I do get what this person is saying, there's definitely some whiplash in going from the Doctor Who video where he shows the Iryana murder tape, to any video where he frames whites being racist as even worth mentioning. Like Bunjee is pretty based right? Pretty sure he's mentioned crime stats in videos before. And so he would presumably be aware that in literally every single country on earth with a sizable white and brown population, the white population is disproportionately targeted in violent crimes by the browns, when compared to white on brown crime. So how could a white person being hateful or racist even be worth mentioning? Who the fuck cares, how could it possibly matter compared to murder victims.
This might be concerning for Bunjeeeeee if it contiues, but a musician who plays and sings songs with the funny nigger word in them known as Foundring/Ragtime Rev just got raped by Gumroad, lost the only(?) public archive of his music, and was scammed out of his donations.
Four hours after suspension, Foundring's account was reinstated. He also received an apology from the CEO.
UPDATE: My Gumroad account has been RESTORED.The CEO personally intervened and contacted me directly.I couldn't have done this without all of you amplifying this story.Thank you, seriously
Massive win for free speech.The fight for freedom continues.
Wow. The Gumroad CEO restored my account, apologized, and thanked me for my work. Unfortunate this happened, but I really appreciate this gesture and it's the best possible outcome.
He said on twitter that he's making a website, so I guess he's already aware of this possibility. Self-hosting might be a good strategy. He can try to drive traffic through ban-evading youtube accounts and other socials but considering how good he is with technologies I wouldn't trust his integration of a payment processor. I hope someone else is taking care of it and this someone else is not claude/chatgpt.
I'm glad he's pushing these boundaries and provoking these platforms into their knee-jerk SHUT IT DOWN reaction. Eventually they're going to run afoul of old-school financial/accounting laws badly enough that it'll give someone like this a slam-dunk case that's really going to fuck them over and hopefully establish some precedent for once.
I'm curious how their lawyers plan to defend against a well-crafted, well-argued fraud or theft case. I don't pretend to know the relevant laws, but I get the feeling "oh we're just keeping your money, no backsies! kthxbye!" doesn't quite hold water as a legal argument. They facilitated legitimate, lawful transactions involving lawful products between law-abiding people engaging in lawful commerce. By what legal principle do they lay claim to money that's not theirs as intermediaries? Generally speaking if a "marketplace intermediary" bans a vendor, there's a legal obligation to actually settle accounts, not just sweep the cash into their own pockets. Actual products were shipped; customers received things they ordered and paid for. Aside from the agreed-to fees, the rest of that revenue isn't theirs to claim. Refund orders that haven't shipped, cash out what's left, close the account and part ways. Anything less is theft IIRC.
That doesn't actually work in court. ToS agreements are rarely worth the paper they're printed on.
Example: "Oh you signed this agreement that says I get to kill you after 5 years of living in my house. So I'm not guilty of murder even though I killed you." That doesn't work. You cannot "legalize" a criminal act by tricking, coercing or even genuinely convincing the victim to agree to let you do it.
The initial barrier is that the cost of litigating is intended to be cost-prohibitive. Paying 4-5 figures to challenge anything is what really stops people.
The dude registered on a website offering services that were knowingly prohibited, I don't understand the appeal here. This dude is a retard, bigger than the Gumroad fags.
The dude registered on a website offering services that were knowingly prohibited, I don't understand the appeal here. This dude is a retard, bigger than the Gumroad fags.
But Sam Hyde used to host uncensored videos there? So I could get how he'd feel misled by Sam getting away with saying "nigger" and calling people "jews" in videos, but he gets canned for trying to preserve old music.
I get the whole "it's old ragtime music, who gives a fuck" but he's posted a lot of songs that would've otherwise been lost without him personally rediscovering them. We've lost enough music throughout time. Don't get me wrong, I think the music's cheesy; however, I respect that he's trying to preserve (and give first-time recordings to) a weird part of history.
That doesn't actually work in court. ToS agreements are rarely worth the paper they're printed on.
Example: "Oh you signed this agreement that says I get to kill you after 5 years of living in my house. So I'm not guilty of murder even though I killed you." That doesn't work. You cannot "legalize" a criminal act by tricking, coercing or even genuinely convincing the victim to agree to let you do it.
That's true, but what they most likely do is they do not confiscate your balance but "freeze" it indefinitely or until they are actually taken to court which doesn't usually happen. And even if it does it won't be a big deal for a large company neither in court nor in a public eye since they always can say "well he said nigger and that's evil".
This might be concerning for Bunjeeeeee if it contiues, but a musician who plays and sings songs with the funny nigger word in them known as Foundring/Ragtime Rev just got raped by Gumroad, lost the only(?) public archive of his music, and was scammed out of his donations. View attachment 9606310 View attachment 9606323 Link/Alt/Archive/Archive
Maybe I am missing something but "hateful content" does not appear to be listed in the page linked in that email. So they're banning him because he broke a rule that doesn't exist?
Oh, buried in the ToS page:
Further, you shall not (and shall not permit any third party) to either (a) take any action, (b) Make Available any Content on or through the Services, or (c) engage in any conduct described in clause (xviii) below, wherever it occurs, that: (i) infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright, right of publicity or other right of any person or entity; (ii) is unlawful, threatening, abusive, harassing, misleading, false, defamatory, libelous, pornographic, deceptive, fraudulent, invasive of another's privacy, tortious, obscene, offensive, profane or racially, ethnically, or otherwise discriminatory;
The initial barrier is that the cost of litigating is intended to be cost-prohibitive. Paying 4-5 figures to challenge anything is what really stops people.
The dude registered on a website offering services that were knowingly prohibited, I don't understand the appeal here. This dude is a retard, bigger than the Gumroad fags.
That's true, but what they most likely do is they do not confiscate your balance but "freeze" it indefinitely or until they are actually taken to court which doesn't usually happen. And even if it does it won't be a big deal for a large company neither in court nor in a public eye since they always can say "well he said nigger and that's evil".
I'm not a party to the conflict. I'm spectating from the rafters, flinging peanuts at the idiots hoping someone will sue the fuckers and put some pain to "cancel culture" fags.
What are you hoping to achieve asking me such impertinent questions, doomer?
