111–120 of 349 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't comment on their morals or views on customers, but I think they've been governed by banking regulations for some time now. In my country (.ie) that's their claim. Banking regulations come with quite a lot of consumer protection, both national and EU originated.
In the UK they are not covered by the FSCS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That explanation is directly ruled out by GP's comment: the GP doesn't think this is controversial.
I know it's a controversial topic. I'd rather it wasn't, and that, given the wide-ranging impact on policy and law, people could discuss this freely without e.g. getting banned from online payment services and social media sites, being doxxed by activists, and so on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I lost access to a PayPal account I had used for years, because one day they decided they needed to know the CVV of a long-expired credit card, and refused to let me log in without it. Surprisingly, customer support was very helpful and let me transfer out the (minimal) balance in the account to another, completely unconnected PayPal business account I happened to have. Which is even more disconcerting, because it me…
I closed my account when they discovered suspicious activity in my account, at least claimed so but apart from locking me out until I prove I am me with photo ID copy and independent sources about my address (bank statement, utility bill, ...), basically collecting more data on me, they did not make any steps tracking down this suspicious activity, not even explaining what it was, they did not report it to the author…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know it's a controversial topic. I'd rather it wasn't, and that, given the wide-ranging impact on policy and law, people could discuss this freely without e.g. getting banned from online payment services and social media sites, being doxxed by activists, and so on.
If you know it's controversial, we now know "not one that would generally be considered offensive for others to mention" was, at best, being disingenuous. Is there anything else?
I know it's controversial to those who do. But I think that in itself is worth challenging.
I mean, in the comment at the top of this thread, we have someone who became extremely offended at even the mere mention of someone with an opposing viewpoint to their own. In an article that isn't even about that topic. Does that seem a reasonable reaction?
It's worth knowing that in the UK PayPal is covered by the Financial Ombudsman service. They wouldn't be interested in accounts being blocked as in this case but they were very helpful to me when PayPal made a payment that I did not authorize and then refused to put it right. I don't use PayPal any more. Their support staff are impossibility hopeless so any kind of problem with your account will cause you a world of…
The Financial Ombudsman Service is one of the few UK organizations that is anyway effective. If only all other regulatory authorities were half as good? One problem I have found with some UK eCommerce sites though is that their payment gateways are often broken with Brave/Chrome and the paypal payment option is an easy way of bypassing this issue.
The financial institutions at the receiving end of FOS decisions don't necessarily regard it as effective. Claims management companies, for instance, can flood banks with very many dubious claims, with the FOS as effectively the enforcer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
'TERFs' are just feminists who want to retain female-only spaces. This is not a viewpoint that's even remotely comparable to Nazism, whose adherents are a distinct group with a set of beliefs that are inherently contradictory to feminism.
You can have an "account" and hold money in it and it may function similar to one, but it has none of the federally mandated legal protections of being a bank.
Some much more recent Fintech startups such as Chime are legally underpinned by something that is an FDIC regulated bank.
It's worth knowing that in the UK PayPal is covered by the Financial Ombudsman service. They wouldn't be interested in accounts being blocked as in this case but they were very helpful to me when PayPal made a payment that I did not authorize and then refused to put it right. I don't use PayPal any more. Their support staff are impossibility hopeless so any kind of problem with your account will cause you a world of…
The Financial Ombudsman Service is one of the few UK organizations that is anyway effective. If only all other regulatory authorities were half as good? One problem I have found with some UK eCommerce sites though is that their payment gateways are often broken with Brave/Chrome and the paypal payment option is an easy way of bypassing this issue.
Just taking that first step towards the Financial Ombudsman was enough.
Regarding PayPal: I've always avoided getting an account with them, because I generally don't like online services having access to my bank account. Two weeks ago, though, I was forced to create an account with them to pay a conference fee - just to have the PayPal account locked literally the minute it was created. I have no idea why, I didn't get any further information, and no useful response from customer service. So I guess I will remain a non-PayPal customer...
The author of this article is a public defender in the pacific northwest. He sometimes writes for Jesse Singal, but he also has his own substack.[1] Many of his posts provide a unique window into the criminal justice system. If that sounds interesting to you, I strongly recommend reading more of his writing. In my opinion, his greatest hits are Eleven Magic Words [2] and Death of a Client [3]. 1. https://ymeskhout.su…
Also what a writer, wow.