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

311–320 of 349 posts

Re: I fought the PayPal and I won

#311

Post by DanBC »

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…

> or that he's just plain wrong. The greatest problem many have with Singal is that he is not following a prescribed narrative.

No, it really is as simple as him being plain wrong.

Re: I fought the PayPal and I won

#312

Post by NaturalPhallacy »

ggreer wrote: post #17

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…

Thanks for the recommendation!

From Eleven Magic Words Unlocked:

>Recall how plea deals are structured, and how the entire purpose of a suspended jail sentence is to dangle the anvil over someone’s head to “encourage” them to do the things they’re supposed to do.

I was in a relationship with a police officer for a while, and this is what she said about probation: "Fuck that, send me to fuckin jail." And she reiterated it a couple of different ways to make it perfectly clear she wasn't joking.

A lot of people who haven't experienced it think probation is "being let off easy". It's not. You have to show up for check-ins, and excuses aren't tolerated. You have to pay for this punishment out of your own pocket too. And any other things the court applies to you too. And if you fuck up, and fail to show, you go to jail. If your car breaks down on the way, you go to jail. Your pregnant wife gives birth on the way and you reroute to the hospital, you go to jail. It's basically setting you up to go to jail, but rather just having the threat of it hanging over your head. At least in jail it's hard to fuck up and you're not responsible for anything while there. Probation is putting you in charge of your own punishment and making you literally pay for it too.

To hear an actual, currently employed police officer say they'd prefer jail to probation is a far weightier than it first seems statement. A police officer, in jail. With inmates who'll probably find out that they're a cop and take out their understandable if not justified frustrations on them.

Would rather go to jail than face probation.

Remember this the next time someone says "they just got probation", I'll never forget it. It's a very stressful, and expensive anvil they've got over your head, and it might fall on you for things completely out of your control. You're not "free", you're not "out", you're sitting under a very real sword of Damocles.

Re: I fought the PayPal and I won

#313

Post by flaviut »

dcminter wrote: post #291
flaviut wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I always wondered what would have happened if I'd had any kind of dispute with them NAL, but a contract requires a "meeting of the minds"[1]. You altering the contract without the other party knowing makes it invalid. The process when modifying a contract is generally to have all parties initial next to each modification to indicate that they've read and agree with the change. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mee…

Right, but that's my point. I deleted the terms (contract). So what contract applies? There was clearly no meeting of minds on this. So, for example, I would speculate that I could not have been bound to arbitration in the event of a dispute. Usually the Ts&Cs also contain verbiage about how and when amendments to the terms must be accepted, hence I wonder if subsequent changes would automatically be binding without…

Then there's no valid contract, and you are not legally allowed to use the service. You retain the right to go to court, where you would find a judge unhappy with you for being a smartass.

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20150717729

This person secretly edited their post employment discrimination release agreement. In court, they got out of the agreement, but they were forced to pay back the consideration + interest.

Re: I fought the PayPal and I won

#314

Post by michaelt »

eesmith wrote: post #260
michaelt wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you'd still be entirely free to articulate your views in the privacy of your own bathroom, so I suppose it's technically true private companies don't control every way of articulating your views.

I wasn't being that pedantic. Your list didn't include federated systems like Mastadon or IRC. It didn't include open source systems like Zulip that you can host yourself. I don't use one of the big email providers, so I do get bounces when an organization thinks my ISP is untrusted. But that's not "can't even send e-mails if private companies don't like your 'sender reputation'" only "can't send e-mails to some peop…

> And I already commented on your "As it's private land" in my "fantasy libertarian future where everything has been privatized"

Ah, that's actually a real example, from London https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jul/24/revealed-pseu...:

"Outside City Hall on the south bank of the Thames, home to London’s democratically elected mayor and assembly, private security guards working for the More London estate (ultimately owned by the sovereign wealth fund of Kuwait) prevented the Guardian from carrying out any interviews.

Security officers intervened within moments of a reporter attempting to ask questions of members of the public, and immediately escorted him to the security office where it was explained that unsanctioned journalistic activity is banned on the site.

So the example of a city hall leased from an investment fund with private security moving people on for unacceptable behaviour is, unfortunately, not merely fantasy.

> Further, how do you want to change it?

Who says I want to change it? My beliefs don't include defending to the death other people's right to glorify the holocaust.

I recently lived through a pandemic where offline means of communication and assembly were severely curtailed - and everything from education to concerts to job interviews to doctor's appointments to courts to funerals to national legislatures ended up reliant on multinational tech companies' servers.

It seems to me, in other words, that almost all communication was in the hands of private companies.

If someone says they support free speech except when private companies are involved, IMHO they might as well say they support free speech except on days ending in Y.

Re: I fought the PayPal and I won

#315

Post by a_shovel »

ggreer wrote: post #301
a_shovel wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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&... ]

I'm pretty sure it's Hobbes who is acting in bad faith. Most of his links are to things that don't support his claims. For example, he'll claim that puberty blockers are completely reversible, but link to an NHS site that says some long term effects are unknown[1], and though GIDS claims the physical effects are reversible, GIDS was shut down due safety issues.[2] Hobbes also accused Jesse of recruiting detransitione…

Singal claimed that the NHS removed a claim from their website that puberty blockers were reversible. Hobbes showed a screenshot from the NHS website showing that the claim was still there. Singal (and you) changed the topic from whether the NHS made a claim, to whether there were unknown long-term effects of puberty blockers. Hobbes is obviously correct here.

GIDS is being replaced with multiple centers providing similar services primarily due to issues with capacity, extreme wait times, and overcentralization, based on advice from the Cass Interim Report, which also noted issues with inconsistent care. Other organizations, including the Endocrine Society [0] and the APA [1], also describe puberty blockers as reversible.

Your second paragraph doesn't seem to be true. "The site in question" is 4thWaveNow, which is a blog; you don't 'join' it like a forum. I think you've got it confused with the dating website.

Your third paragraph is unsupported.

[0] https://www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/2021/e...

[1] https://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/About-APA/Organiza...

Re: I fought the PayPal and I won

#316

Post by a_shovel »

mustache_kimono wrote: post #290
a_shovel wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. An…

The word "seems" is kinda the crux of the issue here. Singal has the tone of a curious, thoughtful jouralist who enters into research with no pre-established biases, and Hobbes has the tone of a guy who gets into Twitter arguments. The problem is that tone is not important, what's true is important. You can't determinte the truth just through the tone of the person communicating with you. A tone of thoughtful neutrality doesn't make something true, and a tone of belligerence doesn't indicate a lie.

I discussed the example I was referencing in my response to ggreer. Here's a link to the twitter thread, for clarification: https://twitter.com/RottenInDenmark/status/15820924737360076...

I'd like to see an example of what you mean regarding Hobbes. I think that'd help me a lot to understand your position.

Re: I fought the PayPal and I won

#317

Post by gnopgnip »

Jon_Lowtek wrote: post #101

> the contract you “agreed” to means you are legally not allowed to take them to a real court. Your only recourse is arbitration. americans can sign away their rights to sue at their own courts? That seems wrong. For me, as a german, the paypal contract reads that i can escalate a conflict to the EU consumer protection agency or the french regulatory authority for financial institutions (which signs their banking lic…

The US Paypal terms also allow you to take the case to small claims.

Mandatory arbitration can be enforceable if certain requirements are met. The big difference between the EU and US is the American rule, each side bears their own costs. Lawyers might be $300 an hour, so arbitration can be a lot less expensive for everyone

Re: I fought the PayPal and I won

#318

Post by ufmace »

jibe wrote: post #220
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…

There should be real skepticism about arbitration in user agreements, but didn’t make it easier in this case? Only someone rich or famous enough to entice a free lawyer could afford to sue PayPal over a suspended account. But many many more people could afford to try arbitration.

That's what I'm thinking. Okay this was a little weird and byzantine, but wouldn't it be like 1000x harder, more expensive, and more byzantine to hire a lawyer, file an actual lawsuit, and take it at least past the initial stages, i.e. surviving a motion to dismiss?

Re: I fought the PayPal and I won

#319

Post by Vecr »

dawnbreez wrote: post #293
hairybobbins wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you find this offensive? Wright's key points regarding 'sex realism', as I understand them, are that sex is not a spectrum (as many people are claiming these days) but a male-female binary, and that sex is still an important characteristic in many circumstances, such that it cannot realistically be supplanted by 'gender identity' or similar. Seems like a reasonable viewpoint to me, and not one that would gener…

The trick here is that we're looking at dogwhistles. To someone outside the theater of culture-war this takes place in, this looks like a series of perfectly ordinary statements. Of course sex is binary, and that statement doesn't sound like it conflicts with gender being a spectrum, because sex and gender are obviously separate. However, to someone who has lived within this theater of culture-war--who have been deal…

I'm not sure why people talk about insects and goldfish and things like that, when someone says "sex is binary" and they are talking about humans, they mean "human sex is binary". Anything that may or may not be true about other species does not matter for the argument. I'll say "as a general rule, human sex is binary" if you really want that changed.

Re: I fought the PayPal and I won

#320

Post by implements »

implements wrote: post #279
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may SEEM like a reasonable viewpoint to you, but it's not grounded in reality. Saying sex is a binary is excluding anyone that doesn't fit within that binary. And if that's something you can't imagine, then it's not a subject you should have or voice an opinion on.

It’s grounded in the reality 99.98% experience - that individuals are biologically differentiated into the male (inseminating) or female (gestating and nursing) reproductive role. Stress reproductive role there - as unique individuals they have limitless other personal and social roles they can fulfil, and to be honest I don’t see these as naturally gendered, nor feel it would be desirable for it to be so.

Well, you could downvote - but, given as the first paragraph seems to be biological fact, perhaps you could instead mount a reasoned defence of gendered personal and social roles, and why they should have primacy over sex as defining components of the identities of “man” and “woman”.

As someone born in the 60s, a time when gendered roles began to be considered limiting and harmful, I would genuinely love to see a defence - at least one beyond “It makes people with gender dysphoria happy” (which is a good thing, but not obviously the right thing given the opportunity for discrimination between genders and expected conformity to normative gender stereotypes).

Post reply on HN