View Full Version : Youtuber Law: there is now a case for anti-trust violations against Patreon and Paypal
UWDude
12-24-2018, 11:26 PM
A synopsis of what has happened:
A popular Youtube commentator, SargonOfAkkad, aka Owen Benjamin, found his Patreon suddenly deactivated.
Patreon had been sent a ten month old youtube clip, where he was a guest on somebody else's show, where he was called neo-nazis "white *******" and "******s".
So this is nothing new. Happens all the time, all over social media.
However, this time, Patreon began to see clear damage, as a wave of people began cancelling their Patreons.
The people all decided to move to a very small company with the same services, called "SubscribeStar" whose biggest star was a relatively unknown Japanese tech news girl.
A week later, both PayPal and Stripe announced they would no longer be processing payments for SubscribeStar, essentially destroying the company.
This is when a very well known author, named Sam Harris, announced he would be foregoing the $60,000 a month he was receiving from Patreons, as he was closing his Patreon account.
The youtuber "Youtuber Law" generally covers technology sector and game law news. He has been asked countless times about the bans, and has repeatedly said that there is no case, every time. Companies get freedom of speech too. Case closed.
After this incident however, he believes there is a strong anti-trust violation case:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akJf2oz5JOM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akJf2oz5JOM
The violation is called a customer boycott. Essentially, some companies get so big and powerful, they can tell other smaller companies beholden to them, not to deal with competitors. This is clearly anti-competitive.
It would be like Safeway telling all it' suppliers that if they deal with an up and coming grocery store, in some competitive area, they will cease to carry their products in Safeway stock. Essentially making it impossible for the new grocery store chain to get any stock at all, as every company that deals with safeway would be terrified of losing one of their national retail fronts over some one or two store outfit.
Trust hammer is coming.
Swordsmyth
12-24-2018, 11:34 PM
Facebook Contradicts Its Senate Testimony in Court: Site IS a Publisher (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?528795-Facebook-Contradicts-Its-Senate-Testimony-in-Court-Site-IS-a-Publisher)
UWDude
12-24-2018, 11:38 PM
Your story comes from Breitbart, which has been making lots of claims, just saying.
The video in the OP comes from an apolitical lawyer, who has repeatedly denied that any of these companies were doing anything illegal.
It happened during the age of railroads as well.
A large railroad would get a start up competitor in some city.
The Large railroad company would then threaten any local coal, oil, tar, lumber, etc company, that if they dealt with the smaller railroad, they would no longer carry their product to market. Essentially destroying any company that dared to do business with the new competitor, and as a result, also destroying the upstart railroad.
That's when Teddy Roosevelt stepped in, and broke the railroad companies, and anti-trust laws were passed.
acptulsa
12-25-2018, 08:32 AM
That's when Teddy Roosevelt stepped in, and broke the railroad companies, and anti-trust laws were passed.
Put a lot of faith in old Teddy, do you?
Ever hear of Edward H. Harriman? Give or take a van Swearingen or two, he was the last great rail baron. He made a mint manipulating the stock market, bought the Union Pacific, and whipped it into shape. Later he merged it with the Southern Pacific in 1903. The combination never had more than the usual local monopoly here and there, by the way. Harriman contributed to Roosevelt's 1904 campaign and never heard a peep from him. He made no contribution to Roosevelt's 1908 campaign and the UP/SP merger was under attack from 1909.
As an aside, they should have been left alone. After they were broken up, the UP swallowed the Western Pacific and the SP was swallowed by the smaller, but much healthier Rio Grande. Because of this, when they later merged again (the two systems were designed and built to work together, especially the SP subsidiary called the Central Pacific) the combination did wind up with a significant monopoly. If the UP/SP had been combined all along, it would never have been allowed to swallow either the WP or the Rio Grande, and the national rail network would be more competitive today.
Meanwhile, AT&T was awarded a major nationwide monopoly about that time. So much for trust busting. That happened because cities and towns were awash in wires. Later improvements in duplex telegraphy eliminated the need for so many wires, as more signals could be carried by fewer wires. But even though the impetus for the monopoly was gone, the monopoly remained for decades. Obviously someone was paying brib--er, I mean campaign contributions.
Without principle, political decisions are made for political reasons.
Does YouTube have a monopoly? No. And yet, in some ways they do. YouTube actively censors libertarians, yet this site allows no videos to be embedded but YouTube videos. Why is that? That site, Facebook and Google all reserve the right to censor political speech, because they're all privately owned. But the CIA and other government agencies were in on their creation. So, are they government or are they not? And if they are, what became of the First Amendment? No one seems to be asking that.
Without principle, political decisions are made for political reasons.
One bad habit you seem to retain from your days as a prog is a belief that government power is good, and when it isn't, the only solution is putting the "right person" in charge. But the real problem is power without principle. So, where is the principle here?
If one is going to invoke the ghost of Teddy Roosevelt, one ought to realize he was just another unprincipled politician. If one is going to look for meaning in the history of the railroads, one should have enough facts to see where these actions of the past left us. And if one calls for government intervention, especially on a libertarian site, one really ought to offer a principle or set of principles which can be used to limit that government power and keep it working honestly for the people.
TheCount
12-25-2018, 09:02 AM
Which company here has a monopoly? There are alternatives to both PayPal and patreon.
acptulsa
12-25-2018, 09:05 AM
Which company here has a monopoly? There are alternatives to both PayPal and patreon.
And YouTube, for that matter.
Yes, there are monopolistic practices underway. But what are they? How can they be legislated away if nobody goes to the trouble to put their finger on them?
TheCount
12-25-2018, 09:15 AM
And YouTube, for that matter.
Yes, there are monopolistic practices underway. But what are they? How can they be legislated away if nobody goes to the trouble to put their finger on them?
Think how much more free you could be with just a little more regulation.
acptulsa
12-25-2018, 09:34 AM
Think how much more free you could be with just a little more regulation.
No doubt. Progs and ex-progs are so quick to open Pandora's box, and so slow to accept responsibility for the consequences.
'What does the experience of the railroads tell us about the American way of competition and regulation? Obviously it suggests that the usual time lag between policy and reality has grown steadily worse over the years. Regulatory policy, like old generals, seems doomed always to fight the last war, partly because in our system it takes so long to recognize new problems and then to build a concensus for change. At bottom regulation involves a quest for some viable equation reconciling economic efficiency, social justice, and political acceptability. The more complex regulatory mechanisms become, the more difficult it is to adjust them or get rid of them when necessary, let alone tie them to these objectives.
'Since the pace of change wrought by new technology continues to gain speed, the gap between policy and reality widens daily despite all efforts to close it. In the modern world policy cannot possibly keep pace with change of all kinds.'
The most monopolistic situations on the whole internet are caused by government. Pardon me for being skeptical that government is the place to look for a cure.
I've been down the problem-reaction-solution road before. Too many chuckholes.
UWDude
12-25-2018, 10:29 AM
Which company here has a monopoly? There are alternatives to both PayPal and patreon.
There *were* alternatives to Patreon,
two of them
MakerSupport and SubscribeStar.
PayPal and Stripe both announced they would no longer do business with them, because nazis, or something....
I already described the situation with SubscribeStar.
People started leaving Patreon in droves, going to SubscribeStar after the banning of SargonOfAkkad
A week later, PayPal and Stripe both announced, (on the same day, so it was quite clear to anyone else who dared to business with Sargon) , they would no longer be processing payments for SubscribeStar.
Even if there are other alternatives, what was done to SubscibeStar, on behest of Patreon, is incredibly unfair and anti-competitive.
All SubscribeStar did was have the wrong client try to use their exchange service.
I am quite sure, any other Patreon like company, that tries to do business with SargonOFAkkad will meet the same fate.
Financial destruction and ruin by PayPal and Stripe, if they do not do the bidding of Patreon.
specsaregood
12-25-2018, 10:53 AM
Harriman contributed to Roosevelt's 1904 campaign and never heard a peep from him. He made no contribution to Roosevelt's 1908 campaign and the UP/SP merger was under attack from 1909.
Sorta how Microsoft never used to spend any money lobbying prior to the antitrust cases in the last 90's. Now they spend boatloads lobbying...
UWDude
12-25-2018, 10:59 AM
Sorta how Microsoft never used to spend any money lobbying prior to the antitrust cases in the last 90's. Now they spend boatloads lobbying...
And if it wasn't for antitrust laws, we would all still be using Microsoft Explorer for our internet browsers and Bing as our search engines.
Because Microsoft would simply make it impossible to use anything else on Windows Machines, as well as blacklist and destroy any company that dared to do business with a search or browser competitor.
UWDude
12-25-2018, 11:09 AM
Another nasty trick Huge railroad companies would do when they found out about a start up railroad:
they would buy a ring of land around the city.
Then the start-up company would be unable to leave the city, because there would always be a small parcel of land owned by the competitor, and they would refuse to sell the land to them to let them bypass out of the city.
Roosevelt ended that bullshit too.
acptulsa
12-25-2018, 11:16 AM
And if it wasn't for antitrust laws, we would all still be using Microsoft Explorer for our internet browsers and Bing as our search engines.
Because Microsoft would simply make it impossible to use anything else on Windows Machines, as well as blacklist and destroy any company that dared to do business with a search or browser competitor.
Microsoft never did those things. They just secured agreements from manufacturers to include Windows and Explorer on new machines.
And the Sherman Act suit ended in a settlement which did not enjoin Microsoft from doing what they did before. They simply got competition, most notably from Linux freeware. They did do what they had done before, but nobody was hurt by it and nobody cared.
That whole suit was a waste of taxpayer money. Competition had solved the problem before the settlement was approved by the judge.
And, no, we would not all have Microsoft on our non-Mac PCs. That settlement in no way enabled freeware, or other operating systems.
Another nasty trick Huge railroad companies would do when they found out about a start up railroad:
they would buy a ring of land around the city.
Then the start-up company would be unable to leave the city, because there would always be a small parcel of land owned by the competitor, and they would refuse to sell the land to them to let them bypass out of the city.
Roosevelt ended that bull$#@! too.
LOL
Where did you hear that silliness? What would keep the startup from breaking ground just outside the ring and going from there?
In actual fact, the townspeople would never allow that to happen. Towns hated having only one railroad, because railroads competed where there was competition and gouged towns where they had a monopoly. The tactic against startup roads was cutting fares to that town to the point where both lines lost money every time they rolled a train. Since the large roads had other lines that paid, they could outlast the other road and buy it out of bankruptcy.
And no, your tinpot hero TR didn't end the practice. The Interstate Commerce act created the ICC while he was still a lad.
Your view of history is amusing. Where did you acquire it? Government schools in blue states, perhaps?
specsaregood
12-25-2018, 11:21 AM
And if it wasn't for antitrust laws, we would all still be using Microsoft Explorer for our internet browsers and Bing as our search engines.
Because Microsoft would simply make it impossible to use anything else on Windows Machines, as well as blacklist and destroy any company that dared to do business with a search or browser competitor.
I think you missed the point. The govt came down on them because they weren't letting the politically connected wet their beaks. They learned their lesson and so did the ones to come after them, eg: google is now the biggest lobbyist in DC and they've been doing more monopolistic stuff than MS ever dreamed of doing.
UWDude
12-25-2018, 11:28 AM
And, no, we would not all have Microsoft on our non-Mac PCs. That settlement in no way enabled freeware, or other operating systems.
Please.
Microsoft by now would have used its power to make sure everything related to the desktop was microsoft.
The only thing to stop them from such things is anti-trust laws.
Please, tell me the market driven reason Microsoft would not want to muscle any and all competition out of the market.
Tell me the market reason Microsoft could not.
You would not even be able to download Firefox on your machine in 2001, if Microsoft could have their way. They could just make it technically impossible for Windows users.
UWDude
12-25-2018, 11:30 AM
I think you missed the point. The govt came down on them because they weren't letting the politically connected wet their beaks. They learned their lesson and so did the ones to come after them, eg: google is now the biggest lobbyist in DC and they've been doing more monopolistic stuff than MS ever dreamed of doing.
You have no idea what Microsoft "dreamed" of doing. Just look at it's early history and rise. The entire Windows system is a rip-off of open source software, which Microsoft then branded, claimed as their own, and barred the original writers of said software from distributing their own versions.
UWDude
12-25-2018, 11:31 AM
What about the railroads? what about buying rings of land around cities so start up railroads could not grow beyond their home city?
What about railroads threatening to stop carrying miner or lumber company products if they dared to use a start-up railroads for short haul jobs?
Did any of your free-market purists ever figure out how an economy could possibly function with dirty tricks of such magnitude and hubris?
Teddy Roosevelt was a great president.
There is no such thing as a "free market" if monopolies are allowed to do whatever the hell they want.
It's all masturbatory conjecture about how "some magic competitor would be able to just rise up, and build flying railroads, to fly over the land bought up by competitors for the sole purpose of ringing them in...
If ti wasn't for anti-trust laws, Wal Mart would be able to destroy every single mom-and-pop shop a year before they even moved into the small town they were coming into, by demanding anybody that does business with Wal Mart not do business with the mom-and-pops.
No business would risk their Wal Mart contract over some mom and pop if BFE Nebraska.
acptulsa
12-25-2018, 11:36 AM
Please.
Microsoft by now would have used its power to make sure everything related to the desktop was microsoft.
How?
What about the railroads? what about buying rings of land around cities so start up railroads could not grow beyond their home city?
What about railroads threatening to stop carrying miner or lumber company products if they dared to use a start-up railroads for short haul jobs?
Did any of your free-market purists ever figure out how an economy could possibly function with dirty tricks of such magnitude and hubris?
Teddy Roosevelt was a great president.
The ICC was created when your tinpot god was still a lad. Roosevelt did none of what you're trying to give him credit for.
UWDude
12-25-2018, 11:38 AM
Where did you hear that silliness? What would keep the startup from breaking ground just outside the ring and going from there?
Oh yeah, I forgot about broken line railroads, where trains could just fly from one rail line to the other if there was a break in the track.
In actual fact, the townspeople would never allow that to happen. Towns hated having only one railroad, because railroads competed where there was competition and gouged towns where they had a monopoly.
How would "townspeople" be able to stop farmers three miles away sell tiny strips of land at 100 times the price?
there railroads would buy up quarter acres for $5 - $20 bucks each. Any hodlout had their price, and the railroad had the cash to buy the tiny strips of land, to ring the city, so the start-up could not grow out.
UWDude
12-25-2018, 11:43 AM
Roosevelt did none of what you're trying to give him credit for.
You better re-check your history.
As soon as I start naming some of the laws Roosevelt passed, you are going to ignore the fact you jsut proved your ignorance, and instead, after a quick googling of trhe laws, tell me how un-libertarian they were.
I know your schtick. I can't just believe you are dumb enough to say Roosevelt never busted up railroads.
When challenged on it, you'll run away and claim your ideologies are right, ignoring how woefully ignorant you are about history.
Are you getting your Roosevelts confused or something, because you are being really dumb.
The ICC was created when your tinpot god was still a lad. Roosevelt did none of what you're trying to give him credit for.
LOL
Please, anybody, wiki the ICC and Elkins Act.
acptulsa
12-25-2018, 11:56 AM
1. Start-up railroads were usually welcomed by major railroads, as they brought them business. The one exception is when they paralleled existing branches or tried to connect towns to rival major roads. Sometimes major railroads avoided existing towns, hoping to make their lands around their track more valuable. Look up Trinidad, Colorado and El Moro. Since they could build a station/warehouse and a silo, and shippers and receivers could bring a wagon to such buildings, that didn't prevent them from shipping (or they obviously wouldn't have done it).
Farmers had skin in the game. The more competitive railroads they had nearby, the less distance they had to move their crops by wagon. They had as much skin in the game as anyone. Or more.
2. How did townspeople prevent individuals from screwing a town? Have you never seen a western movie? How did cattlemen drive out sheep ranchers? Any way they could.
3. The abuses you're talking about were dealt with by the ICC, which was created a decade before Teddy charged up the hill next to San Juan Hill. Ergo, the problem was no longer there for him to solve when he was sworn in. What part of this do you not understand?
4. I never said Teddy Roosevelt never busted up a railroad. In fact, I said he did bust up a railroad.
Merry Christmas, headstrong dude. No charge for the education.
nobody's_hero
12-25-2018, 02:20 PM
I know what their goal is, but I'm not sure how to stop it.
Regardless of how we get there (through government or private companies, or worse, a tag-teaming cooperation between the two), eventually there will be no dissenting voices. That's ultimately where we're headed. You all can argue about government/private and free market/regulatory morals but eventually, there will be no dissent allowed. That's the goal.
The internet has had a good run, when it was relatively new and rapidly expanding, and neither government nor the major corporations knew how to control it nor move fast enough to control it. It was seen as an alternative to approved cable TV information distribution. But that noose is tightening. I have little faith in technological innovation to outrun the leviathan. If anything, I see old-fashioned paper fliers pasted on brick walls of back alleyways as a "future" means of distributing free thought. What good is demonetization or youtube channel bans against a carrier pigeon?
Merry [Censored] by the way.
UWDude
12-26-2018, 03:03 AM
3. The abuses you're talking about were dealt with by the ICC, which was created a decade before Teddy charged up the hill next to San Juan Hill. Ergo, the problem was no longer there for him to solve when he was sworn in.
The ICC solved the problem?
Are you saying there even was a problem?
because according to you, free market is just going to take care of everything.
I know what their goal is, but I'm not sure how to stop it.
According to some people here, this is just what Youtuber Law called "collective consciousness", which is a principle that says the companies are not in collusion, they all just happen to feel the same way about certain issues. And this is what they would plead in court.
In the SargonofAkkad and SubscribeStar situation, however, he finally sees some real evidence of collusion.
I mean, it is obvious they are all colluding, and have been since the elections started. Until the Akkad ban / SubscribeStar destruction, there was just no evidence.
I doubt he (YouTuber Law) had ever heard of MakerSupport, another tiny Patreon-like company that was shut down in early 2018, after PayPal and Striep announced they would no longer process payments for them.
Patreon is clearly using its contacts and connections with PayPal and Stripe to shut down competitors, by pressuring them not to process payments for them.
This is straight up cheating, and the stifling of competition.
There is absolutely no reason why PayPal or Stripe would feel a need to close down to
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.