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

I fought the PayPal and I won

jessesingal.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 349 posts

Re: I fought the PayPal and I won

#281

Post by a_shovel »

mustache_kimono wrote: post #171
bb010g wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Further in the interest of fairness, here's a response to Singal in general, including his "When Children Say They’re Trans" story for the Atlantic that he defends there: https://proteanmag.com/2022/04/22/singal-and-the-noise/ Singal defends conversion therapy and uses poor science to defend his claims. I'm not sympathetic.

From the linked article: > "Behind a veneer of empathy and concern, Singal has supplied anti-trans narratives that the right has found appealing." As an occasional listener to Singal's very good podcast (which covers mostly internet controversy), I have to say -- Singal comes across as thoughtful and empathetic, precisely because he actually seems to be thoughtful and empathetic. So, briefly, a generally left-leaning…

Saying Singal "obviously" operates in good faith is an exaggeration. Michael Hobbes on Twitter has a few threads regarding Singal where he shows how Singal likes to move the goalposts and accuse people of being "irresponsible" for making straightforwardly true claims (even ones that are supported by his own evidence). [ https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3ARottenInDenmark%20jesse&... ]

Re: I fought the PayPal and I won

#282

Post by simiones »

lightedman wrote: post #146
Maursault wrote: post #22

> While PayPal is technically a private company that can work with basically whoever it wants for whatever reason, its centralized role as an online payment processor makes this a weirdly potent free speech fight. > He did share correspondence with me where prominent free speech attorneys told him, in an apparent contradiction to my claims, that he had no viable legal recourse to getting his account reinstated. Thoug…

"The First Amendment does not prohibit private individuals, companies and employers from restricting speech. " Constitutional rights are also civil rights, which are things companies may not violate.

In the case of freedom of speech, the First Ammendment doesn't establish a right for citizens, it establishes a prohibition to Congress:

"Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

I really don't see how this can be taken to mean that a private company can't establish a rule abridging the freedom of speech.

Note that there is another part where I would agree that it establishes a positive right:

"Congress shall make no law [...] abridging [...] the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

The language here does seem to assume that there exists a right peaceably to assemble, so you could argue that private companies also have to respect this right, even if the amendment only explicitly calls out Congress for this as well.

Re: I fought the PayPal and I won

#283

Post by [deleted] »

photochemsyn wrote: post #215

This piece demonstrates excellent writing skills - bits of humor interspere information-dense sections on legalese, allowing the reader to easily absorb the information. As far as the byzantine arbitration process described here, signed off on by the US Supreme Court and adopted across most of the corporate world, with the obvious intent of making it hard for ordinary citizens to sue corporations for damages, see thi…

[deleted]

Re: I fought the PayPal and I won

#284

Post by gunapologist99 »

> PAYPAL WILL COVER THE COST OF ARBITRATION: .. PayPal isn’t alone here as Etsy has basically the same provision, as does Amazon Pay and many others.

> (Notably, neither Square nor Stripe offer to cover arbitration costs, and Stripe even requires the loser of the dispute to pay the winner’s entire legal expenses.

yikes.

Re: I fought the PayPal and I won

#285

Post by kurisufag »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #176
thagsimmons wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the interest of fairness, here is Singal's response to that page: https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/glaad-took-false-previous... For what it's worth, I'm 100% with Singal here.

Has he ever said anything like "trans rights" though? Why is a (seemingly) single, childless, straight and cis man involving himself so much in trans teenagers? He's got an Agenda and it isn't sitting right.

>Why is a (seemingly) single, childless, straight and cis man involving himself so much in trans teenagers?

I fail to see how this is on any level unusual.

The idea of a "teenager" only exists in the first place to facilitate disconnected adults imposing ideas upon them for their own good.

Re: I fought the PayPal and I won

#286

Post by P5fRxh5kUvp2th »

ballenf wrote: post #230
P5fRxh5kUvp2th wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that requiring cvv for a login is stupid, not that the risk levels are different. Does it become acceptable to require the blood of my first-born because the risk levels are different? Of course not. They're not even allowed to store that in the US (PCI-DSS), so the other poster must not be in the US.

They probably couldn't see the CVV but were going to run the card and see if it verified.

fair enough

Re: I fought the PayPal and I won

#287

Post by friend_and_foe »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #131
samstave wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not a "weird" company -- they are a piece-of-shit company

Exactly, they have a monopoly and abuse it in the worst possible way. I'm glad someone sued them and won, his politics don't matter to me.

What monopoly? I've literally never used PayPal. I did use Venmo for a while til they said they were closing my account unless I provide them with information I already provided them with, I decided that I'd let them close it and now they won't stop offering me $10.

Re: I fought the PayPal and I won

#288

Post by dwohnitmok »

lupire wrote: post #232
skrebbel wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just read "Eleven Magic Words" and I'm entirely baffled. Also what a writer, wow.

I don't get it. The lawyer asked "“Is there anything the court would like to review to reconsider?” and the judge said, oh, well "since you have asked if I want to, yeah I guess I do, so I'll just change my ruling for no reason?"

That article was posted by the original author on Reddit and one of the commentators came up with a plausible explanation (which convinced the author).

In one sentence the idea is that because public defenders know that the overwhelming majority of their clients belong in jail, and the judge knows that public defenders know that too, if a public defender makes an extra plea to the judge that's a signal that the public defender knows something that means this client really shouldn't be in jail and therefore changes the judge's opinion of the client.

https://old.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/w5jyyd/eleven_mag...

Re: I fought the PayPal and I won

#289

Post by paulclinger »

lupire wrote: post #232
skrebbel wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just read "Eleven Magic Words" and I'm entirely baffled. Also what a writer, wow.

I don't get it. The lawyer asked "“Is there anything the court would like to review to reconsider?” and the judge said, oh, well "since you have asked if I want to, yeah I guess I do, so I'll just change my ruling for no reason?"

It's possible that the judge already was considering changing their ruling (or was "on the fence" about it), but the question gave them a way to explain it (rather than saying "I changed my mind").

Re: I fought the PayPal and I won

#290

Post by mustache_kimono »

a_shovel wrote: post #281
mustache_kimono wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the linked article: > "Behind a veneer of empathy and concern, Singal has supplied anti-trans narratives that the right has found appealing." As an occasional listener to Singal's very good podcast (which covers mostly internet controversy), I have to say -- Singal comes across as thoughtful and empathetic, precisely because he actually seems to be thoughtful and empathetic. So, briefly, a generally left-leaning…

Saying Singal "obviously" operates in good faith is an exaggeration. Michael Hobbes on Twitter has a few threads regarding Singal where he shows how Singal likes to move the goalposts and accuse people of being "irresponsible" for making straightforwardly true claims (even ones that are supported by his own evidence). [ https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3ARottenInDenmark%20jesse&... ]

We can go pretty deep in the weeds in a thread that is AFAIK flagged and dead.

> Saying Singal "obviously" operates in good faith is an exaggeration.

From what I've heard and read of Jesse's, he seems to take great pains to be honest and fair. He seems to me to obviously be operating in good faith. Or as I would expect a curious, thoughtful journalist to act. But, yes, you and others may come to other conclusions.

And, unfortunately, my experiences re: Hobbes's journalism have not been as glowing. They've frankly been disappointing. Hobbes seems to lack the very compassion and empathy Singal seems to obviously have. Hobbes tends to paint what seem to me to be good-faith disagreements as grand moral violations.

But I may need to see more and maybe I'm mistaken?

> Singal likes to move the goalposts and accuse people of being "irresponsible" for making straightforwardly true claims

I think you need to be more specific re: this claim. Unsurprisingly, a link to all the subtweets someone has made about Jesse Singal isn't very helpful.

Post reply on HN