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

PayPal’s Objectionable Terms Are Back, $2500 Fines for Content They Don’t Like

viewfromthewing.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 66 posts

Re: PayPal’s Objectionable Terms Are Back, $2500 Fines for Content They Don’t Like

#22

Post by devwastaken »

The U.S. dollar in a competitive, fair, and efficient market cannot be tied to the services of a few companies. Individuals must have the right to spend money independently. People have a right to participate in markets.

Theres a few options - force all online sales to also accept bank transfers.

Create a gov owned company that competes with these services (like USPS).

Or regulate payment services on what can be considered things they don't have to service.

Re: PayPal’s Objectionable Terms Are Back, $2500 Fines for Content They Don’t Like

#23

Post by judge2020 »

qubex wrote: post #15
rglover wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None. Bitcoin is the only way to solve this problem, 100% outright. As long as trusting other humans is a part of the equation, problems of corruption, censorship, etc. will always be a problem.

You do realise that money was created to deal with a lack of trust, and that every time you ‘transact’ in money you’re actually expressing your lack of trust in your counterpart’s ability to “make good” on a barter?

And yet when you send via Bitcoin, you're putting 100% trust in them following through on fulfilling their end of the deal. Only NFTs/smart contracts fix this, but for them to affect things in the real world you either need society or some oracle to use that smart contract as a source of truth.

Re: PayPal’s Objectionable Terms Are Back, $2500 Fines for Content They Don’t Like

#25

Post by horsawlarway »

rglover wrote: post #8
mgamache wrote: post #4

God I hate to say it, but Bitcoin fixes this (with the Lightning Network). https://lightning.network/ I am not a Maxi, but Jesus what other options are there?

None. Bitcoin is the only way to solve this problem, 100% outright. As long as trusting other humans is a part of the equation, problems of corruption, censorship, etc. will always be a problem.

New flash - you're always going to be trusting humans.

The blockchain is a great ledger, but the ledger is worthless if it does not match reality.

What reality is (especially with regards to money exchange) is a complicated and turbulent topic.

How does bitcoin handle any form of fraud, misrepresentation, or contract dispute?

It does not. At all. You have to go right back to trusting humans to solve those problems. Either in the courts, through an escrow, or through banks.

Re: PayPal’s Objectionable Terms Are Back, $2500 Fines for Content They Don’t Like

#26

Post by Cyberdog »

rootsudo wrote: post #12
unwoundmouse wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

zelle v̶e̶n̶m̶o̶ cashapp revolut ach wire ... and if you're concerned about centralization ethereum solana cosmos avalanche fantom monero aptos polygon ...

Zelle is more restrictive then paypal, and heavy limits, $500 daily - and more of a black hole then paypal.

I used to pay rent with Zelle. It maxed out at $500 per transaction, but I could just do a second transaction to make up the difference. Same recipient, same day.

Re: PayPal’s Objectionable Terms Are Back, $2500 Fines for Content They Don’t Like

#27

Post by Aerroon »

devwastaken wrote: post #22

The U.S. dollar in a competitive, fair, and efficient market cannot be tied to the services of a few companies. Individuals must have the right to spend money independently. People have a right to participate in markets. Theres a few options - force all online sales to also accept bank transfers. Create a gov owned company that competes with these services (like USPS). Or regulate payment services on what can be cons…

I think governments should create a digital cash equivalent. One that cannot be tracked any more than regular cash can (at least legally). With all the benefits and downsides, because that's the only way it would be trusted enough to work.

I think this would be a major boon to any economy that implements it well. People have no problem paying for small services in real life, because paying 30 cents is easy. Online though? It's not. It's hard for the people getting money and the people paying money.

Re: PayPal’s Objectionable Terms Are Back, $2500 Fines for Content They Don’t Like

#28

Post by LightHugger »

ZetaZero wrote: post #13
mgamache wrote: post #4

God I hate to say it, but Bitcoin fixes this (with the Lightning Network). https://lightning.network/ I am not a Maxi, but Jesus what other options are there?

How will Bitcoin fix it? If I buy a video card with bitcoin, but get sent a brick instead, how does "Blockchain as Arbiter" get my bitcoins back?

Bitcoin fixes it by reducing the number of scammers in the chain. if you deal with a seller and paypal, either the paypal or the seller can scam you. paypal is immune to bad press because their reputation is already rock bottom, so they don't even lose any reputation anymore by rampantly thieving and scamming. At least if, with a cryptocurrency, the seller scams you, you can voice it somewhere their reputation will be at risk. It doesn't delete the risk but the fixes the problem of "middle man is a scammer and thief and nobody is willing to do anything at all about it" that exists with paypal.

Re: PayPal’s Objectionable Terms Are Back, $2500 Fines for Content They Don’t Like

#29

Post by qubex »

judge2020 wrote: post #23
qubex wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realise that money was created to deal with a lack of trust, and that every time you ‘transact’ in money you’re actually expressing your lack of trust in your counterpart’s ability to “make good” on a barter?

And yet when you send via Bitcoin, you're putting 100% trust in them following through on fulfilling their end of the deal. Only NFTs/smart contracts fix this, but for them to affect things in the real world you either need society or some oracle to use that smart contract as a source of truth.

Yeah precisely. I think you’ve made the mistake of thinking we’re on opposite sides of the argument.
Post reply on HN