We got banned from PayPal after 12 years of business

Post by gpm » Thu, May 09, 2019, 7:08 PM UTC

crooked-v wrote: post #445

gpm wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read the actual blogpost, it was more likely an administrative mistake earlier in the process that was then difficult to undo, and no one really giving a fuck on paypal's side. Attribute things to incompetence before malice and all that, especially when attributing it to malice requires thinking they made a fairly odd decision to outright lie to customers about why you are ceasing doing business with them.

Sufficiently prolonged incompetence, when the resources are available to easily correct it, is malice.

Post by exolymph » Thu, May 09, 2019, 7:12 PM UTC

downandout wrote: post #444

astura wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you! After reading the story I headed to the comments to look for this exact comment! This story was super, super sketchy! The tell was it didn't at all mention the products or services they sell. Since any normal person would mention the products/services they sell front-and-center as key information to the story, I went ahead and assumed the problem was the products or services they offer were illegal/sketchy…

I am truly disgusted by this comment and those with a similar sentiment below. Selling PBNs is not against Paypal’s TOS, regardless of whether or not you happen to dislike them. The point is that PayPal falsely asserted that a business violated its TOS, and that means that it could happen to anyone else - instantly and without explanation. That is the problem here.

Post by ghaff » Thu, May 09, 2019, 7:17 PM UTC

pricechild wrote: post #345

ghaff wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the second comment in two days I've seen along the lines of "You can't risk pissing off Uber because they might ban you." What a sad codependent relationship to be [ADDED: or feel you are] so locked into some uncaring tech service that you feel you basically have to just put up with whatever mistreatment they dish out.

What about Amazon?

Post by dwaltrip » Thu, May 09, 2019, 7:19 PM UTC

Lowkeyloki wrote: post #401

mprev wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ooof, PBNs are literal spam. They're designed to game Google by producing a deluge of low quality content with backlinks on whatever search terms you're hoping to squat on. I'm utterly sick of this kind of junk.

True, but as long as there are rules, somebody is going to find a loophole or a way to game the system. I'd personally be more concerned with Google improving their product or with society's increasing reliance on a single company's service and our unwillingness to consume information critically. PBNs are garbagey, but trying to put them all down is unrealistic. And even if they could be stopped, it would only be a b…

Post by kristianc » Thu, May 09, 2019, 7:31 PM UTC

mcv wrote: post #454

kristianc wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bank that suspected money laundering or suspicious activity would be expected to behave in exactly the same way. Any regulated entity would.

From what I know, a bank will report suspicious transactions to the authorities, and obey whatever the authorities tell them to do about it. They will not assume the role of the authorities for themselves. At least, that's how I understand the banking situation in Netherland, which seems about as reasonable as you can get. American companies do seem to be much more likely to play police.