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

121–130 of 158 posts

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

#121

Post by MrStonedOne »

bionsystem wrote: post #69
hypertele-Xii wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. It's exclusive to a specific race of people. The definition of racism. You might say it's "positive racism" though, as rather than oppress, it rewards being born black.

From Wiki : > Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to inherited attributes and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another. How is helping a discriminated community racist, according to this definition ?

No post body was provided.

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

#122

Post by notch656a »

111111101101 wrote: post #48
joecool1029 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So? Dispute it with the credit card, it's not a huge deal. By comparison Paypal is often linked to a bank account where you'd out the money until investigation completes. Even if you used credit cards exclusively on PayPal, PayPal's terms of service preclude you from using your credit card's chargeback. (I mean you could use it once I guess and then they ban you from using their processor)

It's a lot easier to get a refund on PayPal than a real bank. The one time that I did a charge-back on my credit card, my bank gave me the 3rd degree and made me feel like I was the criminal. You're right about PayPal helping themselves to bank debits. I have a small eBay business and back when they dealt directly with PayPal, I would have a separate account to receive the funds and as soon as they hit I would transf…

I agree. Bank accused me of fraud when I reported someone hijacking my card and buying ridiculous mixture of Christmas ornaments and female beauty products (I am a male atheist). Ultimately I lost after going through the full appeals and I was made to feel a criminal; like I was lucky they didn't refer me to law enforcement.

The email the bank sent me to prove 'I did it.' -- something very close to 'piratearrgghhhh34398903@yahoo.com' The fucking scammers taunted me by literally calling themselves pirates in the invoice. The one upside of paypal is the customer basically always wins to the point you're almost relying on the good faith of the customer not to take the money back.

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

#123

Post by Semaphor »

lilsoso wrote: post #28
mhb wrote: post #8

This does not seem to be accurate. I couldn't find anything in their TOS other than reasonable sounding restrictions on what can be sold. Sorry. https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full

See https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full and search for 2,500, which reveals: "You acknowledge and agree that $2,500.00 U.S. dollars per violation of the Acceptable Use Policy is presently a reasonable minimum estimate of PayPal’s actual damages". So it depends on the interpretation of the Acceptable Use Policy and how that policy changes over time. edit: As the person below me points out, the…

Eh, so it’s a change from

> items that promote hate, violence, racial intolerance, or the financial exploitation of a crime

to

> the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory

And otherwise mostly the same as it was in 2011, including the $2,500

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

#124

Post by LightHugger »

faeriechangling wrote: post #107

PayPal doesn’t have a monopoly anymore so this just seems bizarre. Visa, Google, Apple, etc run similar services on a massive scale. Then there’s of course crypto. For how rarely they are likely to actually enforce this, it just seems like a rather stupid hill to die on. Not just the initial decision but the attempt to try and sneak the terms back in.

Paypal is well known for randomly stealing money from user accounts and has been known for this for over a decade. Their reputation is already rock bottom to anyone who would know about this latest debacle, and they make massive amounts of money for free by doing this. There is no reason at all for them to stop, unfortunately.

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

#125

Post by origin_path »

m-p-3 wrote: post #63
origin_path wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

PayPal might be one of the worst company out there, but criticizing them on their contribution to the afro-american community is not one I'd make.

And if PayPal was funding exclusively the "white European/American male" community, such that organizations that cared equally about black people were not eligible for their cash, do you think that would pass by unremarked? Of course it's not a "contribution", it's racism in which people are being given money because of the color of their skin.

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

#126

Post by phendrenad2 »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #50

This is fake news clickbait. Let's look at what this actually says: This only applies to sellers who have violated the TOS. And you are only agreeing that $2,500 is the likely minimum fine for a TOS violation, and that they can take that from any account you have linked. (Of course, I'm not a lawyer.)

Wow the downvotes. I guess the qanon brigade is here.

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

#127

Post by gnicholas »

It looks like these TOS are slightly narrower than before — they removed the word "depict" from the clause about violence/discrimination/etc.

As originally drafted it would have included using PayPal to sell a DVD of a movie that depicts violence. The new TOS are still very broad, but they don't include these ridiculous cases, which obviously should never have been included.

Perhaps when they said "oops, it was a mistake" they meant that the inclusion of a couple words like "depict" was a mistake, but the general thrust was exactly what they wanted.

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

#128

Post by CrazyPyroLinux »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #126
phendrenad2 wrote: post #50

This is fake news clickbait. Let's look at what this actually says: This only applies to sellers who have violated the TOS. And you are only agreeing that $2,500 is the likely minimum fine for a TOS violation, and that they can take that from any account you have linked. (Of course, I'm not a lawyer.)

Wow the downvotes. I guess the qanon brigade is here.

The biggest conspiracy theory is that those who disagree with you are conspiracy theorists...

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

#129

Post by CrazyPyroLinux »

BryantD wrote: post #102

I’m very wary of this change but it’s also very hard to discuss it rationally when people exaggerate it. Quoting the new User Agreement: “If you are a seller and receive funds for transactions that violate the Acceptable Use Policy, then … you will be liable to PayPal for the amount of PayPal’s damages caused by your violation of the Acceptable Use Policy. You acknowledge and agree that $2,500 U.S. dollars per violat…

> I’ll choose not to [...] dialogue > just strengthens the divide

Non sequitur, but ok. There seems to me to be plenty of room for interpretation (and potential for foul play) in the TOS. Maybe that's an exaggeration, but to call it a "complete lie" is itself to misrepresent facts.

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

#130

Post by treeman79 »

notch656a wrote: post #119
treeman79 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vote for constitutional judges then. Like Clarence Thomas. He doesn’t give a flying $&! what people wants. He votes what the constitution says.

You can't vote directly for supreme court justice. At best you have to temper guessing when the next one is gonna croak and deciding whether you want to vote for the candidate who will nominate/confirm the justice you want, or vote for the candidate that better fits your position in the event none of them croak.

Yea… that’s why you vote for presidents that support the constitution. Avoid ones that see it as an obstacle.
Post reply on HN