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

141–150 of 158 posts

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

#141

Post by phendrenad2 »

CrazyPyroLinux wrote: post #128
phendrenad2 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

That's a nice trite little saying, but it doesn't fit reality. I mean it's not like an angry group of right-wing people reply to every single tweet by democratic politicians, right? Why do you think HN is above that kind of thing?

And a story that claims that PayPal is out to hamper free speech is exactly the kind of lightning rod that would attract such people.

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

#142

Post by kodah »

Test0129 wrote: post #78
willsmith72 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you're not in Europe. Paypal is huge here, especially in Germany. Has been useful for years here for free instant transactions without currency conversion fees (at least between some euro currencies)

Interesting. I'd imagine here most of the apps people use for that (Cash app, Zelle, etc) are just frontends for Paypal.

Zelle is absolutely bad, imo. It's like an incomplete Paypal but with a $3.5k transaction limit.

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

#143

Post by m-p-3 »

origin_path wrote: post #125
m-p-3 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

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

#144

Post by felurx »

tenpies wrote: post #60
111111101101 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

I do the opposite. Paypal has no customer support and doesn't care about me or any other customer at all. But I can call American Express, be instantly connected to an agent who at least pretends to care, doesn't sound like they're overworked, and will gladly put in the chargeback request for me. I can also do this online if I'm feeling less social that day.

Have you ever/recently been in a situation where you had to that? Did it go as smoothly as that?

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

#146

Post by actually_a_dog »

philsnow wrote: post #138
actually_a_dog wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good luck with that. I had some random bad actor somehow get ahold of my account numbers and debit ~$40 out of my account once via something called a "demand draft." My bank refunded me the money, but they told me they'd have to close my old account and open a whole new account in order to stop it from happening again in the future.

> open a whole new account in order to stop it from happening again in the future Not sure how that would stop it from happening again in the future, if the bank isn't going to make the barest attempt at stopping people from debiting your accounts with just the routing number + account number...

That's what I told them. They shrugged, opened a new account, transferred my balance, and closed the old one. It hasn't happened since, and I have no idea why or how it happened in the first place.

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

#147

Post by origin_path »

m-p-3 wrote: post #143
origin_path wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

No, that's what you call it. The rest of us call it racism, sexism and discrimination against innocent people who did nothing wrong.

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

#148

Post by lilsoso »

Semaphor wrote: post #123
lilsoso wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't think that's quite true and I don't have a copy of their terms of service from 2011. Let's apply their rules as they stand today to various artists:

"(f) the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory or the financial exploitation of a crime"

This could apply to the French author Michel Houellebecq for his novel Submission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submission_(novel)#Controversy), along with another novel by the author.

Let's not even entertain the thought of this rule applied to various rap artists in popular culture.

"(g) items that are considered obscene" & "(i) certain sexually oriented materials or services"

This could apply to a number of artists, such as Robert Mapplethorpe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mapplethorpe#Controvers...). His art was considered obscene, and prurient, yet is now exhibited in major museums.

If your enemy were to again power, or an unjust ruler, how might these laws be used against you and the culture? Just because your "side" is winning now doesn't mean that will always be the case. Just because we're now "enlightened" and we would no longer jail Galileo or throw a fuss over Mapplethorpe does not mean that will always be the case. Are the rules just? Why is a finance company policing expression on the internet? Why are we turning to a finance company for moral guidance?

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

#149

Post by Semaphor »

lilsoso wrote: post #148
Semaphor wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't think that's quite true and I don't have a copy of their terms of service from 2011. Let's apply their rules as they stand today to various artists: "(f) the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory or the financial exploitation of a crime" This could apply to the French author Michel Houellebecq for his novel Submission ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submissio…

Check webarchive, I'm on my phone right now so I don't have a link.

I don't see the difference between the old and the new terms regarding your comment, I'm afraid.

Now is that a dumb role that obviously invites arbitrary enforcement? Sure. But it's not new, those issues were there for at least 11 years.

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

#150

Post by BryantD »

CrazyPyroLinux wrote: post #129
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.

The linked tweet and article claim that PayPal can pull money out of your bank account. There's no way to interpret the ToS like that; it clearly says this possibility only applies to your PayPal account and any money in there.
Post reply on HN