It deserves to be in trouble considering they blatantly tried to kill speech of Saragon of Akkad and a few others. Monopoly shouldn't be abused in this manner.
Patreon required binding arbitration in case of certain disputes and promised to pay certain fees, then pissed off a creator, who couldn't do anything. His backers could, though, and several thousand of them requested arbitration.
Paying the arbitration fees several thousand times will be a real strain (the total sum is in the millions IIRC), and the working hours won't be easy either. So Patreon tried to group the disputes together, which failed a few days ago.
Now some creators are worried that Patreon might break down and take their money along (ie. the money that Patreon collected last month and would disburse next month).
Patreon is on the hook for all arbitration costs, minus $250 that the aggrieved consumer must pay as a filing fee.
The risk is because Patreon's liability is open-ended. Each arbitration is a MINIMUM of $10K, and escalates from there, depending on the number and nature of claims.
If the claimants are not motivated by money, and they are not, they can push each arbitration to a full hearing and decision, rather than accept a settlement offer. Since they violated their own ToS by suing in court and doing so in a class action (two separate violations), they are in serious peril.
If they do that, Patreon could easily end up paying $100K per user.
Finally, ANY Patreon user can file a claim because of how badly they've botched the multiple revisions to the ToS since then.
I wrote down what I got after reading a few articles on the topic, I never claimed to be well informed on the topic. You can correct me without being insulting.
> [Patreon] also responded with a counter-suit against 72 of those, seeking injunction against them -- which was denied Friday, setting the site up for payouts of some $10,000 per arbitration case, which it will not be able to reclaim even if it wins
It's all factually incorrect. The only lawsuit filed was by Patreon, because it was upset that it had to abide by the terms and conditions of its contract of adhesion.
"The comedian instructed his fans to file suits against Patreon..."
"Suits" here refer to claims submitted to arbitration, specfically JAMS.
The ToS say you waive your right to a jury trial or participating in a class action. Both are wrong. By stating those conditions, Patreon is guilty of deceptive practices. Which is illegal. All Patreon users can file a demand for arbitration now, regardless of whether or not someone they backed was deplatformed.
To understand what is going on, a summary of the legal repartee going on is as follows, written by Vox Day, who formulated the legal strategy and to my understanding, basically wrote all the legal briefs.
The crazy thing is that neither the lawyers nor the Trust & Safety people even read the Terms and Community Guidelines. I mean, one can excuse the gammas and the armchair lawyers for not knowing what the relevant rules and laws are, they're mostly reacting to what they've seen floating around the Internet.
But it's downright bizarre to me how the freaking lawyers don't even know what they're talking about. They'll write dozens of filings all based on the same false premise.
WE KICKED OWEN OFF BECAUSE HE POSTED HATE SPEECH ON OUR PLATFORM!
No, he didn't.
OKAY, WE KICKED HIM OFF BECAUSE HE POSTED HATE SPEECH ON INSTAGRAM AND WE POLICE OFF-PLATFORM SPEECH TOO!
Instagram is free.
WHAT? SO WHAT?
So Owen's Patreon account didn't fund his Instagram posts. Instagram is free.
WELL, UM, WE DID IT BECAUSE HE POSTED SOMETHING ON FACEBOOK!
Facebook is free too.
TWITTER?
That's free too.
WELL, HE MADE VIDEOS! ON YOUTUBE. HE FUNDED THOSE ON PATREON!
No, he didn't. He was monetized directly on YouTube and he never created a Patreon video project.
WE CAN KICK OFF ANYONE WE WANT FOR NO REASON AT ALL!
Allow me to introduce you to the Unruh Civil Rights Act of 1959....
I think the thing people sometimes forget is that at the core of all of this drama is a substantive issue (and the reason for the arbitration claims), namely:
* Can Patreon kick someone off who did not violate their terms of service?
* Does kicking someone off in this manner constitute tortious interference?
It's actually somewhat unfortunate that this is going through arbitration, if only because we likely won't ever get the full details of the judgement.
However, it is clear that, in addition to the central issue under arbitration, there are a number of errors that Patreon has made that are not working in their favor.
20 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 50.0 ms ] threadPaying the arbitration fees several thousand times will be a real strain (the total sum is in the millions IIRC), and the working hours won't be easy either. So Patreon tried to group the disputes together, which failed a few days ago.
Now some creators are worried that Patreon might break down and take their money along (ie. the money that Patreon collected last month and would disburse next month).
Since then, I believe at least another hundred have decided to join the fun.
Patreon Delenda Est.
The risk is because Patreon's liability is open-ended. Each arbitration is a MINIMUM of $10K, and escalates from there, depending on the number and nature of claims.
If the claimants are not motivated by money, and they are not, they can push each arbitration to a full hearing and decision, rather than accept a settlement offer. Since they violated their own ToS by suing in court and doing so in a class action (two separate violations), they are in serious peril.
If they do that, Patreon could easily end up paying $100K per user.
Finally, ANY Patreon user can file a claim because of how badly they've botched the multiple revisions to the ToS since then.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24009301
- Owen Benjamin has been removed from Patreon late 2019
- His fans file suits against Patreon claiming they interfered in their economic relationship with a content creator
- Under Patreon terms of service at the time, such a complaint has to be settled via arbitration under California's laws
- On January 1 Patreon changed their terms to ban users from filing complaints when someone is removed from the platform
- Patreon initiated a counter-suit against 72 complainers
- That has been denied Friday, Patreon will have to pay up to $10k per arbitration case
- Under California laws the updated terms of service can cause other legal issues (?)
- Patreon is now exposed to other lawsuits regarding other personalities removed from their platform
There never was a counter-suit.
Are you a shill or just misinformed?
Edit: regarding the counter-suit, is this article incorrect? https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/americas/159637...
> [Patreon] also responded with a counter-suit against 72 of those, seeking injunction against them -- which was denied Friday, setting the site up for payouts of some $10,000 per arbitration case, which it will not be able to reclaim even if it wins
Edit 2: from wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Benjamin
> Patreon would later file a counter-suit against 72 of the fans
It's all factually incorrect. The only lawsuit filed was by Patreon, because it was upset that it had to abide by the terms and conditions of its contract of adhesion.
"The comedian instructed his fans to file suits against Patreon..."
"Suits" here refer to claims submitted to arbitration, specfically JAMS.
You broke the site guidelines badly with that. No personal attacks, please, and no drive-by insinuations of shillage.
Your comment would be just fine without that bit.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The crazy thing is that neither the lawyers nor the Trust & Safety people even read the Terms and Community Guidelines. I mean, one can excuse the gammas and the armchair lawyers for not knowing what the relevant rules and laws are, they're mostly reacting to what they've seen floating around the Internet.
But it's downright bizarre to me how the freaking lawyers don't even know what they're talking about. They'll write dozens of filings all based on the same false premise.
WE KICKED OWEN OFF BECAUSE HE POSTED HATE SPEECH ON OUR PLATFORM!
No, he didn't.
OKAY, WE KICKED HIM OFF BECAUSE HE POSTED HATE SPEECH ON INSTAGRAM AND WE POLICE OFF-PLATFORM SPEECH TOO!
Instagram is free.
WHAT? SO WHAT?
So Owen's Patreon account didn't fund his Instagram posts. Instagram is free.
WELL, UM, WE DID IT BECAUSE HE POSTED SOMETHING ON FACEBOOK!
Facebook is free too.
TWITTER?
That's free too.
WELL, HE MADE VIDEOS! ON YOUTUBE. HE FUNDED THOSE ON PATREON!
No, he didn't. He was monetized directly on YouTube and he never created a Patreon video project.
WE CAN KICK OFF ANYONE WE WANT FOR NO REASON AT ALL!
Allow me to introduce you to the Unruh Civil Rights Act of 1959....
* Can Patreon kick someone off who did not violate their terms of service?
* Does kicking someone off in this manner constitute tortious interference?
It's actually somewhat unfortunate that this is going through arbitration, if only because we likely won't ever get the full details of the judgement.
However, it is clear that, in addition to the central issue under arbitration, there are a number of errors that Patreon has made that are not working in their favor.