Would you be satisfied if they just came out and said "Patreon is a small financial services company. Not black-ops mercenary outfit. Not a powerful nation state. If you expect us to face down powerful nation states on your behalf, we suggest that you sign up HERE to fight on the front lines in Ukraine yourself." ?

Honestly, I'd be satisfied if they gave any indication at all that they had considered the weight of their decision, especially given the timing.

Patreon arguing that they were just following the rules, when they themselves created the rules and can rewrite them arbitrarily, is absolutely piss-poor form in a humanitarian crisis like this.

> weight of their decision

I am not too aware of this account. How much money was moving through Patreon to the Ukrainians? Is it the majority of the weapons funding they needed?

Honestly I would be less annoyed if that had been their statement.

+1 and ditto...but my bet is that such honesty would not turn out well for Patreon. "Per our Terms & Conditions..." is a legalism which excuses their behavior, keeps the discussion safely in the legalistic realm, applies a dose of "who actually reads those Terms & Conditions, anyway?" mind-numbing, and fairly well signals "decision is final, case is closed".

Vs. honesty would open a Pandora's Box of internet outrage & arguments about morality, the roles of corporations in modern society, whether Patreon should stand fast if the GRU (Russian military intelligence) sends 'em death threats, how close to funding an overseas armed conflict they (and the banks they use) can legally come, and more. All with Patreon stuck in the middle of that sh*t-storm, collecting $0.000 for each & every enraged comment, reaction, DDoS, etc. aimed at them.

When there are little kiddies in the room, it just works better to say "Because Santa Claus...". You get far fewer screams and tears and arguments from the kiddies, and the grown-ups still understand.

I must have missed the part where patreon was asked to face down Russia. Hyperbole much?

Don't you think it could make them a target of russia's cyber warfare?

While I wouldn't have stopped this myself, I think its perfectly reasonable for a crowdfunding website to not want to host campaigns used to purchase military grade weaponry.

That's fine, and they're within their rights to have this policy in place, but it doesn't change the fact that they've completely fucked over the volunteers in their hour of need.

"It's a violation of our policies" doesn't magically clear their conscience. It's just another way of saying "because we can".

Companies do this all the time and I have no idea why we accept it.

Because a private company is perfectly entitled to NOT want their platform to be used to fund weapons. That isn't unusual and it absolutely IS perfectly acceptable.

What's the alternative exactly? Propose legislation to force websites to allow arms sales? Give me a break.

“We don’t allow Patreon to be used for funding weapons or military activity. It is a violation of our policies, and so we have removed the page. All remaining funds in the account will be refunded to contributors.”