Mason  🏃‍♂️ ✂️

I don't know if it's possible to enforce these sort of things apolitically. I know that's the ideal to strive toward, but determining these things on a case by case basis is going to be the only effective route.

These sentences seem like non-sequiturs to me

Oh, sorry, from the perspective of Patreon, what apolitical, legalistic approach could they adopt? I don't think there is one. So when white supremacy groups flare up, their bans will seem like a right wing purge because (if the right wing owns them) it is.

Set rules as clearly as possible and enforce them when it is politically expedient *and* when it is not. If you’re doing it right, your decisions will not too strongly follow the same political winds, and some decisions will be decidedly less popular than others

I haven’t had an eye on Patreon’s bans over time, but I think it’s fair to say they ought to have removed some on the left if the issue is support of “violent organizations.” Neither end of the political spectrum has a monopoly on that, for sure!

I don't think it's as easy as you say, nor as clear cut as you think.

I'm curious - if coinciding with recent political events there has been a surge in right wing violence around the world, and hate crimes in the US, why would you suppose that "if you're doing it right, your decisions will not too strongly follow the same political winds"?

It seems like it would follow that if a particular strain of political thought is giving rise to more violence and hate, a Fairness Doctrine of banning *necessarily* would be unfair because you can't ban left and right wing actors in equal measure.