Question Potential Patreon Problems.

I came across this today, https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/23/crowd-funding-platform-patreon-announces-it-will-pay-out-half-a-billion-dollars-to-content-creators-in-2019.html

The CEO of Patreon said that their current business model is "not sustainable."

While this could be code for "not as profitable as our VC investors would like", this language has been used by other platforms before they made major changes that screwed over the content producers.

Yes, it's been great for keeping this place running, and there are several friends who are making an uncomfortable living form Patreon, but like every web-service, we'll need to make sure that we keep our options open, so that if needed we can jump ship and do things via some other route.

https://www.subscribestar.com/ is one option, though i would worry about the number of right-wing-nuts based there, which may mean that they'll have problems with payment processors in future.

I'm still looking for other sources for myself, and i'm wondering what else people here have tried.

Some alternatives described here, https://alternativeto.net/software/patreon/ but i haven't explored them yet.

Patreon and Google deplatforming those they consider offensive is a danger to us. Maybe the ones they are deplatforming today are those we dislike, however freedom of speech cannot be freedom of speech if it presumes that any speech other than advocating murder is unacceptable. If the worm turns then we may be considered obscene and therefore not able to make a living. Already if you mark your blog (which mine is BTW) as having adult content google will not pay you for it at all. To me this is defacto censorship. Now I don't mind looking into finding a processor who is more in line with our views. However the big dog in the whole pile is paypal. If they refuse to pay you (or your funding platform) then it matters little who you try to make your funding platform. IMO (and I'm a technical nincompoop who knows very little about such things) we will eventually have to go to bit coin or some other crypto currency in order to carry out private interactions. The problem I had (and still do have) with crypto currency is that it relies on a password to keep it safe, however if you forget your password you are SOL (and that is not stories on line ) as far as your money goes. It is simply lost. Or at least that is the way I understood it when I checked into it when I could have bought bit coin for a dollar to coin parity.

The traditional (classic old-style) liberal position (not progressive authoritarian) view is that if it's not illegal, a business should not be able to discriminate against one. Whether race, gender, ethnicity, religion, political viewpoint, or whatever, if one's actions are not illegal, a business should not be able to kick you out. However, worldwide, discrimination based on political ideology seems to be running rampant. In China, there are "social points" associated with how well one behaves on-line, with privileges going with being a good person - travel, living, etc. Don't kid yourself - it's coming elsewhere. Deplatforming, defunding, and even yanking away bank accounts is happening. Being arrested for expressing a viewpoint is happening. Some may like this because "it's the other side", but it's a matter of which viewpoint is in vogue.

If anyone thinks that deplatforming, censorship, and vilification via news is fine, imagine how you'd feel if the shoe were on the other foot, and you were on the receiving end. Look at history - total reversals of government and public positions (sometimes not public, but authoritarian governments) has happened frequently, and the reversal is often a lot quicker than anyone expects. We all guard our liberty not by silencing those with whom we disagree, but by allowing public discourse especially when it differs from our own. If we silence others, we in turn will be silenced.

For us here, this means that we need to have a diverse means of income and staying on-line. Patreon is okay, but all eggs in one basket, etc, ad nauseum.

Mister D wrote: The CEO of Patreon said that their current business model is "not sustainable."

While this could be code for "not as profitable as our VC investors would like", this language has been used by other platforms before they made major changes that screwed over the content producers.

Most people (and likely the CEO) thought the accounting would be as simple as making sure that (incoming funds) - (processing costs + some profit) = (disbursed funds). Office automation and clearinghouse software should handle that, right? Hundreds if not thousands of municipal, county, state/province, and national tax collectors not only disagree but change the rules and millage at least once a year. Because they can, and because every jurisdiction approaches the problem as "it's just one or two small changes, how hard can it be?" So, the company has a whole lot of people on payroll they didn't expect to need.

Ironically, what happened to Alex Jones is exactly the outcome Neo-cons were hoping for when they started attacking the NEA and public education years ago: that artists and content creators would provide what the Majority (more like The Really Loud Picketing Minority) approved of, or be starved out of their professions.

I agree with you. Alex Jones may be a loon, the problem with silencing a loon, is that eventually you run out of loons to silence and then people are forced into ever tighter conformity. That way is the way to fascism.
Not that the tax situation doesn't cause some deep problems. But I'm well aware of people (besides myself) who have been cut off from income. For me, I never ever expect to do anything except fade into the cruel cold of the long goodnight for I'm worthless and useless....

Anne wrote: the problem with silencing a loon, is that eventually you run out of loons to silence and then people are forced into ever tighter conformity.

To keep it a little more apolitical, you don't need to cite a specific figure at all. If one group decides to deplatform, censor, ban, etc., an other group or individuals with opposing viewpoints, perspectives, opinions, or proposals, they're just going to go elsewhere and talk in secret or in their own moderated/isolated bubble.

The end result, is what we have today.

Echo chambers that feed on resentment towards, "the other."

You don't need to successfully persuade "the other" to the side you're on, but both sides need to actually listen to each other. When that doesn't happen, the best you get is a stalemate.

I like the idea of patreon. Patron systems work pretty well for art, even with the occasional whiff of controlling an artist's creative output, when you peel up the corner. Some are like that with active voting polls, but Whateley isn't, and I prefer that setup. I'll support WA if you have to move somewhere else.

I read what's there, and I can't make it say that Patreon has any money problems currently. It's just that they've got more ideas on how to get more money out of their patrons, and those ideas are going to require some adjustments to the business model.

It looks to me like they're trying to turn a silk purse into a sow's ear, but that may just be my cynicism showing through.

So it's okay to kick people off this website if you feel like they're saying mean things, but it's not okay for Patreon to kick people off their website if they feel people are saying mean things? I don't understand.

I think the difference is that Patreon should be acting as a neutral third party.

Presumably, a creator on Patreon is saying something that other people, including Patreon staff, don't personally approve of being produced. But that creator is being paid by patrons who want to reward someone for creating those types of messages or work.

It isn't Patreon's place to control the work.

It does land squarely in morally ambiguous territory depending on the content. The line has to be drawn somewhere, at legality. I don't think it falls into the same category that YouTube does for example, because Patreon can host the content, but does not have to. Their role can be as limited only providing a place for funding to be exchanged for access to the created work via a link to someplace else.

They can request to have the work removed from their hosting services. But they shouldn't be removing entire creators from their service unless the creator or patrons are participating in something illegal.

edit: The free speech line is typically drawn at the point where your right to give a message won't be restricted, but nobody owes you a platform except for the government, and they will provide the minimum possible (speaking normally on public property). I think it could be argued that Patreon isn't a distribution platform, but a financial escrow.