Sargon of Akkad's Ostracism & The Great Online Schism

Jun 20, 2018
1,960
2,055
240
Maybe Carl could have gotten his point across without repeatedly using the n-word... that is perhaps too much to ask.
This excuse doesnt work he said it outside of patreon and to put up a mirror to the alt right, others say the N word on patreon, still do and are not banned, like most silicon valley companies (who all talk to each other) they searched for any excuse to ban him because of politics and nothing else.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Kadayi

Sapien

Neo Member
Sep 5, 2018
24
3
80
I see no problem with this. I always look things from the perspective of a business owner. If keeping characters like Sargon has negative effect on business, why would I keep him on my platform?

If the decision bites my ass and competition takes over, then I would have just made bad business decision. We will see if GAP and the new Patreon like service will take over the old power because they offer more flexibility in their TOS.
 
Last edited:

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,462
1,527
345
Moore Park Beach
Ouch. That is very damning.

I really think this was a huge mistake and JH made a huge mistake here. She really turned what is a dumpterfire all the way up to 11.
I will not be surprised if she leaves the company in january.
This transcript will cause material damage to Patreons brand as well as its its value.

You really have a big gamble to play now. Sacrifice JH and claim this was all her rouge fault, or try to ride it out.
None of the options really look all that great honestly.
 

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,462
1,527
345
Moore Park Beach
Ouch. That is very damning.

This is not about sargon or culture war any more. This is way beyond that.



I really think this was a huge mistake and JH made a huge mistake here. She really turned what is a dumpterfire all the way up to full nuclear burn at 11.
I will not be surprised if she leaves the company in january.
This transcript will cause huge material damage to Patreons brand as well as its its value.

You really have a big gamble to play now. Sacrifice JH and claim this was all her rouge fault, or try to ride it out.
None of the options really look all that great honestly.


I mean, this really has potential to be really bad.
I follow many wood-turning and carpentry channels. Because I like woodworking myself
and I do a lot of woodworking in my spare time. Yeah, I build furniture in my spare time. I like it. It is relaxing.


Really, we have YT shows talking about the best way to cut bloody hardwood cross-grain biscuits or making a mortise and tenon join by hand, I watch a lot of those channels,
when these guy are starting to talk about abandoning Patreon, then things are dire. Jesus Christ.
Who knows, nothing might come out of it, but when the guy that usually makes videos about how to make a 8mm dowel shaving tool starts to talk about leaving the
platform, yeah I would worry.
Fscking really! Shows like this being worked up?!


Or the guy that has a show about forgotten tools from the homestead a hundred years ago. With half hour long shows to show how great this 1880 tool to pull nails out of wood works etc.
Jesus Christ, when this guy, this shows make videos on how important it is to leave patreon, you really have some really fscking serious PR issues you need to address.
VERY IMMEDIATELY is kind of how soon you need to address this.


I am not sure they can close this door. It might be nothing, it might be something very material. I don't know. We will see the fallout in a few months.
 
Last edited:
May 10, 2009
2,813
372
665
I see no problem with this. I always look things from the perspective of a business owner. If keeping characters like Sargon has negative effect on business, why would I keep him on my platform?

If the decision bites my ass and competition takes over, then I would have just made bad business decision. We will see if GAP and the new Patreon like service will take over the old power because they offer more flexibility in their TOS.
That's fine and not unreasonable but they should be clear on who they want on their platform and what ideology is acceptable to do business with them.
 

Kadayi

Probable Replicant
Oct 10, 2012
6,101
3,548
710
theconclave.net
I see no problem with this. I always look things from the perspective of a business owner. If keeping characters like Sargon has negative effect on business, why would I keep him on my platform?

If the decision bites my ass and competition takes over, then I would have just made bad business decision. We will see if GAP and the new Patreon like service will take over the old power because they offer more flexibility in their TOS.
Driveby much?

Wasn't costing them money.

Wasn't causing people to flee the platform.
 
Last edited:

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,462
1,527
345
Moore Park Beach
That's fine and not unreasonable but they should be clear on who they want on their platform and what ideology is acceptable to do business with them.
The electricity company should be clear on who they want on their platform and what ideology is acceptable to do business with them. Anyone ANTIFA, should be allowed to be denied service.
Lets also ban their parents from having electricity since they are probably ANTIFA too.
(Or they can enter a kangaroo court to deny the claims and get electricitt re-connected.)
 
Likes: finowns

Sapien

Neo Member
Sep 5, 2018
24
3
80
Driveby much?

Wasn't costing them money.

Wasn't causing people to flee the platform.
And if this costs them more then keeping Sargon, then they made bad business decision. I'm not saying kicking him out was right or wrong decision since I don't have any statistic on how Patreon was/is going to be influenced by the ongoing boycott. I'm just saying that business has all the rights to kick out users if they see them as negative influence on their business.

The electricity company should be clear on who they want on their platform and what ideology is acceptable to do business with them. Anyone ANTIFA, should be allowed to be denied service.
Lets also ban their parents from having electricity since they are probably ANTIFA too.
(Or they can enter a kangaroo court to deny the claims and get electricitt re-connected.)
Cute. There are business that are regulated and some that are not. Facebook/Twitter/etc. are not. So, yes they have right to kick ANTIFA out of their platform if they want to.
 
Last edited:

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,462
1,527
345
Moore Park Beach
That's fine and not unreasonable but they should be clear on who they want on their platform and what ideology is acceptable to do business with them.
Absolutely. You also agree with the Christian and Muslim faithful bakers right to refuse to serve homosexual customers.
Glad to hear that you are consistent in your believes.

(This was a joke, I am actually calling you out for being a hypocrite. True story)
 

Kadayi

Probable Replicant
Oct 10, 2012
6,101
3,548
710
theconclave.net
And if this costs them more then keeping Sargon, then they made bad business decision. I'm not saying kicking him out was right or wrong decision since I don't have any statistic on how Patreon was/is going to be influenced by the ongoing boycott. I'm just saying that business has all the rights to kick out users if they see them as negative influence on their business.
Did you even read the thread or watch the various videos linked in it? I don't get the impression you did tbh, because you're coming in with the same apologist line of thinking for Patreon that has already been debunked a good week ago.
 

Sapien

Neo Member
Sep 5, 2018
24
3
80
That's fine and not unreasonable but they should be clear on who they want on their platform and what ideology is acceptable to do business with them.
It's beneficial for to them be vague. They get money from controversial figures, until they become too controversial.
This can bite you in the ass in the end, since it creates all kinds of image problems and can have negative impact on long haul.
 

Kadayi

Probable Replicant
Oct 10, 2012
6,101
3,548
710
theconclave.net
It's beneficial for to them be vague. They get money from controversial figures, until they become too controversial.
This can bite you in the ass in the end, since it creates all kinds of image problems and can have negative impact on long haul.
They breached their own TOS. You'd know this if you were paying attention. That's why people are leaving on mass.

Also new member and not one post in gaming :unsure:
 
Last edited:
May 10, 2009
2,813
372
665
Absolutely. You also agree with the Christian and Muslim faithful bakers right to refuse to serve homosexual customers.
Glad to hear that you are consistent in your believes.

(This was a joke, I am actually calling you out for being a hypocrite. True story)
Wait, you imagined what I believe in the Christian baker case then used it as an example of my hypocrisy?
 
Nov 11, 2018
188
51
150
No sympathy, no quarter. Everyone coming to his defense are people whose views run the spectrum from insulting to abhorrent. There isn't a single defense of him made by someone whom I respect or believe to be extending their advocacy in good faith.
 
Last edited:
Likes: gohepcat

Sapien

Neo Member
Sep 5, 2018
24
3
80
They breached their own TOS. You'd know this if you were paying attention. That's why people are leaving on mass.

Also new member and not one post in gaming :unsure:
I'm not familiar what level of legal binding Patreon's TOS has, but maybe Sargon has case to sue them? If not, then Patreon is on clear. Admitedly, huge image problem for them. Never make a "contract" with a client if you can't keep your end of the deal.

I don't post in gaming section and haven't in years. I was banned from the old GAF but kept lurking off-topic for years, and decided to join again since it was possible. But since the traffic is kinda slow here, I end up checking the site once in a while.
 
Last edited:
May 10, 2009
2,813
372
665
It's beneficial for to them be vague. They get money from controversial figures, until they become too controversial.
This can bite you in the ass in the end, since it creates all kinds of image problems and can have negative impact on long haul.
It is beneficial for them to be vague but it isn't ethical and it's the reason people are upset. Patreon can't be a moral arbiter of 'good' and at the same time use communist Russia style laws of vaguer the better. People will call them out and I hope it has consequences. We don't want our monopolies using this type of 'justice.'
 

Sapien

Neo Member
Sep 5, 2018
24
3
80
It is beneficial for them to be vague but it isn't ethical and it's the reason people are upset. Patreon can't be a moral arbiter of 'good' and at the same time use communist Russia style laws of vaguer the better. People will call them out and I hope it has consequences. We don't want our monopolies using this type of 'justice.'
I personally don't expect companies to be ethical, quite the opposite. But I understand why people are upset, I understand why people are fleeing the platform. My only point has been that the platform owner has every right to kick out people who they think has negative value to them. In this case, they probably made wrong decision business vise. Or, they think the short term problems are worth it in a long term. At least there will be more competition in the marketplace due to their decision.
 
Last edited:

Kadayi

Probable Replicant
Oct 10, 2012
6,101
3,548
710
theconclave.net
I'm not familiar what level of legal binding Patreon's TOS has, but maybe Sargon has case to sue them? If not, then Patreon is on clear. Admitedly, huge image problem for them. Never make a "contract" with a client if you can't keep your end of the deal.
As seems to be emerging this appears to be something that goes beyond Patreon themselves and extends into questionable actions by Paypal and Stripe that veer into Anti-trust territory.

I don't post in gaming section and haven't in years. I was banned from the old GAF but kept lurking off-topic for years, and decided to join again since it was possible. But since the traffic is kinda slow here, I end up checking the site once in a while
PM @EviLore and he can merge your accounts assuming that your old ban was unjustified.
 
Last edited:

Sapien

Neo Member
Sep 5, 2018
24
3
80
As seems to be emerging this appears to be something that goes beyond Patreon themselves and extends into questionable actions by Paypal and Stripe that veer into Anti-trust territory.



PM @EviLore and he can merge your accounts assuming that your old ban was unjustified.
Nah, my old ban was more or less justified. I wen against TOS and didn't win.

I haven't read about Paypal's nor Stripe's part in this play, so can't say much about them. Basically this thread and some tweets by Rubin and Peterson are my only insight into this case.

I don't use any of these services, nor do I subscribe to Sargon. My only interest in this case is from the POV of free and open markets.
 

strange headache

Gif and Meme Champion
Jan 14, 2018
1,359
5,396
475
So, I've just had some time to digest the transcript provided by Matt Christiansen and my god is it damning.

JACQUELINE: Yes. And that’s obviously one of the reasons that I wanted to set up this call, because - sorry, one small thing. I just wanted to make sure that we’re not recording. Like, I’m not recording on my side.
MATT: Sure. Yeah.
JACQUELINE: Okay perfect. Just to confirm, like, you’re not recording, I’m not recording, just to make sure that we’re both okay with that.
Is it just me or is the head of Patreon's "Trust and Safety" team rather distrustful when it comes to transparency? If you can't stand behind your words publicly then why do you even contact Patreon creators in the first place? If Argon's ban were such a clear cut case you wouldn't need to have these conversations behind closed doors. Seems to me that Jacqueline Hart isn't very trusting in her own arguments.

MATT: How is that possibly a viable standard? Shouldn’t it be a uniform treatment for everybody?
JACQUELINE: That is a really great question. And yes, we would love for it to be a uniform standard for everyone, but as you might imagine, it’s quite difficult to make something so granular. And I actually don’t know if we want to go that direction because it takes the human element out of it. Right now today, we have humans that review and reach out to our creators, and so of course there are problems with a human process, but we don’t this to be about bots or taking you down because you said 3 words that were over the threshold. We want this to be a holistic review.
MATT: Do you understand how that’s inherently subjective?
JACQUELINE: Yes, I do.
Jacqueline Hart's "holistic" approach is in direct contradiction with Jack Conte's Manifest Observable Behavior (MOB) policy. We've seen Conte advertising Patreon's objective approach when it comes to enforcing their guidelines, but here we have the head of their Trust and Safety team admitting that it's basically all subjective eyewash.

Leaving your Patreon revenue vulnerable to the subjective whims of Jacqueline Hart seems to be the exact opposite of what a "Trust and Safety" team should do.

JACQUELINE: I don’t necessarily see it that way. I sort of see it along two lines - so if we said, we want this to just be a free speech platform - we’re 100% dedicated to free speech - then that isn’t really true to our mission.
MATT: What percent dedicated are you to free speech?
JACQUELINE: I don’t really know how to answer that question. What I’m trying to say is we want to fund the most creators we possibly can, and we believe in free speech, and there are different perspectives on what is free speech.
Jacqueline Hart fails to understand that supporting free speech is an integral part to their self proclaimed mission to "fund the creative class". If creators need to be afraid of what they create, then Patreon isn't really supporting the creative process, they are regulating it.

I'm getting really tired of this "we support free speech, but..." doublespeak. She spends the majority of her time trying to explain this "but..." away with dishonest arguments, strawmen and whataboutisms which merely suggests that she isn't supporting free speech at all, at least when it comes to political content. Jacqueline Hart is clearly unable to separate her personal political views from her work.

JACQUELINE: I’ve only been here a few months so I’m trying to reach out to our creator community and understand what the perception is, where we can make improvements. [...]
JACQUELINE: No. What I’m saying is when users report things like some of the things you just mentioned - we have received user reports in the last week of that. And we’re very grateful to have those reports of, ya know, hate groups here or there, that maybe are using our platform. But we are 170 people and 10% of that is our trust and safety team today.
Considering that Hart joined Patreon only a couple of months ago, I find it quite interesting how much influence she already has on Patreon's decision-making process and how much administrative overhead her "Trust and Safety" team is taking up, with more job offerings on the horizon. Is Jack Conte still in control of his own company?

My only interest in this case is from the POV of free and open markets.
Oh yeah, about that...

JACQUELINE: We’re not a free market. Again, this goes back to -
MATT: Okay. I’m glad you admit that.
 

Sapien

Neo Member
Sep 5, 2018
24
3
80
In what context she says that? That they reserver option to kick out people who they want to? That's been my case whole time. Could be that I'm misusing the term since english isn't my first language.

My argument is that in case like this, they are justified to kick Sargon out, and Sargon is free to move to use other similar services provided by the competition.

If there is legal binding contract between the service provider and Sargon, then the case should be taken to court. If there isn't one, then company has done everything by the book.
 
Last edited:

strange headache

Gif and Meme Champion
Jan 14, 2018
1,359
5,396
475
If there is legal binding contract between the service provider and Sargon, then the case should be taken to court. If there isn't one, then company has done everything by the book.
The question is not whether Patreon is allowed to kick Sargon, the question is if it was the right thing to do. Nobody is questioning that Patreon has enough protection to not be legally fazed by this. Hence why your appeal to legal positivism is lazy and besides the point.
 

Sapien

Neo Member
Sep 5, 2018
24
3
80
The question is not whether Patreon is allowed to kick Sargon, the question is if it was the right thing to do. Nobody is questioning that Patreon has enough protection to not be legally fazed by this. Hence why your appeal to legal positivism is lazy and besides the point.
Primary mission for most companies is to make profit and if they deemed Sargon as negative for their business strategy, then kicking him out is the right thing to do. You don't have like it and you can vote by taking your business elsewhere, as many have done. I don't really care about the ethics of the decision beyond companies having right to determine who uses their platform.
 

njr

Member
Jan 26, 2009
874
90
760
Given that transcript, its very clear the decision was ideologically motivated. I don't think the dispute here is whether or not they were allowed to do so. It's concerning when a company puts up a facade saying they have a standard guideline and act against that guideline. It could have been avoided up front if in the beginning that their guidelines reflect that they will be subjective on an individual basis for each investigation. I find the "their platform their rules" argument to be missing one thing: Competition. I'm sure people would fund a more free Patreon/Paypal, but is it allowed? After SubscribeStar's Paypal/Stripe removal its hard to say. It would be very good if payment processors had more competition in my opinion.
 
Likes: Humdinger
Oct 2, 2018
473
1,075
210
This excuse doesnt work he said it outside of patreon and to put up a mirror to the alt right, others say the N word on patreon, still do and are not banned, like most silicon valley companies (who all talk to each other) they searched for any excuse to ban him because of politics and nothing else.
I think it's a bit of both.

Sargon really ought to have known better. Since it seemed he was starting to get into things with UKIP and was appearing more and more in public and potentially going a bit more mainstream he should have not be dropping N-words in streams or whatever.

What he did was idiotic and now he is going to face the consequences of that woeful decision making.

Honestly, he's known his card was marked for a long time and he was inevitably going to get booted once they had an excuse to do so. He gave them that excuse. The man is a fucking idiot.

Patreon are just coming out of this looking like a bunch of clowns.
They should have just said we don't like Sargon and we don't want him on our platform. Then try to weather the much smaller storm that would have caused.

Instead they tried to justify it in the most ridiculous way possible and when it blew up in their faces they started saying even more dumb stuff.

That transcript is so damning.

They admit they know the context of why he used the words.
They even admit they know he was saying things in opposition to the alt-right.
They even go as far as to say that if another user used the same words in the exact same context then that other user may NOT be banned.
They let it slip more than once that it might be the case that payment processors are forcing them to ban certain individuals.
They basically admit that they wanted to get rid of Sargon specifically and other users wouldn't necessarily be banned for the same thing because they aren't Sargon.

It's all topped off by the fact that it seems to have been alt-right types that were the ones reporting Sargon to Patreon.

So the alt-right went to Patreon and demanded that an opponent of the alt-right be deplatformed and Patreon obliged.
When that is pointed out to Patreon they basically say "we know but, don't worry, it won't happen to anyone else".
That's crazy.

I would love to know what's going on behind the scenes there ESPECIALLY now that they are mentioning some confrontation between Sargon and Anita Sarkeesian at Vidcon. How did Anita end up being a factor in the ban? He pays money to attend an event she is speaking at. He sits in the front row. His income should be taken away because of that? Did she have a restraining order or anything against him? Did he assault or abuse her? How can attending an event you don't like one of the speakers and they don't like you end up losing you your Patreon account?

Ultimately it seems like the guy has been stripped of his ability to make money from his, not all that controversial, work because somebody with the ability to influence such things has a personal vendetta against him.
 
Likes: njr
Jun 9, 2004
6,687
109
1,275
I’m happy that Jordan Peterson and members of the IDW are trying to find a solution to this problem. I’m extremely unhappy that they have to. First, it was deplatforming people. Now, it’s strategically killing businesses that would give them platforms by attacking their payment processor, hosting, domain provider, etc. It’s incredibly fucked up.
 
Oct 2, 2018
473
1,075
210
Given that transcript, its very clear the decision was ideologically motivated. I don't think the dispute here is whether or not they were allowed to do so. It's concerning when a company puts up a facade saying they have a standard guideline and act against that guideline. It could have been avoided up front if in the beginning that their guidelines reflect that they will be subjective on an individual basis for each investigation. I find the "their platform their rules" argument to be missing one thing: Competition. I'm sure people would fund a more free Patreon/Paypal, but is it allowed? After SubscribeStar's Paypal/Stripe removal its hard to say. It would be very good if payment processors had more competition in my opinion.
I think it was honestly just a matter of time. People have been incredulous for some time that people like Sargon are making money from the content they create. Virtually every hit-piece written about Youtubers mentions the money that they make.

Maybe between 2014 and 2016 you had this boom period where all these different Youtubers are springing up and gaining the ability to do Youtube full-time. Suddenly it feels like these content creators are even able to influence elections. Maybe they are, I am not so sure.

What follows is a barrage of negative publicity. They are radicalizing impressionable youth. They are making money from offensive content. They are "dog whistling" to white supremacists and it's getting people killed.

The way I feel about it is that people like Sargon etc would have NEVER been on radio or TV or in the newspapers back in the 70s, 80s, 90s etc.
Any audience they would have had would have been local and would have been small.
Internet forums and chat rooms changed things a little to the point where messages that one would not normally hear on TV could be heard online.
YouTube completely changed the game though.
At that point some dude, in his house, in his free time could reach an audience of thousands, then tens of thousands, then hundreds of thousands.
Yet, still not seen on TV etc but that didn't matter as you could be paid for YouTube content so suddenly the traditional gatekeepers are obsolete.

What we are seeing is the inevitable struggle to get things back under control.
 
Oct 2, 2018
473
1,075
210
I’m happy that Jordan Peterson and members of the IDW are trying to find a solution to this problem. I’m extremely unhappy that they have to. First, it was deplatforming people. Now, it’s strategically killing businesses that would give them platforms by attacking their payment processor, hosting, domain provider, etc. It’s incredibly fucked up.
It's politics.

I am sure that exactly what we are seeing here has played out many times, all over the world, at all points in history.

What's going to be so important is what happens next.

By this time next year will we be talking about how Sargon bounced back from all this or will he have been kicked off the internet completely?
If it's the latter then what will replace him?
 
Likes: MrRogers
Jun 20, 2018
1,960
2,055
240
I think it's a bit of both.
No its not "a bit of both" this is bullshit relativism out of naivety or for "building bridges" its not a "both sides" thing at all, you have people saying the N word right now on patreon not getting banned because they are leftwing, you have antife financing violence on patreon right now not getting banned because they are left.
Anyone that describes sargon as alt right is idiot or deliberate liar and this all was about politics and NOTHING else, the fact that the insane left bullied subscribestar so they lose paypal because people that had enough of this shit moved on to a alternative proves it, the fact that the left literally shutdown subscribestar and with it financially ruined hundreds of people that used it for all kinds of reasons just because ONE person they dont liked (because they are mentally stunted idiots buying into their own "secret hitler"bullshit) moved to subscribestar proves it, there is no relativism to it and there is no excuse for it as patreon has proven already by contradicting itself multiple times with every excuse they tried and every interview they have given.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Saruhashi
Oct 2, 2018
473
1,075
210
No its not "a bit of both" this is bullshit relativism out of naivety or for "building bridges" its not a "both sides" thing at all, you have people saying the N word right now on patreon not getting banned because they are leftwing, you have antife financing violence on patreon right now not getting banned because they are left.
Anyone that describes sargon as alt right is idiot or deliberate liar and this all was about politics and NOTHING else, the fact that the insane left bullied subscribestar so they lose paypal because people that had enough of this shit moved on to a alternative proves it, the fact that the left literally shutdown subscribestar and with it financially ruined hundreds of people that used it for all kinds of reasons just because ONE person they dont liked (because they are mentally stunted idiots buying into their own "secret hitler"bullshit) moved to subscribestar proves it, there is no relativism to it and there is no excuse for it as patreon has proven already by contradicting itself multiple times with every excuse they tried and every interview they have given.
I don't disagree with anything you've said there but I still believe that Sargon should know better regarding how to deal with his enemies.

The way I see it by using these words on streams that he knows are being recorded and will be shared around he is leaving himself wide open for attack.
Same with his idiocy in sending out those "I wouldn't even rape you" tweets to that MP.

Sargon doesn't fight smart with these people at all and so they are taking him down.
A matter of time before he is gone from YouTube too, I predict.

I'm sorry but some of this is self-inflicted, in my opinion. WTF was he thinking going on a stream and dropping N-words etc?
Did he think the left was going to say "hahaha he called the alt-right n*****s"?
No they were ALWAYS going to say "we've got him on tape using this language now we can ban him".

I wouldn't be surprised if Patreon have wanted rid of him since that vidcon nonsense in 2017. He just handed them a golden opportunity.

Don't agree with Patreon here at all. Just wish Sargon would have done things differently, in hindsight.
 
Oct 2, 2018
473
1,075
210
Interesting post on /r/kotakuinaction states it was mastercard that forced Patreon to kick Sargon



Frankly if true this is a disturbing development.

What's next, tell conservatives to Mahe their own credit card company?
IF this is true then the question needs to be asked why was Sargon targeted specifically?

Did Sargons enemies actually contact Mastercard directly and they've gone to Patreon without knowing the full story?

It seems bizarre that feckin MASTERCARD would want to completely shut someone out from receiving payments just because they used a bad word.
Like if a big celeb, like Hulk Hogan, was caught saying this word would Mastercard be all over anyone selling Hulkamania merchandise etc? (Plus his initials are HH... dogwhistle?)

Sure, at the time a lot of places like Wal Mart etc completely dropped Hogan merc and he was dropped from the WWE 2K16 game but you can go on Hogans own website and but merch from him using PayPal.

The idea that Mastercard would come in and say "no, this guy can no longer make money, we won't allow it" is completely absurd.

Plus, Sargon isn't all that controversial. Sure, he's said some things but overall his content is pretty tame. He's hardly an extremist. Not seeking to radicalize people or anything.

The large majority of his content is just his own, middle of the road, takes on political issues.

It's all just TOO weird. I'd love to know the true story behind all of this.
 
Apr 18, 2018
8,025
13,097
555
USA
dunpachi.com
Can't wait for the bank to call my loans because I'm a conservative. This is an exciting future we're headed into, where corps gut people's lives because they're on the wrong side of history.

What's the definition of fascism? "strong regimentation of society and of the economy" It's really cool that people can be ousted from sectors of said economy based on their political and ideological beliefs. This will definitely clean things up. :messenger_grimmacing_:messenger_ok:
 
Oct 2, 2018
473
1,075
210
Can't wait for the bank to call my loans because I'm a conservative. This is an exciting future we're headed into, where corps gut people's lives because they're on the wrong side of history.

What's the definition of fascism? "strong regimentation of society and of the economy" It's really cool that people can be ousted from sectors of said economy based on their political and ideological beliefs. This will definitely clean things up. :messenger_grimmacing_:messenger_ok:
Ah, but they call themselves anti-fascists so it's all good you guys. Nothing to see here.
 
Nov 11, 2007
9,362
532
1,085
IF this is true then the question needs to be asked why was Sargon targeted specifically?

Did Sargons enemies actually contact Mastercard directly and they've gone to Patreon without knowing the full story?

It seems bizarre that feckin MASTERCARD would want to completely shut someone out from receiving payments just because they used a bad word.
Like if a big celeb, like Hulk Hogan, was caught saying this word would Mastercard be all over anyone selling Hulkamania merchandise etc? (Plus his initials are HH... dogwhistle?)

Sure, at the time a lot of places like Wal Mart etc completely dropped Hogan merc and he was dropped from the WWE 2K16 game but you can go on Hogans own website and but merch from him using PayPal.

The idea that Mastercard would come in and say "no, this guy can no longer make money, we won't allow it" is completely absurd.

Plus, Sargon isn't all that controversial. Sure, he's said some things but overall his content is pretty tame. He's hardly an extremist. Not seeking to radicalize people or anything.

The large majority of his content is just his own, middle of the road, takes on political issues.

It's all just TOO weird. I'd love to know the true story behind all of this.
It's not strange at all if SJW garbage has infected major credit cards companies like they have all areas of society. One Trust and Safety team is all it takes to label ideological opponents as speakers of "hate".
 
Jul 13, 2018
412
395
215
Not the first time:

https://wikileaks.org/MasterCard-breaks-ranks-in.html

MasterCard has broken ranks in the US-linked banking blockade against WikiLeaks.

For almost three years, US financial giants VISA, MasterCard, PayPal, the Bank of America and Western Union have been engaged in an unlawful banking blockade against WikiLeaks. The blockade started in December 2010 in response to the start of WikiLeaks' publication of US diplomatic cables.

Now, one of the financial companies involved in the blockade, MasterCard International, has backed down and reversed its position. WikiLeaks was notified of MasterCard International's change in position by VALITOR, the Icelandic partner for VISA and MasterCard.

On April 24, 2013 WikiLeaks and DataCell won a lawsuit, which had been running for two years, against VALITOR for breach of contract and blockading WikiLeaks' donations at the behest of VISA and MasterCard. The Icelandic Supreme Court ordered VALITOR to recommence processing donations to WikiLeaks.

A cabal is not quite the right word to use here, as Silicon Valley and Banking/Credit aren't working against the government but more likely working with some part of it. They are silent intermediaries.

So some sort of lawsuit and the legal fees that go with it are the best route. I am guessing that Wikileaks sued via Iceland because Iceland is a bit less corrupt than other countries. Not sure how it would go in the US.
 
Likes: DeepEnigma
Oct 27, 2017
3,241
3,953
305
your mind
Not the first time:

https://wikileaks.org/MasterCard-breaks-ranks-in.html




A cabal is not quite the right word to use here, as Silicon Valley and Banking/Credit aren't working against the government but more likely working with some part of it. They are silent intermediaries.

So some sort of lawsuit and the legal fees that go with it are the best route. I am guessing that Wikileaks sued via Iceland because Iceland is a bit less corrupt than other countries. Not sure how it would go in the US.
That is fucking disgusting. Who’s pulling the strings? Makes you wonder.

I’d say the American government, but you don’t seem to think so.
 
Feb 25, 2018
155
217
225
Interesting post on /r/kotakuinaction states it was mastercard that forced Patreon to kick Sargon



Frankly if true this is a disturbing development.

What's next, tell conservatives to Make their own credit card company?
In my greatest hope of hopes, I hope that this mass censoring and deplatforming across the western world awakens a sleeping Billionaire conservative (or a collection of em), that creates they're own Mastercard, Patreon, Amazon, Google, Netflix and Disney.. basically controlling all aspects from funding to creation to distribution of popular culture, so at least there is some goddamn balance to neocon-liberalism/globalist ideology, because other than that, it's going to be a long slog of thought control, dark webbing and eventually the erasure of ideas permanently from human access. Maybe we don't even need the elite/ultrarich cause even the biggest tech and business titans had small beginnings, so possible alternative startups will break through at somepoint? The scariest difference presently, compared to the past, is that modern monopolies have the ability to turn the valve off on competitors wherever they pop up. In my somewhat idealistic heart tho, I ultimately believe that truth and freedom will find its way through even the darkest abyss, if it takes ten years, a hundred or more.
 
Last edited: