> Policing content based on morals makes no sense.

Sure it does. And pretty much everyone does it. There are things that are legal but wrong. Policing wrong content makes sense.

> There is no arbiter of morals

Each person decides what is moral.

> so whatever policing there will be is going to be highly subjective.

Yes, that's true. It's a marketplace of ideas, and each of us should shop accordingly.

> If Patreon makes "Nazis" famous then Patreon's reputation will reflect that.

Yes, and that's as it should be. Someone who allows Nazi propaganda is wrong. Someone who polices Nazi propaganda, and removes it, is right. How are you not agreeing with me?

> Of course the owners of Patreon don't want their platform to be associated with Nazis whether that is because it is bad for business, the owners don't like nazis, the payment provider has decided to cut off Nazis or any other reason. What it certainly doesn't have to do with is "morals".

I think you don't know what the definition of morality is:

"Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."

It is absolutely about morals. In your example, Patreon would be saying that Nazis are wrong, and have bad behavior.

What do you think morals are?

> When someone is talking about morals in the way you did then they are usually talking about their own morals.

Yes, each person has their own ideas about what is right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

> This is a good example of you talking about your own morals. There is no objective criteria for "worse morals". The only way you can make a statement about morals being worse is from your own viewpoint.

Yes, absolutely. And I support people who share morals similar to my own, and I try to not support people with morals widely different from my own.

If Hacker News was flooded with content from MAPs (Minor-Attracted Person) trying to normalize pedophelia, then I would stop coming to Hacker News, and seek out another community kept that content off of it.

> The worst thing about your comment is that you are implying that your own morals are the only good ones.

Each person thinks their morals are the best ones. That's... literally... how morals work.

But no, you misstated my position - I do think other people have morals that are similar enough to my own, and so also good. (I don't think my own morals are the only good ones.)

I look for compatibility. Some people are in favor of forced sterilization for criminals. I think that's wrong. Some people think it's okay for a woman to wear white to someone else's wedding. I mean, yeah, that's wrong too, but it doesn't matter to me anywhere near as much as the first one.

You shouldn't buy blood diamonds. You shouldn't shop someplace that sells them. Even as an option to their customers. That's my morals.

Yes, I think my morals are the best ones. I suspect you think yours are the best, too.

You may think Freedom of Speech is the most important principle, and all other rights or concerns are less important. You may be okay with libel, slander, harassment, inciting violence, violating copyright, sharing a "recipe for playdough" that actually produces cyanide gas, animal abuse, snuff films, advocating for race wars, etc.

I think someone who could police that content, and chooses not to, is wrong.

> The problem is not Patreon in this case. You are the problem.

I think either a) you're misunderstanding me, which may be my fault, or 2) you haven't considered the content that gets policed all of the time, and if you did, you'd agree with policing it.