Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

PayPal restores to its TOS $2,500 charge for any post they don't like

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 158 posts

Re: PayPal restores to its TOS $2,500 charge for any post they don't like

#31

Post by andrekandre »

minraws wrote: post #20
hobbitstan wrote: post #2

I cancelled my PayPal account after it was first announced a few weeks ago. This just makes me even more sure it wasn’t a ‘mistake’ on their part.

I am curious to understand the reasoning behind people saying it was a mistake, like how does something that big get past all the C-suites, F-suites and every other suite people of the company... Like I mean seriously was everyone blind!?

whats the f-suite?

Re: PayPal restores to its TOS $2,500 charge for any post they don't like

#33

Post by asicsp »

shiado wrote: post #25

Is there a good ToS/EULA diff site? It would be nice to see how and when these things change across many services.

This might help: "Ask HN: Any “Git diff”-like service but for when terms of conditions changes?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21564850

Re: PayPal restores to its TOS $2,500 charge for any post they don't like

#34

Post by andirk »

andrekandre wrote: post #31
minraws wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am curious to understand the reasoning behind people saying it was a mistake, like how does something that big get past all the C-suites, F-suites and every other suite people of the company... Like I mean seriously was everyone blind!?

whats the f-suite?

Also called the Champagne Room

Re: PayPal restores to its TOS $2,500 charge for any post they don't like

#35

Post by midoridensha »

Bellend wrote: post #14

I used to use paypal for everything but it occurred to me that I haven't used it since 2018. What niche does it support that direct payments don't? When I think of paypal, I think of delays.

It's really useful for small businesses that want to accept credit cards without having to get a full-blown merchant account. If your business is really tiny (like a little side project) and makes less than, say, $100k/year, a merchant account can be too expensive, plus setting up your website for the merchant account is much more difficult than PayPal integration, which is almost trivial (the simplest form is to just add some HTML buttons to your site).

Re: PayPal restores to its TOS $2,500 charge for any post they don't like

#38

Post by Dig1t »

puffoflogic wrote: post #23

Given that everyone who cared and was willing to leave over the issue did leave, it would have been irrational for PayPal to do anything else.

I use PayPal to collect rent, I was waiting until the end of the month to cancel my account to make sure another method would work before cancelling my account. To be honest I kind of forgot I was going to do that, but now this has definitely renewed my determination to delete my PayPal account. What a scummy company.

Re: PayPal restores to its TOS $2,500 charge for any post they don't like

#39

Post by 111111101101 »

Bellend wrote: post #14

I used to use paypal for everything but it occurred to me that I haven't used it since 2018. What niche does it support that direct payments don't? When I think of paypal, I think of delays.

I prefer to use PayPal to pay at random sites just because I'd rather not give my credit card number to a site that could be backdoored or even run by fraudsters.

https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/18/fbi_credit_card/

Re: PayPal restores to its TOS $2,500 charge for any post they don't like

#40

Post by jiveturkey »

Seems to be overstating the case in some ways, and understating in others.

My reading is that this applies to transactions that promote violence, obscenity, etc. Yes it is indeed awful and deserving of ridicule, but it's not a charge against your non-transaction related activity. So in that sense the headline is overstating the case.

I'm only finding pitchfork raising junk sources right now, but anyway those say that this applied to seller activity in the last go-round. My reading of https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full is that this "now" applies to either side of a transaction. So in that sense, the headline is understating the new problem.

That AUP happens to also have a date of 9/21/21 so apparently this has been in effect for over a year. Why isn't that called out?

Post reply on HN