It's a bit rich that you require me to provide proof to back up my claims, but are happy to settle for 'plausible' in the article. Why am I held to the stricter standard? How can I disprove something where no solid claims are made in the first place? The article claims that Patreon cutting out that section of their business has made people afraid they're literally going to die as a result, and you think that's extremely plausible?
Only 3 days ago I mentioned I was getting tired of this current fad to dismiss commentary by demanding proof
> So your point is that you think the claim is wrong?
In any case, I think there's some truth to what they say, but it's ridiculously overblown (hence "stretching the truth" above). They played the 'social duty to society's vulnerables' pretty hard, and yet plenty of those content creators are not vulnerable. Nor disabled. Nor are PoC. Nor are LGBT. Why do we assume PoC and LGBT are more vulnerable by default here? Where should the line of social responsibility be drawn? Should Patreon be shamed into a business model they don't want because of a single person who fits the 'vulnerable' description? 10 people? 100?
I have given arguments [1] why I think their claim is plausible. You haven't given any why you think it's wrong (other than a generic "why should it be true?", which is nothing if not demanding proof from them).
[1] The mentioned communities are overrepresented in any risk category, from drug addiction, to HIV, to homelessness (the sole exception I know of would be suicide). They tend to be more overrepresented when marginalisation dimensioons intersect, as they do here.
Only 3 days ago I mentioned I was getting tired of this current fad to dismiss commentary by demanding proof
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15529895
> So your point is that you think the claim is wrong?
In any case, I think there's some truth to what they say, but it's ridiculously overblown (hence "stretching the truth" above). They played the 'social duty to society's vulnerables' pretty hard, and yet plenty of those content creators are not vulnerable. Nor disabled. Nor are PoC. Nor are LGBT. Why do we assume PoC and LGBT are more vulnerable by default here? Where should the line of social responsibility be drawn? Should Patreon be shamed into a business model they don't want because of a single person who fits the 'vulnerable' description? 10 people? 100?