Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: MAXX on June 30, 2020, 05:20:00 AM
-
The mass banning of different viewpoints has begun
-
I saw that scumbag suckerberg has announced more censorship on his website, like he's some hero...
The guy is a fucking parasite.
-
Some other site called twitch? Banned trump apparently also.
I'm surprised Twitter hasn't tried to perma ban him, truth is they like the attention he brings, typical self serving hypocrites.
-
Trump should do some sort of ban on all the social media sites that are all left wing nut jobs.
-
Some other site called twitch? Banned trump apparently also.
I'm surprised Twitter hasn't tried to perma ban him, truth is they like the attention he brings, typical self serving hypocrites.
!
A Twitter user was suspended for 'glorifying violence' after posting exactly what Trump tweets
https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-donald-trump-suspendthepres-experiment-policies-suspension-glorifying-violence-2020-6?r=US&IR=T
A Twitter user recently started an account, @SuspendThePres, where he tweets word for word what President Donald Trump posts in an "experiment" to see how long it would take Twitter to suspend his account.
After three days, Twitter said @SuspendThePres violated policies by "glorifying violence," temporarily suspending its posting privileges and asking that the offending tweet be deleted.
The tweet in question — containing the words "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" — was posted on Trump's account May 29.
-
Banning the_donald on reddit was a huge sign, that sub basically got him elected
-
1984 was a very prophetic novel.
-
No election interference here folks.
-
People that only listen to tv shows, movies, pop music, CNN and sports think the right is burning books.
It's solely the left demonetizing social media Facebook, YT, Twitter...., deleting channels, taking away peoples bank accounts. taking away patrion, taking away Indygogo account, Wordpress sites, webhosting..... A new "alternative" to Youtube is not allowing people dleted by Youtube on their platform. They're banning them before they even register. They've lost the argument and are shutting down debate.
-
I’ve been kicked off of Twitter three times and I’m a nobody. I switched to Parler
The left has been basically committing election interference since the day Trump was inaugurated. I’m not one for the feds to come in and regulate social media....but it’s now turned into news and publishing platforms. All of those useless libs up in Silicon Valley needs to have their asses kicked. They know like everyone else the left can’t win unless they cheat their way in
-
I’ve been kicked off of Twitter three times and I’m a nobody. I switched to Parler
The left has been basically committing election interference since the day Trump was inaugurated. I’m not one for the feds to come in and regulate social media....but it’s now turned into news and publishing platforms. All of those useless libs up in Silicon Valley needs to have their asses kicked. They know like everyone else the left can’t win unless they cheat their way in
Massive numbers >>> Parler & Telegram all over this planet !.
-
If Republicans/Conservatives don't like FB, Twitter, or Instragram, etc, banning speech, they are more than welcome to create their own social media platform. Anyone can start their own business in America and try to put out the competition. This is what drives production.
I utterly despise the banning of free speech, which is why I stopped using FB over 5 years ago. Zero social media, except for getbig.
Shit or get off the pot.
What you?!?!?!
-
Do you know who doesn't get purged?
Meet Claira Janover.
https://twitter.com/Bubblebathgirl/status/1278000057145491456
(https://twitter.com/Bubblebathgirl/status/1278000057145491456)
-
Do you know who doesn't get purged?
Meet Claira Janover.
https://twitter.com/Bubblebathgirl/status/1278000057145491456
(https://twitter.com/Bubblebathgirl/status/1278000057145491456)
Is that her?
https://advising.college.harvard.edu/people/claira-janover
-
already old news, boomers
-
The truth can not be stopped
-
If Republicans/Conservatives don't like FB, Twitter, or Instragram, etc, banning speech, they are more than welcome to create their own social media platform. Anyone can start their own business in America and try to put out the competition. This is what drives production.
I utterly despise the banning of free speech, which is why I stopped using FB over 5 years ago. Zero social media, except for getbig.
Shit or get off the pot.
What you?!?!?!
Social media companies have become more monopolistic than the monopolies that were all the rage in the nineteenth and twentieth century. Social media have become like utilities. What if you phone company doesn't like your speech? Do you keep finding new carriers?
I agree that competition is ideal and there are a few that will likely grow as Youitube takes more of the "you" out of their name.
-
Is that her?
https://advising.college.harvard.edu/people/claira-janover
Same one.
-
Social media companies have become more monopolistic than the monopolies that were all the rage in the nineteenth and twentieth century. Social media have become like utilities. What if you phone company doesn't like your speech? Do you keep finding new carriers?
I agree that competition is ideal and there are a few that will likely grow as Youitube takes more of the "you" out of their name.
Yes, you find a carrier that fits your ideals and values. Of course, I view a cellular telephone as more of a necessity than social media. In that sense, being a member of social media is not really a necessity, so if people don't like it, they can either not be a part of social media or create their own platforms.
I mean, I have no ready answer as there are only a few social media companies that really dominate tech. So, in a sense, if you really want to be part of social media, you just have to suck it up and abide by their rules or be banned. Republicans are all about freedom but want the government to regulate private companies that don't fit their agenda. Seems rather hypocritical.
I utterly despise Zuckerberg, so I am glad I got rid of FB. Best thing I ever did.
-
What it's meant to be it's meant to be
-
Yes, you find a carrier that fits your ideals and values. Of course, I view a cellular telephone as more of a necessity than social media. In that sense, being a member of social media is not really a necessity, so if people don't like it, they can either not be a part of social media or create their own platforms.
I mean, I have no ready answer as there are only a few social media companies that really dominate tech. So, in a sense, if you really want to be part of social media, you just have to suck it up and abide by their rules or be banned. Republicans are all about freedom but want the government to regulate private companies that don't fit their agenda. Seems rather hypocritical.
I utterly despise Zuckerberg, so I am glad I got rid of FB. Best thing I ever did.
I meant if phone companies could look into people's morals or hear their calls and then ban them from Sprint, T-Mobile, etc.... if they didn't like their opinions. That is exactly what social media is doing. They are banning people for things they say outside the platform. Certain groups have called Paypal and Wells Fargo banks and told them about things the bank's customers have said on Youtube and, as a direct result, the banks closed their own customer's accounts. They have to find a different bank. What if restaurants and grocery stores started doing this?
One thing is that foreign countries like China and Russia have burgeoning social media for Americans and ironically Americans may have freer speech on foreign platforms. There are positive things on the horizon in the US as far as alternative ways to have speech heard but I'll leave it at that for now. And we can't forget freedom of expression on Getbig!
-
Leftist ideas cannot survive without censorship
-
Getbiggers can only thrive on anonymous sites where people seem to think using the n-word is an argument.
While censorship in social media does truly exist, you guys probably get banned for being assholes, or leave because no one takes you seriously. Just like in real life.
-
This is not a purge against the right wing. Its a purge to anyone other then the 1% of the far far left.
-
This is not a purge against the right wing. Its a purge to anyone other then the 1% of the far far left.
+1 kh0fo!
-
It is funny to see Facebook and Twitter try to delete or 'suspend' right wing discussion because they do not conform to their standards. But since it is their business, they can choose what they want to be. I am surprised that you thought that Facebook or Twitter is actually 'free' speech. It is not, it is their business.
Just like any place, someone can choose what they want.
Here, I like free speech, but to a point. The N word is not allowed, as is many other derogatory names, because you don't need it to debate or discuss. Same with attacking an entire race or religion or country, because it is usually the 5 or 10% who are like that. I also hate personal attacks of people who cannot defend themselves, and esepcially ones that bring up family or work. Also, exciting violence is also not welcome, and we know the difference.
But when someone gets really offended that the President says 'If the looting starts, the shooting starts', wow. It is a saying, and can be discussed. Saying 'I am going to blow up a building' is stupid, just like saying 'Fire' in a crowded theater. Discussion and debate is different, but silencing the left or the right is sad.
I like debates, discussion, viewpoints on both sides, and you can debate it, but when someone clicks 'Report to Moderator', we take a look at it. As I have said quite a few times, we all know the difference of inciting vs debates.
Do I agree with Facebook or Twitter - absolutely not. You have to give both sides their arguements, and you can CHOOSE not to follow someone on both. That is the beauty of the sites. And guess what, if you don't like debates, discussion here, then don't come here! You have a CHOICE! Just like I have a choice to, when someone thinks something has gone too far, to evaluate it.
-
You are right Ronfather.
I pray you will have a long life.
-
You are right Ronfather.
I pray you will have a long life.
So do I.... it is funny, that when I was younger, debates of many views was cool, now, you even try to debate, for some people, they get really angry, you don't understand, you are racist, or you are ignorant. Funny... seems that some people seem to think they know you, when in reality, they don't really care to understand or try to debate. People can argue over many issues, have different viewpoints, but you need to be civil and make points, not yell, scream, and unfriend someone like people are doing now.
-
So do I.... it is funny, that when I was younger, debates of many views was cool, now, you even try to debate, for some people, they get really angry, you don't understand, you are racist, or you are ignorant. Funny... seems that some people seem to think they know you, when in reality, they don't really care to understand or try to debate. People can argue over many issues, have different viewpoints, but you need to be civil and make points, not yell, scream, and unfriend someone like people are doing now.
And as you may very well have noted, i do not use the N-word anymore, out of respect to you Oh Great One.
Urbanitus Troglodytes
Simia Pavementus
-
So do I.... it is funny, that when I was younger, debates of many views was cool, now, you even try to debate, for some people, they get really angry, you don't understand, you are racist, or you are ignorant. Funny... seems that some people seem to think they know you, when in reality, they don't really care to understand or try to debate. People can argue over many issues, have different viewpoints, but you need to be civil and make points, not yell, scream, and unfriend someone like people are doing now.
Things were much better regarding this in the 70s and 80s.
People are crazy now.
-
If Republicans/Conservatives don't like FB, Twitter, or Instragram, etc, banning speech, they are more than welcome to create their own social media platform. Anyone can start their own business in America and try to put out the competition. This is what drives production.
I utterly despise the banning of free speech, which is why I stopped using FB over 5 years ago. Zero social media, except for getbig.
Shit or get off the pot.
What you?!?!?!
Right there with you dude. I get news from getbig i socialize a little here i come here to learn and be entertained. Im a big advocate for mostly free speech. There has to be limits or the site will becone a target for pedos and radicals and what not.
-
I saw that scumbag suckerberg has announced more censorship on his website, like he's some hero...
The guy is a fucking parasite.
He's not alone. It's happening all over social media.
"Reddit’s C.E.O. on Why He Banned ‘The_Donald’ Subreddit" https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/us/politics/reddit-bans-steve-huffman.html
The Twitter, Youtube and Facebook challenge
“The most obvious thing I would say about this order is that it’s not enforceable — it’s kind of a piece of political theater,” Kate Klonick, a professor of internet law at St. John’s University told Recode
The dispute erupted after Twitter on Tuesday for the first time tagged Trump’s tweets about unsubstantiated claims of fraud in mail-in voting with a warning prompting readers to fact check the posts.
Separately, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington on Wednesday upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit by a conservative group and right-wing YouTube personality against Google, Facebook, Twitter and Apple accusing them of conspiring to suppress conservative political views.
The First Amendment protects individuals from government censorship. Social media platforms are private companies, and can censor what people post on their websites as they see fit. But given their growing role in public discourse, it’s important to ask ourselves–what exactly are their censorship policies? How do they compare to each other, and to the First Amendment’s protections?
-
I’ve been kicked off of Twitter three times and I’m a nobody. I switched to Parler
The left has been basically committing election interference since the day Trump was inaugurated. I’m not one for the feds to come in and regulate social media....but it’s now turned into news and publishing platforms. All of those useless libs up in Silicon Valley needs to have their asses kicked. They know like everyone else the left can’t win unless they cheat their way in
Wow. Kicked off Twitter 3 times! Really? I thought you were pretty harmless. Just a bit misguided at times. Seems harsh on Twitter's part. I think Matt Canning has had problems with both Youtube and Facebook. On the other hand, apparently nobody takes me seriously because I have never been kicked off any website except of a 1 day ban for posting artistic nudes in the wrong forum on Getbig. ;D
-
I mean, I have no ready answer as there are only a few social media companies that really dominate tech. So, in a sense, if you really want to be part of social media, you just have to suck it up and abide by their rules or be banned. Republicans are all about freedom but want the government to regulate private companies that don't fit their agenda. Seems rather hypocritical.
I utterly despise Zuckerberg, so I am glad I got rid of FB. Best thing I ever did.
I agree with your point that regulation of these companies/media can be interpreted as hypocritical...
I think there has to be some form of control when it comes to the fear mongering and Insighting of violence we have seen, this has gone to new dangerous levels in the leftist media and something must be done to control them, to at least the degree that they can be held accountable for violence and crimes they are supporting
there must also be some accountability for fake news they produce that directly affects people's lives eg the couple in the castle, fake news makes up a story they came out armed and confronted peaceful protestors? Total fabrication and lies.... now the demtard prosecutor is talking about going after them... A disgrace
-
Wow. Kicked off Twitter 3 times! Really? I thought you were pretty harmless. Just a bit misguided at times. Seems harsh on Twitter's part. I think Matt Canning has had problems with both Youtube and Facebook. On the other hand, apparently nobody takes me seriously because I have never been kicked off any website except of a 1 day ban for posting artistic nudes in the wrong forum on Getbig. ;D
No shit
-
I agree with your point that regulation of these companies/media can be interpreted as hypocritical...
I think there has to be some form of control when it comes to the fear mongering and Insighting of violence we have seen, this has gone to new dangerous levels in the leftist media and something must be done to control them, to at least the degree that they can be held accountable for violence and crimes they are supporting
there must also be some accountability for fake news they produce that directly affects people's lives eg the couple in the castle, fake news makes up a story they came out armed and confronted peaceful protestors? Total fabrication and lies.... now the demtard prosecutor is talking about going after them... A disgrace
When the Left try to shut down hate speech or speech that incites violence, the Right always says: Who gets to determine what constitutes hate speech and who gets to determine what constitutes an incitement of violence? Similarly, who gets to determine what constitutes fear mongering or an incitement of violence? What one considers hate speech, another may not. What one considers fear mongering, another may not.
-
I meant if phone companies could look into people's morals or hear their calls and then ban them from Sprint, T-Mobile, etc.... if they didn't like their opinions. That is exactly what social media is doing. They are banning people for things they say outside the platform. Certain groups have called Paypal and Wells Fargo banks and told them about things the bank's customers have said on Youtube and, as a direct result, the banks closed their own customer's accounts. They have to find a different bank. What if restaurants and grocery stores started doing this?
One thing is that foreign countries like China and Russia have burgeoning social media for Americans and ironically Americans may have freer speech on foreign platforms. There are positive things on the horizon in the US as far as alternative ways to have speech heard but I'll leave it at that for now. And we can't forget freedom of expression on Getbig!
I see your point, but there is an obvious difference between FB banning you for posting that violates their terms on their website, as opposed to being banned from the grocery store or restaurant for something you said while not in their stores. Even then, a restaurant or grocery store can refuse you service if you violate their rules or standards while in the store.
Again, I really don't have an answer for this dilemma. However, I do not think the answer is government intervention. Whenever government intervenes, they tend to make things worse. So, yeah, I guess we are stuck with the way things are.
-
the left can just talk to themselves, brainwash themselves, suffer from tds all on their lonesome (they use it to recruit others with their nonsensical madness)
billions of smart people dont use twitter and fb, they know its nonsense / fake news
-
No shit
No shit. :)
-
the left can just talk to themselves, brainwash themselves, suffer from tds all on their lonesome (they use it to recruit others with their nonsensical madness)
billions of smart people dont use twitter and fb, they know its nonsense / fake news
So Twitter is fake news. Who knew? Wonder why Trump posts on Twitter several times a day. Is what he says also fake news in your opinion?
Maybe Trump should start a social media website. He hosted and starred in his own reality television show. Hosting a social media website should be a breeze for him.
-
fucking boomers
-
Last week realistic illustration of police officer execution (in ISIS style ) was posted on Facebook & that was okay by F. "community standard". >:(
-
Is that her?
https://advising.college.harvard.edu/people/claira-janover
This is her now:
https://twitter.com/MarkDice/status/1278487434544549888 (https://twitter.com/MarkDice/status/1278487434544549888)
and
https://twitter.com/RealSaleemJuma/status/1278490915946917888 (https://twitter.com/RealSaleemJuma/status/1278490915946917888)
here she is punished by being knelt on like George Floyd:
https://twitter.com/EnzoCalibro/status/1278510324367241217 (https://twitter.com/EnzoCalibro/status/1278510324367241217)
-
This is her now:
https://twitter.com/MarkDice/status/1278487434544549888 (https://twitter.com/MarkDice/status/1278487434544549888)
and
https://twitter.com/RealSaleemJuma/status/1278490915946917888 (https://twitter.com/RealSaleemJuma/status/1278490915946917888)
here she is punished by being knelt on like George Floyd:
https://twitter.com/EnzoCalibro/status/1278510324367241217 (https://twitter.com/EnzoCalibro/status/1278510324367241217)
(https://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=439767.0;attach=484585)
(https://twitter.com/i/status/1278506168877547525)
-
This is her now:
https://twitter.com/MarkDice/status/1278487434544549888 (https://twitter.com/MarkDice/status/1278487434544549888)
and
https://twitter.com/RealSaleemJuma/status/1278490915946917888 (https://twitter.com/RealSaleemJuma/status/1278490915946917888)
here she is punished by being knelt on like George Floyd:
https://twitter.com/EnzoCalibro/status/1278510324367241217 (https://twitter.com/EnzoCalibro/status/1278510324367241217)
KARMA!!!
-
As expected, there are several gofundme campaigns for her portraying her as a victim. Will gofundme shut them down for supporting someone who threatened violence?
-
It is funny to see Facebook and Twitter try to delete or 'suspend' right wing discussion because they do not conform to their standards. But since it is their business, they can choose what they want to be. I am surprised that you thought that Facebook or Twitter is actually 'free' speech. It is not, it is their business.
Just like any place, someone can choose what they want.
Here, I like free speech, but to a point. The N word is not allowed, as is many other derogatory names, because you don't need it to debate or discuss. Same with attacking an entire race or religion or country, because it is usually the 5 or 10% who are like that. I also hate personal attacks of people who cannot defend themselves, and esepcially ones that bring up family or work. Also, exciting violence is also not welcome, and we know the difference.
But when someone gets really offended that the President says 'If the looting starts, the shooting starts', wow. It is a saying, and can be discussed. Saying 'I am going to blow up a building' is stupid, just like saying 'Fire' in a crowded theater. Discussion and debate is different, but silencing the left or the right is sad.
I like debates, discussion, viewpoints on both sides, and you can debate it, but when someone clicks 'Report to Moderator', we take a look at it. As I have said quite a few times, we all know the difference of inciting vs debates.
Do I agree with Facebook or Twitter - absolutely not. You have to give both sides their arguements, and you can CHOOSE not to follow someone on both. That is the beauty of the sites. And guess what, if you don't like debates, discussion here, then don't come here! You have a CHOICE! Just like I have a choice to, when someone thinks something has gone too far, to evaluate it.
It is not "their business" because they enjoy special legal privileges and are deeply embedded in government and banking. Alternative competitors to these platforms do not get to enjoy the same legal privileges and often have their funding pathways attacked. I wish people would stop pretending that Google and Twitter are small private businesses, they are extensions of a global one world government with communist aspirations; they want people to own nothing, and be entirely dependent on a centralised social credit system much like China's.
-
It is not "their business" because they enjoy special legal privileges and are deeply embedded in government and banking. Alternative competitors to these platforms do not get to enjoy the same legal privileges and often have their funding pathways attacked. I wish people would stop pretending that Google and Twitter are small private businesses, they are extensions of a global one world government with communist aspirations; they want people to own nothing, and be entirely dependent on a centralised social credit system much like China's.
I take it that you don't use Google or Twitter.
-
I take it that you don't use Google or Twitter.
Sounds like he knows exactly what Google and Twitter are all about.
-
Sounds like he knows exactly what Google and Twitter are all about.
I know I am deaf even with the hearing-aids in, but I can't hear his sounds and the PC speakers are turned on.
-
Corporations as big and as powerful as governments and even "liberals" spout the ''libertarian/conservative darwinian free market globalist free trade maximize economic efficiency'' BS philosophy and ignore social media purges which are at the command of a religious hate group in control of all social media censorship.
(https://i.postimg.cc/7YnjRLL9/Ec-TYUe-HVc-AE0-NXM.jpg)
-
See, businesses are taking away the rights of people to do commerce. It goes well beyond take away being banned from Facebook.
(https://i.postimg.cc/mrzfpKXw/Ecaor-LCU0-AIQKBR.jpg)
-
How White and Black creators are suing Patreon and other ADL-influenced Hate Group Corporations
https://www.cernovich.com/patreon-mandatory-arbitration/ (https://www.cernovich.com/patreon-mandatory-arbitration/)
Patreon has lost several high profile creators including Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, and Jordan Peterson due to Patreon’s decision to begin censoring creators for ideological reasons.
The belief is that Patreon can ban anyone they want to. Is this true under California law?
“Private companies can do whatever they want,” is an old canard repeated(where have I heard that before?) by people who aren’t lawyers or aren’t very good lawyers. But a new legal remedy is available under California’s arbitration law, especially with the adoption of SB-707.
There’s an economic relationship between Creators and their Backers.
Patreon, by banning a Creator, disrupts the economic relationship between Creator and Backer. In legal terms this is called tortious interference with a business relationship.
Backers can demand to have the disruption of this relationship sent to arbitration.
Patreon, under California law, must pay the arbitration fees in advance. These fees can be upward of $10,000 per case.
If 500 backers demanded arbitration, Patreon would need to put up five million dollars in advance in filing fees alone. Legal fees will ramp those fees up by a factor of ten.
And judges are enforcing the law strictly:
DoorDash Ordered to Pay $9.5M to Arbitrate 5,000 Labor Disputes:
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – Rejecting claims that the legal process it forced on workers is unfair, a federal judge Monday ordered food-delivery service DoorDash to pay $9.5 million in arbitration fees for 5,010 delivery drivers’ labor demands against the company.
“You’re going to pay that money,” U.S. District Judge William Alsup said in court. “You don’t want to pay millions of dollars, but that’s what you bargained to do and you’re going to do it.”
Patreon has tried writing itself out of this legal requirement with amended Terms of Service, which took effect on January 3, 2020:
You may not bring a claim against us for suspending or terminating another person’s account, and you agree you will not bring such a claim. If you try to bring such a claim, you are responsible for the damages caused, including attorneys fees and costs.
This provision is unlawful and unenforceable, because Patreon demands all users abide by JAMS Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures:
If a dispute does arise out of these terms or related to your use of Patreon, and it cannot be resolved after you talk with us, then it must be resolved by arbitration. This arbitration must be administered by JAMS under the JAMS Streamlined Arbitration Rules and Procedures, except as expressly provided below. Judgment on the arbitration entered in any court with jurisdiction. Arbitrations may only take place on an individual basis. No class arbitrations or other other grouping of parties is allowed. By agreeing to these terms you are waiving your right to trial by jury or to participate in a class action or representative proceeding; we are also waiving these rights.
Under California law, a consumer cannot be forced to pay costs and fees under a mandatory arbitration clause. California law is clear:
For matters involving consumers, the consumer is only required to pay $250. See JAMS Policy on Consumer Arbitrations Pursuant to Pre-Dispute Clauses. For matters based on a clause or agreement that is required as a condition of employment, the employee is only required to pay $400. See JAMS Policy on Employment Arbitrations, Minimum Standards of Fairness.
In other words, if Patreon bans a Creator, and the Backers want to file arbitration claims, Patreon will have to be millions of dollars of fees.
As one law firm specialization in arbitration law notes:
SB 707 applies to employment or consumer arbitration agreements and requires that the drafting party pay any fees and costs that might be due before the arbitration can proceed within 30 days after the due date. The failure by the drafting party to pay will mean that the drafting party is in material breach of the arbitration agreement, is in default of the arbitration and will waive its right to compel arbitration
There is no exception to this law, and Patreon cannot draft its way out of California law with a Terms of Service update. Again, California law provides:
With respect to the cost of the arbitration, when a consumer initiates arbitration against the company, the only fee required to be paid by the consumer is $250, which is approximately equivalent to current Court filing fees. All other costs must be borne by the company, including any remaining JAMS Case Management Fee and all professional fees for the arbitrator’s services. When the company is the claiming party initiating an arbitration against the consumer, the company will be required to pay all costs associated with the arbitration.
Patreon may win on the grounds that its Terms of Service as of January 2020 apply to all creators banned in 2020 or beyond. It’s unlikely they will, because courts look unfavorably on parties who demand arbitration while seeking to opt-out of rules they don’t like.
My best guess is that if a Creator or Backer sued Patreon to have the fee-shifting provision struck from the Terms of Service, then that party would prevail.
Any Patreon creator banned before 2020 will have favorable procedural rules, and Backers bringing claims will not be required to pay more than $250.
The same rules would also apply to PayPal and other companies with mandatory arbitration provisions.