371–380 of 536 posts
Then if you're an indie musician on Bandcamp they give you no option but to use PayPal however if you're not on Bandcamp nobody is going to buy your music directly from your website anymore and for underground acts Bandcamp is better than Spotify but the whole forced use of PayPal there meant for a decade I couldn't use Bandcamp until I got a new PayPal account after they killed the account I had had for 15 years.
Longest sentence ever, upvoted.
paypal has no business in regulating what software their customers are allowed or not allowed to sell. Even if it's spam creation software. If it's not illegal to sell, it should not be blocked by paypal. If the software is spam and is bad for society, let society introduce a law to ban the software, the same way you can't sell drugs using paypal. This moral policing by businesses is bad for society - and lets busine…
Literally 100% of payment processors heavily "regulate" what their customers sell/do and who is profitable to do business with and what clients are profitable to associate with. For example, if an industry has a humongous chargeback and fraud rate, then they become unprofitable and get dropped. This is why American Express stopped allowing porn (there was news articles about it at the time and they went on record say…
It's not just that: these are businesses, not the government. A lot of free-speech advocates and libertarian thinkers seem to think somehow that private businesses somehow have a responsibility to uphold free speech, and they simply don't. It's the government that can't restrict you from free speech (in the USA); but companies don't have to put up with it on their property or when using their service.
Don't know if it is the reason for the ban, but Niteos main product seems to be a service for creating spam networks. https://www.easyblognetworks.com , https://niteo.co/projects
I used to help run a rather large fan convention. For our first 5 years (starting in about late 2003 or so), PayPal was the only option we offered for registering online. At the time, they were really the only option for implementing online payments easily without the complexity of a full merchant stack (and it was just me doing the programming, volunteering to help them while I was still in college). By the time we…
PayPal spends a lot of money on lawyers to make sure that no state or country considers them a bank. The reason is so they can avoid banking regulations. If they were subject to regulations, they wouldn’t be able to freeze your account without warning, nor hold your money for 180 days. As they say internally: “we don’t make money by letting people have it back”.
This is demonstrably not true: https://www.finextra.com/newsarticle/16927/paypal-gets-banki...
And I didn’t say they were always successful, they just try really hard.
PayPal spends a lot of money on lawyers to make sure that no state or country considers them a bank. The reason is so they can avoid banking regulations. If they were subject to regulations, they wouldn’t be able to freeze your account without warning, nor hold your money for 180 days. As they say internally: “we don’t make money by letting people have it back”.
> As they say internally: “we don’t make money by letting people have it back”. I'm gonna need a source for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Literally 100% of payment processors heavily "regulate" what their customers sell/do and who is profitable to do business with and what clients are profitable to associate with. For example, if an industry has a humongous chargeback and fraud rate, then they become unprofitable and get dropped. This is why American Express stopped allowing porn (there was news articles about it at the time and they went on record say…
>These are businesses, not charities. It's not just that: these are businesses, not the government. A lot of free-speech advocates and libertarian thinkers seem to think somehow that private businesses somehow have a responsibility to uphold free speech, and they simply don't. It's the government that can't restrict you from free speech (in the USA); but companies don't have to put up with it on their property or whe…
Yes, I too want banks and payment providers to act like moral authority for all their clients and freeze funds and close accounts with no explanation or recourse whenever an entity does something I don't like. This will totally make things better and not be relentlessly abused after the practice is normalized. Who needs a stable society anyway.
Legal marijuana shops are still mostly cash only specifically because they can’t bank, due to weed being federally illegal. Bank monitoring is in place to battle illegal activity, fraud and laundering. If you are doing something reprehensible, a payment company can be seen as endorsing that behavior by your association with that bank. I mean, you have a spam network here that was proudly displaying PayPal’s logo on i…
There is a world of difference between closing accounts that are used to pay for activities that are illegal and closing accounts because the client does something you don't like, especially if the service provider can't even point out which part of their TOS was violated.
>businesses designed to spam, defraud, mislead or abuse people
If you don't draw any distinctions between "defraud" (illegal and well-defined activity) and "mislead" (can be applied to almost anything), there is literally nothing to discuss here. You don't draw any objectively defined lines between what should and should not be bannable and your stance boils down to "I like when PayPal bans someone I don't like".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is demonstrably not true: https://www.finextra.com/newsarticle/16927/paypal-gets-banki...
That’s Europe, not the US. If they were subject to US banking regulations they couldn’t hold your money for 180 days. And I didn’t say they were always successful, they just try really hard.