Why don't (banned) developers create empty Patreons?

[Bizef]

We see a lot of game creators being banned from Patreons because they didn't respect the rules (non-consent, incest...).
But why can't they just create a “support” Patreon that never mentions their games? But have their games elsewhere with link to those Patreons.

Is that impossible?

 

[Waterthose]

We see a lot of game creators being banned from Patreons because they didn't respect the rules (non-consent, incest...).
But why can't they just create a “support” Patreon that never mentions their games? But have their games elsewhere with link to those Patreons.

Is that impossible?

If you're in the US you have to link a SSN etc for tax reason and you also have to verify via your face and drivers license to post adult content. Very hard to get around it.

 

[morphnet]

But have their games elsewhere with link to those Patreons.

Is that impossible?

They also look at other sites with their links.

 

[Bizef]

I didn't mean that they should break any laws. But they could link their Patreons in their games without mentioning in Patreon the ones with prohibited (but legal) content. I don't see what prevents them from doing that?

They also could only talk about their other authorized content.

 

[Waterthose]

I didn't mean that they should break any laws. But they could link their Patreons in their games without mentioning in Patreon the ones with prohibited (but legal) content. I don't see what prevents them from doing that?

They also could only talk about their other authorized content.

You do know when you link to a patreon they can kinda see where it comes from.

 

[Bizef]

You do know when you link to a patreon they can kinda see where it comes from.

Even when it's from a software (game) and not a web site?
Also, anyone can put a Patreon link on a lot of things without the authorisation of the real owner of the page, or proof that they did it themselves.

 

[pisstaker]

I've thought about this before. A "Shell company Patreon" if you will.
Create a "publisher" that works with multiple "people", when in fact it is just a facade for a single real dev.
And the real dev behind it endorses said publisher but never openly reveals to be part of the publisher itself.
>hey guys, I highly recommend supporting this patreon that is totally not me *wink *wink*

 

[Count Morado]

Eventually they will get caught. Maybe not the first day. Maybe not the first month. Maybe not the first year. But eventually.

There are adult game creators who have been caught doing similar in the past.

It's best just to follow Patreon's rules if you want to be on their site. It's their house, their rules. When you have guests over to your house, you ask that they follow your rules. If they break your rules, they suffer consequences, right?

If creators want to make games that Patreon (and other platforms) won't allow - then they have to understand they will be hamstrung in platforms available.

Spoiler: More specifically, as I have stated in at least one other thread

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[asen-de]

It's best just to follow Patreon's rules if you want to be on their site. It's their house, their rules. When you have guests over to your house, you ask that they follow your rules. If they break your rules, they suffer consequences, right?

Wrong.


Patreon is leveraging a flawed interpretation of United States legislative frameworks to its advantage. By moderating content according to its own subjective standards, Patreon effectively assumes the role of a content creator or publisher. Simultaneously, Patreon claims the protections afforded to platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields platforms from liabilities typically associated with content creation or editorial decisions. This dual approach raises significant legal and ethical questions.

Under the current legislative framework, platforms invoking Section 230 protections are afforded substantial immunity from liability for user-generated content. However, by actively and selectively moderating content beyond what is strictly necessary for legal compliance, Patreon risks exceeding the bounds of its role as a neutral intermediary. In doing so, it arguably partakes in discriminatory or unfair practices, particularly when such moderation results in the removal or restriction of content that is otherwise lawful under federal or state law.

This systemic issue exposes a critical flaw in the existing legislation. Creators who rely on platforms operating under the umbrella of Section 230 should not be subjected to the arbitrary or overly restrictive terms of service imposed by these platforms. Instead, their obligations should align primarily with the legal standards established by the government. The selective enforcement of platform-specific rules undermines creators’ rights and stifles lawful expression, effectively subjecting them to a quasi-legal framework established unilaterally by private entities.

In conclusion, Patreon’s actions in banning content that is legally permissible within the jurisdiction of the United States are both problematic and indicative of a broader issue. The law must be amended to ensure that platforms claiming Section 230 protections adhere strictly to their role as neutral intermediaries. Any deviation from this role—particularly actions resembling those of a publisher—should result in the forfeiture of such protections, ensuring fairness for creators and adherence to legislative intent.

 

[s0m3b0dy]

Eventually they will get caught. Maybe not the first day. Maybe not the first month. Maybe not the first year. But eventually.

There are adult game creators who have been caught doing similar in the past.

It's best just to follow Patreon's rules if you want to be on their site. It's their house, their rules. When you have guests over to your house, you ask that they follow your rules. If they break your rules, they suffer consequences, right?

If creators want to make games that Patreon (and other platforms) won't allow - then they have to understand they will be hamstrung in platforms available.

Spoiler: More specifically, as I have stated in at least one other thread

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Well the issue is that there are times when patreon has already looked up some member's art outside patreon, noticed that it breaks patreon's guidelines, and ban his patreon even if his patreon had no rule breaking content.

It's like being fired because of what you DM your friend when in your free time.

 

[peterppp]

Wrong.


Patreon is leveraging a flawed interpretation of United States legislative frameworks to its advantage. By moderating content according to its own subjective standards, Patreon effectively assumes the role of a content creator or publisher. Simultaneously, Patreon claims the protections afforded to platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields platforms from liabilities typically associated with content creation or editorial decisions. This dual approach raises significant legal and ethical questions.

Under the current legislative framework, platforms invoking Section 230 protections are afforded substantial immunity from liability for user-generated content. However, by actively and selectively moderating content beyond what is strictly necessary for legal compliance, Patreon risks exceeding the bounds of its role as a neutral intermediary. In doing so, it arguably partakes in discriminatory or unfair practices, particularly when such moderation results in the removal or restriction of content that is otherwise lawful under federal or state law.

This systemic issue exposes a critical flaw in the existing legislation. Creators who rely on platforms operating under the umbrella of Section 230 should not be subjected to the arbitrary or overly restrictive terms of service imposed by these platforms. Instead, their obligations should align primarily with the legal standards established by the government. The selective enforcement of platform-specific rules undermines creators’ rights and stifles lawful expression, effectively subjecting them to a quasi-legal framework established unilaterally by private entities.

In conclusion, Patreon’s actions in banning content that is legally permissible within the jurisdiction of the United States are both problematic and indicative of a broader issue. The law must be amended to ensure that platforms claiming Section 230 protections adhere strictly to their role as neutral intermediaries. Any deviation from this role—particularly actions resembling those of a publisher—should result in the forfeiture of such protections, ensuring fairness for creators and adherence to legislative intent.

you seem to have thought about this a lot. why don't you start a thread about it?

 

[peterppp]

I've thought about this before. A "Shell company Patreon" if you will.
Create a "publisher" that works with multiple "people", when in fact it is just a facade for a single real dev.
And the real dev behind it endorses said publisher but never openly reveals to be part of the publisher itself.
>hey guys, I highly recommend supporting this patreon that is totally not me *wink *wink*

why would people give money to a patreon unless they understand it is the dev they want to support?

answer: they wouldn't. so, it has to be obvious enough. then it's also obvious to patreon.

 

[morphnet]

I've thought about this before. A "Shell company Patreon" if you will.
Create a "publisher" that works with multiple "people", when in fact it is just a facade for a single real dev.
And the real dev behind it endorses said publisher but never openly reveals to be part of the publisher itself.
>hey guys, I highly recommend supporting this patreon that is totally not me *wink *wink*

Adding to the point peter made, there have been and still are scam accounts so it's really not a good idea from that perspective.
It's best and safest to just follow what count said.

 

[Count Morado]

Well the issue is that there are times when patreon has already looked up some member's art outside patreon, noticed that it breaks patreon's guidelines, and ban his patreon even if his patreon had no rule breaking content.

It's like being fired because of what you DM your friend when in your free time.

That's one of the TOS - see the third post of this thread. And no, it is not like dm'ing your friend in your free time.

Because Patreon has to follow rules and laws of regulators and governments and TOS of services they utilize as well as its reputation in the general public's eyes, it has to ensure that anyone using its service doesn't jeopardize its ability to continue as a platform without hindrance. See my spoiler in the post you replied to.

Edit: as to what it is like - it is nearly on all fours to a standard Use Permission clause in a commercial lease contract when a person rents business space from a landlord: "no activity may be conducted on the leased premises that will result in the sale or storage of counterfeit goods or merchandise, drug use, illegal activity, or other illicit acts and that to do so will be considered a default of the lease giving the landlord the enforceable right to terminate the lease for a tenant’s illegal use of the property." Notice that it say "will result in" -- not actually selling on the property leased. A landlord could find out that a tenant is receiving compensation on-property in exchange for services and/or goods off-property. This clause could allow them to pressure the tenant to stop or simply terminate the lease contract.

 

[woody554]

Wrong.


Patreon is leveraging a flawed interpretation of United States legislative frameworks to its advantage. By moderating content according to its own subjective standards, Patreon effectively assumes the role of a content creator or publisher. Simultaneously, Patreon claims the protections afforded to platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields platforms from liabilities typically associated with content creation or editorial decisions. This dual approach raises significant legal and ethical questions.

Under the current legislative framework, platforms invoking Section 230 protections are afforded substantial immunity from liability for user-generated content. However, by actively and selectively moderating content beyond what is strictly necessary for legal compliance, Patreon risks exceeding the bounds of its role as a neutral intermediary. In doing so, it arguably partakes in discriminatory or unfair practices, particularly when such moderation results in the removal or restriction of content that is otherwise lawful under federal or state law.

This systemic issue exposes a critical flaw in the existing legislation. Creators who rely on platforms operating under the umbrella of Section 230 should not be subjected to the arbitrary or overly restrictive terms of service imposed by these platforms. Instead, their obligations should align primarily with the legal standards established by the government. The selective enforcement of platform-specific rules undermines creators’ rights and stifles lawful expression, effectively subjecting them to a quasi-legal framework established unilaterally by private entities.

In conclusion, Patreon’s actions in banning content that is legally permissible within the jurisdiction of the United States are both problematic and indicative of a broader issue. The law must be amended to ensure that platforms claiming Section 230 protections adhere strictly to their role as neutral intermediaries. Any deviation from this role—particularly actions resembling those of a publisher—should result in the forfeiture of such protections, ensuring fairness for creators and adherence to legislative intent.

I'm not just a simple country lawyer, but </southern>

the above is the idea for forcing social media sites to take responsibility for dangerous content like tiktoks lifted up through algorithm alleged to have driven kids to suicides. so the idea is that BY using algorithm the host side is making a decision to lift up said harmful content, and THAT's what makes them responsible.

patreon is not doing similar algorithm manipulation as I understand so I doubt they're responsible simply by having content limitations we already AGREED TO in TOS. the difference in the social media case is that the algorithm selection happens AFTER the tos, with patreon we explicitly agreed to the content limitations in the tos.

I don't think it's been actually tried yet even in the original context? if it goes through it'll definitely change internet forever in the sense that social media sites can't just freely manipulate what we see, but quite obviously they will still have, not only choice but in certain areas DUTY WRITTEN IN LAW to restrict content.

 

[anne O'nymous]

The answer to this question is simple:

You can not fund a game through Patreon without following their Terms of Use.
It doesn't matter if the game is available or not on Patreon.
It doesn't matter if you talk about the game on your Patreon page or not.

As long as your game point to your Patreon page, or to anything that will send to your Patreon page, or permit to access your Patreon page, you fund your game through Patreon, and have to follow their rules, period.

 

[Count Morado]

The answer to this question is simple:

You can not fund a game through Patreon without following their Terms of Use.
It doesn't matter if the game is available or not on Patreon.
It doesn't matter if you talk about the game on your Patreon page or not.

As long as your game point to your Patreon page, or to anything that will send to your Patreon page, or permit to access your Patreon page, you fund your game through Patreon, and have to follow their rules, period.

Rule 1: You do not talk about Fight Club
Rule 2: You do NOT talk about Fight Club
Rule 3: If someone yells "stop," goes limp, or taps out, the fight is over
Rule 4: Only two guys to a fight
Rule 5: One fight at a time
Rule 6: No shirts, no shoes, no weapons
Rule 7: Fights will go on as long as they have to
Rule 8: If this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight

 

[anne O'nymous]

Rule 1: You do not talk about Fight Club
Rule 2: You do NOT talk about Fight Club
Rule 3: If someone yells "stop," goes limp, or taps out, the fight is over
Rule 4: Only two guys to a fight
Rule 5: One fight at a time
Rule 6: No shirts, no shoes, no weapons
Rule 7: Fights will go on as long as they have to
Rule 8: If this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight

You know what? If ever I need to fund something, I'll not use Patreon...

At my age following those rules wouldn't be serious