Alt-Tech Bad Boy Cody Wilson Explains Hatreon, an Alternative to Online Censorship

Cody Wilson holding a gun

A funny thing happened to me today. I had been waiting by the inbox for my invitation to the new crowd-funding site, Hatreon. After feeling the all-powerful hands of YouTube squeeze a little too tightly around my neck, I was seeking out a new home for my video content which, by all accounts, is mostly comedic with some political lecturing thrown in for fun. My YouTube channel also contains a historical record of all the rabble rousing I've done over the years in various suburbs in opposition to various elected bad actors. It's not as shocking or groundbreaking as I'd like to believe it is. It's pretty tame. But according to YouTube, it's becoming advertiser unfriendly. This is the death knell for any YouTube channel — demonetization. And so I went looking for somewhere I could still get paid for the thousands of hours I put into creating content. I researched Patreon but realized that content creators to the right of Bernardine Dohrn are now getting booted off for "hate speech" as outlined in their draconian terms of service (TOS) which enforce speech codes. A few people suggested Hatreon, the so-called "alt-right" answer to Patreon. I immediately liked the name. If they're going to label us haters, we might as well laugh about it.

So my invitation to join Hatreon finally came (and why wouldn't it? After all, I am deplorable), but the joy quickly faded as I clicked the login link to find this waiting for me.

Graphic showing Hatreon knocked offline by DigitalOcean

Are you freaking kidding me?

How is this happening? It's like the entire tech universe is conspiring together to keep us offline. Oh, wait. That's exactly what's happening. I confirmed on Twitter that this was a deliberate booting of Hatreon's account off DigitalOcean servers complete with self-serving virtue signaling from DigitalOcean crowing about what a good deed they did by denying service to a paying customer.

Tweet showing DigitalOcean denying service to Hatreon

PJ Media reached out to Hatreon's founder Cody Wilson and interviewed the man Wired magazine once listed as one of "The 15 Most Dangerous People In the World 2012."  He was the opposite of how I would expect someone to sound whose new project had just been tanked for no reason other than left-wing hysteria. Wilson's good mood and light tone made me feel a little bit better about being under the Big Tech Boot of Censorship. He seemed undisturbed. He cracked jokes. He made them seem ridiculous.

"What if I owned a bakery and someone asked me to make a transgendered, Islamic, gay-themed wedding cake and I said no?" He chuckled. "I think you know the answer."

Wilson was sure Hatreon would be operational again later that day, and as of 10:15 p.m. the site appeared to be back online. Clearly not a beginner in the highly censorious tech world, Wilson didn't put all his eggs in one basket. He counted on DigitalOcean's small profile to keep them safe from public scrutiny. What he didn't know was that the alleged white supremacist Daily Stormer website housed some data on DigitalOcean's servers, which made them the target of SJW lynch mobs on Twitter. (I say "alleged" because Google deleted them from the internet before I ever had a chance to see what they are or aren't. Having never read Daily Stormer myself, I refuse to take CNN's word on the matter as truth. They might be a white power news source or they might be just a poorly written weather fan site. No one knows now because they've been disappeared by Google and its henchmen.) When the SJW outcry began to take down Daily Stormer after the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville that ended in inexcusable violence and mayhem, everyone raced to the control room to start flipping the switch to "off" on any bogeyman they could find (or invent). Hatreon got caught up in the mad dash to purge the Internet of "Nazis." DigitalOcean shut off their service overnight with no notice and later claimed Hatreon had violated their TOS, but offered no proof of the violation. The TOS they supposedly violated was 3.2 and is so overbroad it might be a good test case for an enterprising lawyer who wants to get it declared void for vagueness.