aspects of today is how no company has a decent service desk anymore.
You can see the fraying everywhere. Moderation pushed to users, or worse, power users.
Service Desks that are borderline unreachable or so toothless they can't really help.
Websites with a support phone number so deeply buried you might as well give up trying and tangle with the god awful chatbot instead.
Chatbots.
Perpetual "this line is busier than normal so your wait is longer than expected" IVR messages.
Moderators are just a subset or extension of this. There aren't enough people that want to do it. The ones that are, don't want to do it anymore and are overworked.
But tricked? Naw. It was just an easy avenue to slash costs and who's going to complain when they can't call a helpdesk anyway?
Consider nacho's comment in the context of the sentiment they responded to: I see similar sentiments often. It's as though people default to thinking we owe these businesses a moral/legal...
They tricked nobody, they just did it.
Consider nacho's comment in the context of the sentiment they responded to:
I just don't know what more Patreon could realistically do to limit this content.
I see similar sentiments often. It's as though people default to thinking we owe these businesses a moral/legal framework according to which they can operate at the scales at which they currently operate without taking responsibility for the negative social effects. I think we are deliberately being fostered to accept that large corporations should be allowed to break down the social fabric. I think that the legislation around user-driven websites specifically have lagged so far behind due to a concerted effort that could be characterized as "tricking".
But realistically, what exactly would you have Patreon do here? (also asking u/nacho) Let's say Patreon runs a thorough background check on every person that wants an account on the site. That's a...
But realistically, what exactly would you have Patreon do here? (also asking u/nacho)
Let's say Patreon runs a thorough background check on every person that wants an account on the site. That's a pain-in-the-ass long process for verification that still wouldn't catch a private Discord server or a website using Patreon oath to paywall content. Should Patreon have their own scrapers and bots that must be added to anything that a subscriber could see? Should a human review all content that goes through the platform?
At a certain point, the economics don't work anymore and/or businesses become extremely risk adverse (see Stripe or Chase). Any content that could possibly cause offense would be proactively banned from Patreon. I don't think that'd be an improvement. The business would just shift underground and be even harder to moderate.
I really don’t think I agree with your implication. Specifically that this behavior is any different with websites than physical businesses. Starbucks doesn’t put you through a background check...
I really don’t think I agree with your implication. Specifically that this behavior is any different with websites than physical businesses. Starbucks doesn’t put you through a background check before you enter their store. They don’t make you write down everything you are about to say and have an employee censor it before you can speak aloud. Instead, if problems are reported, they are addressed by employees. Customers can then be removed, prevented from returning, etc.
I don’t have a paid account, so I couldn’t read the article, but is Patreon addressing these issues when they are reported or not? If they are, and they have the staff to address all reports, I don’t see how this is different than physical businesses.
To be clear, I am not saying this is how it should be, just that it doesn’t seem different than the previous status quo. The only difference to me is how large online platforms can scale.
Also, my understanding from the bit of the article I can access is that these happen off platform. I think “it’s off platform” is an excuse that many providers use to ignore actual issues, but in this case, I see Patreon’s point of view. If you argue that they need the staff to proactively monitor all off-platform interactions by their members, Patreon needs to hire not just enough staff to moderate their on website, but also portions of discord, telegram, twitter, facebook, YouTube, ticktock, etc. Does that really make sense? To clarify, I don’t think Patreon should be allowed to ignore off platform infringements when brought to their attention, but to have to monitor it proactively seems onerous.
I guarantee Starbucks doesn't do a background check on everyone who owns their stock. The issue with this comparison is that the creators on patreon aren't employed by patreon. They're customers...
I guarantee Starbucks doesn't do a background check on everyone who owns their stock.
The issue with this comparison is that the creators on patreon aren't employed by patreon. They're customers of patreon -- patreon makes its money off fees. They don't want to make it more difficult for creators to sign up because of a small percentage of bad actors because that affects their bottom line just as much as patrons.
Gotta say, I didn't think about it that way, but it's technically within what I said, well done xD I included the "profit from the work" because technically Patreon creators don't work for the...
own stock
Gotta say, I didn't think about it that way, but it's technically within what I said, well done xD
I included the "profit from the work" because technically Patreon creators don't work for the company, but they do make profit, as you noted.
I don't agree with you that the creators are also customers... Even if we agree that they are not formal employees, they fall into some nebulous independent contractor or contracted supplier role that doesn't really exist in the physical world, but there are analogies. The creators are providing a resource of great value that the company then sells. Even under the most limited scenario I can support, where Patreon is only a store that only sells goods on behalf of others, they have liability. If the store sells faulty items because of a lack of due diligence, they can still be liable.
I don't know if I agree with all the discussion by Weldawadyathink, but I wanted to clarify, as I saw it, the point they were making.
There's a lot of analogues in the physical world. Have you never been to a market? Someone owns the actual area, and then independent shops rent out spaces. Unless it's a market that has a...
There's a lot of analogues in the physical world. Have you never been to a market? Someone owns the actual area, and then independent shops rent out spaces. Unless it's a market that has a specific guarantee, e.g some jade markets require that all shops sell unadulterated or dyed jade, it is what it is. You deal with the shops.
If I go to a fish market, and I buy Tuna that gives me mercury poisoning, the liability would fall on the person selling me the Tuna.
The problem is that the market is the strongest form of the "independent creator" model that I think has evidence, and you are taking the strongest position of the bunch that Patreon is in no way...
The problem is that the market is the strongest form of the "independent creator" model that I think has evidence, and you are taking the strongest position of the bunch that Patreon is in no way responsible for anything on their platform...I am not convinced. It seems to me that they are selling some hybrid situation, as so often happens online, and that the analog analogue (couldn't resist) is not a perfect replacement scenario. Indeed, if there was a market that had a regular subset of vendors that sold things like drugs or unmarked weapons or fake IDs, it would likely be immediately actionable, because such endeavors have some limited liability for ensuring compliance with laws. This situation is more difficult still because the predatory Patreons are victimizing people in a space that is poorly defined - AI manipulation of sexual representation. There is a likely strong First Amendment (in the US) argument that it could be protected, which must be balanced against rights to privacy and self-identity/bodily autonomy...and all of it online and thus not simply a physical location.
I think it's more complicated than you give credit.
That's not because Patreon has some weird special online privilege. If there was a shop in a market where the owners were secretly selling drugs, the police would take the shop down. The criminal...
That's not because Patreon has some weird special online privilege. If there was a shop in a market where the owners were secretly selling drugs, the police would take the shop down. The criminal liability lies in the people doing the crime.
The only difference is that it's actually reasonable for Patreon to independently "take down" the store. Unless the market owners had a private police force, they would defer to the police for that. So in that respect, being online is an advantage in that Patreon is actually responsive.
This situation is more difficult still because the predatory Patreons are victimizing people in a space that is poorly defined - AI manipulation of sexual representation. There is a likely strong First Amendment (in the US) argument that it could be protected, which must be balanced against rights to privacy and self-identity/bodily autonomy...and all of it online and thus not simply a physical location.
That has nothing to do with Patreon being an online marketplace. You could easily have a physical location selling AI nudes. I mean, it would be stupid, but it's not the online part that's the difference.
"In some ways (a lot of ways), my livelihood is in the hands of you as supporters, so not only do I appreciate your loyalty, I also kind of depend on it now!”
Patreon took down the aesthetic illusions Patreon page, as well as two other Patreon accounts selling nonconsensual AI-generated porn, after I reached out to the company for comment, meaning they are no longer able to make money from it.
I understand the authors concerns, and obviously the content was illegal. I just don't know what more Patreon could realistically do to limit this content. Severely limit new accounts unless a real human understands what content is being promoted on Patreon? Even if they do that, someone could just lie, and it seems difficult to verify secret folders on Discord etc.
I think the tech platforms have manage to trick society to think that it's reasonable to run a massively profitable platform without sufficient employees to moderate the platform.
That's not how business in other areas are regulated. Regulation of online spaces is obviously required to avoid the breakdown of society. Regulation is not bad, regulation and public oversight are strengths when dealing with increasingly large, gigantic and global platform companies.
If myr site requires human pre-approval before any and all user-submitted content is published not to break serious laws, then maybe my platform needs to hire all those employees or shut down if I can't afford to.
They tricked nobody, they just did it.
One of the most frustrating aspects of today is how no company has a decent service desk anymore.
You can see the fraying everywhere. Moderation pushed to users, or worse, power users.
Service Desks that are borderline unreachable or so toothless they can't really help.
Websites with a support phone number so deeply buried you might as well give up trying and tangle with the god awful chatbot instead.
Chatbots.
Perpetual "this line is busier than normal so your wait is longer than expected" IVR messages.
Moderators are just a subset or extension of this. There aren't enough people that want to do it. The ones that are, don't want to do it anymore and are overworked.
But tricked? Naw. It was just an easy avenue to slash costs and who's going to complain when they can't call a helpdesk anyway?
Consider nacho's comment in the context of the sentiment they responded to:
I see similar sentiments often. It's as though people default to thinking we owe these businesses a moral/legal framework according to which they can operate at the scales at which they currently operate without taking responsibility for the negative social effects. I think we are deliberately being fostered to accept that large corporations should be allowed to break down the social fabric. I think that the legislation around user-driven websites specifically have lagged so far behind due to a concerted effort that could be characterized as "tricking".
But realistically, what exactly would you have Patreon do here? (also asking u/nacho)
Let's say Patreon runs a thorough background check on every person that wants an account on the site. That's a pain-in-the-ass long process for verification that still wouldn't catch a private Discord server or a website using Patreon oath to paywall content. Should Patreon have their own scrapers and bots that must be added to anything that a subscriber could see? Should a human review all content that goes through the platform?
At a certain point, the economics don't work anymore and/or businesses become extremely risk adverse (see Stripe or Chase). Any content that could possibly cause offense would be proactively banned from Patreon. I don't think that'd be an improvement. The business would just shift underground and be even harder to moderate.
I really don’t think I agree with your implication. Specifically that this behavior is any different with websites than physical businesses. Starbucks doesn’t put you through a background check before you enter their store. They don’t make you write down everything you are about to say and have an employee censor it before you can speak aloud. Instead, if problems are reported, they are addressed by employees. Customers can then be removed, prevented from returning, etc.
I don’t have a paid account, so I couldn’t read the article, but is Patreon addressing these issues when they are reported or not? If they are, and they have the staff to address all reports, I don’t see how this is different than physical businesses.
To be clear, I am not saying this is how it should be, just that it doesn’t seem different than the previous status quo. The only difference to me is how large online platforms can scale.
Also, my understanding from the bit of the article I can access is that these happen off platform. I think “it’s off platform” is an excuse that many providers use to ignore actual issues, but in this case, I see Patreon’s point of view. If you argue that they need the staff to proactively monitor all off-platform interactions by their members, Patreon needs to hire not just enough staff to moderate their on website, but also portions of discord, telegram, twitter, facebook, YouTube, ticktock, etc. Does that really make sense? To clarify, I don’t think Patreon should be allowed to ignore off platform infringements when brought to their attention, but to have to monitor it proactively seems onerous.
Starbucks doesn't require a background check to shop there.
They do require a background check to work or profit from work there.
I guarantee Starbucks doesn't do a background check on everyone who owns their stock.
The issue with this comparison is that the creators on patreon aren't employed by patreon. They're customers of patreon -- patreon makes its money off fees. They don't want to make it more difficult for creators to sign up because of a small percentage of bad actors because that affects their bottom line just as much as patrons.
Gotta say, I didn't think about it that way, but it's technically within what I said, well done xD
I included the "profit from the work" because technically Patreon creators don't work for the company, but they do make profit, as you noted.
I don't agree with you that the creators are also customers... Even if we agree that they are not formal employees, they fall into some nebulous independent contractor or contracted supplier role that doesn't really exist in the physical world, but there are analogies. The creators are providing a resource of great value that the company then sells. Even under the most limited scenario I can support, where Patreon is only a store that only sells goods on behalf of others, they have liability. If the store sells faulty items because of a lack of due diligence, they can still be liable.
I don't know if I agree with all the discussion by Weldawadyathink, but I wanted to clarify, as I saw it, the point they were making.
There's a lot of analogues in the physical world. Have you never been to a market? Someone owns the actual area, and then independent shops rent out spaces. Unless it's a market that has a specific guarantee, e.g some jade markets require that all shops sell unadulterated or dyed jade, it is what it is. You deal with the shops.
If I go to a fish market, and I buy Tuna that gives me mercury poisoning, the liability would fall on the person selling me the Tuna.
The problem is that the market is the strongest form of the "independent creator" model that I think has evidence, and you are taking the strongest position of the bunch that Patreon is in no way responsible for anything on their platform...I am not convinced. It seems to me that they are selling some hybrid situation, as so often happens online, and that the analog analogue (couldn't resist) is not a perfect replacement scenario. Indeed, if there was a market that had a regular subset of vendors that sold things like drugs or unmarked weapons or fake IDs, it would likely be immediately actionable, because such endeavors have some limited liability for ensuring compliance with laws. This situation is more difficult still because the predatory Patreons are victimizing people in a space that is poorly defined - AI manipulation of sexual representation. There is a likely strong First Amendment (in the US) argument that it could be protected, which must be balanced against rights to privacy and self-identity/bodily autonomy...and all of it online and thus not simply a physical location.
I think it's more complicated than you give credit.
That's not because Patreon has some weird special online privilege. If there was a shop in a market where the owners were secretly selling drugs, the police would take the shop down. The criminal liability lies in the people doing the crime.
The only difference is that it's actually reasonable for Patreon to independently "take down" the store. Unless the market owners had a private police force, they would defer to the police for that. So in that respect, being online is an advantage in that Patreon is actually responsive.
That has nothing to do with Patreon being an online marketplace. You could easily have a physical location selling AI nudes. I mean, it would be stupid, but it's not the online part that's the difference.
I found this pretty funny personally!