“TechCarthyism, n.: A movement using mainstream tech-platforms to socially engineer thought-level compliance to a radical political agenda through Star Chambers (e.g. “Trust and Safety”), Shadowbans, Show-Trials (court of public opinion), Deplatforming & Uneven Enforcement of ToS.” -Eric Weinstein

Recently, Carl Benjamin (AKA Sargon of Akkad) was banned from Patreon in what appears to be an arbitrary interpretation of their terms of service. Sargon used a slur to mock people on the radical right. He did not use it on his own channel and the context in which he used it was not taken into consideration. Moreover, independent journalist Tim Pool, among others, has found prominent people on Patreon who have explicitly violated Patreon’s terms of service but have not been banned. This recent controversy demonstrates the reach and identitarian bend of a prominent platform. A Patreon alternative, SubscribeStar was used briefly before a rift with Paypal prevented content creators from getting paid as well. A tiny minority of people, mostly in Silicon Valley, have an enormous influence over whether people with opinions contrary to their own are able to express themselves without fear of being silenced or having their income slashed.

The targeting of Sargon of Akkad proved to be damaging for Patreon regardless of whether people agree or disagree with him personally. This recent move on the part of Patreon has set a dangerous precedent: selective enforcement of terms of service and expansion of these terms of service beyond what one does on the platform.

The political cartoon at the top of this article critiques the Carlsbad Decrees (1819), a series of restrictions passed by the government of the German Confederation. These included expanding press censorship, removing professors who held opinions contrary to those of the people in power, and a ban on fraternities. The cartoon satirizes the restrictions by depicting a ‘thinker’s club.’ The sign at he back translates as “Important question to be considered in today’s meeting: ‘How long will we be allowed to think?” The rules, listed on the wall at the right side of the print read as follows:

“I. The president opens the meeting at precisely 8 a.m.

II. The first rule of a learned society is silence.

III. So that no member, having made full use of his tongue, will end up in prison, muzzles will be distributed upon entry.

IV. The object of discussion, which through mature reflection should be thoroughly discussed at each meeting, will be clearly written in capital letters on a board.”

We, living nearly 200 years later, are facing the threat of censorship with many of the CEOs of social media companies and payment platforms based in Silicon Valley’s monoculture of left-leaning authoritarianism. Those who promote censorship to ‘prevent hate speech’ seem to believe that the only way to defeat terrible ideas is to censor them. A far better strategy would be to preserve the principle of freedom of speech in all cases except libel and direct threats of violence so as to defeat bad ideas in debate rather than push them underground with increasing restrictions.

There are rays of hope in this recent controversy: prominent people have announced their intention to leave Patreon. Sam Harris has done so, citing political bias. Specifically he said “while the company insists that each was in violation of its terms of service, these recent expulsions seem more readily explained by political bias. Although I don’t share the politics of the banned members, I consider it no longer tenable to expose any part of my podcast funding to the whims of Patreon’s ‘Trust and Safety’ committee.”

Tim Pool, political commentator Dave Rubin, and psychologist Jordan Peterson have also announced their intention to move off Patreon. Peterson said that he is currently involved in creating an alternative patronage website which he hopes will be up and running soon.

The culture wars are heating up as independent content creators have a stronger say, with a more powerful reach. Just a decade or two ago, someone like Sargon of Akkad would have stood little chance against major media institutions. The social media revolution, though dominated by a few powerful people (particularly in the early years), is proving to be far more dynamic than originally intended. Social media fueled the Arab Spring in the early years of this decade through promoting increased association on various platforms. Social media has also allowed the individual greater access to an audience. No longer is a platform the preserve of a small group of individuals, corporations, and governments. The access costs to establishing a platform are effectively zero if one owns a smartphone or laptop. Sargon of Akkad owes his notability to the quality of his work and the willingness of people to support him. He has succeeded in creating an influential platform and articulating a set of well-thought views. The Intellectual Dark Web (a group of people with differing views but united in their support for free speech and deep conversations) has emerged as a counter to the establishment media outlets and stale cookie-cutter ‘progressivism’ (left-authoritarianism) of Silicon Valley elites. Patreon picked the wrong target. The Intellectual Dark Web and Sargon of Akkad have far too much influence to marginalize with heavily biased interpretations of terms of service.