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

41–50 of 66 posts

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

#41

Post by 8note »

anonym29 wrote: post #32
ZetaZero wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>How will Bitcoin fix it? The problem is theft of your funds without your consent over your unpopular political speech. Bitcoin cannot be taken from you by any third party, provided you self-custody and adequately protect your keys. >If I buy a video card with bitcoin, but get sent a brick instead, how does "Blockchain as Arbiter" get my bitcoins back? Unrelated to the problem being discussed, but still a problem. Un…

Is it theft if you've agreed to a contract stating those as penalties?

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

#42

Post by anonym29 »

Eumenes wrote: post #38
rglover wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cash Slowly being phased out. > checks Already spotty usage. > Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Discover Censorship possible. > barter Viable, but foolish considering it's cumbersome and we live in an age where perfectly viable technological solutions exist. It's like having an iron but pressing your shirts between books out in the sun.

Where can't you use cash?

The internet, with extremely few exceptions.

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

#43

Post by anonym29 »

8note wrote: post #41
anonym29 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How will Bitcoin fix it? The problem is theft of your funds without your consent over your unpopular political speech. Bitcoin cannot be taken from you by any third party, provided you self-custody and adequately protect your keys. >If I buy a video card with bitcoin, but get sent a brick instead, how does "Blockchain as Arbiter" get my bitcoins back? Unrelated to the problem being discussed, but still a problem. Un…

Is it theft if you've agreed to a contract stating those as penalties?

Legally, no, which is why I don't use PayPal and never will again, but to the layperson, who almost invariably does not read those contracts, and might be incapable of understanding the contract even if they chose to read it, I suspect it would look, sound, and feel a lot like theft.

But again, that's the beauty of Bitcoin. There is no dense legalese with sneaky technicalities that allow other parties to seize your funds over the contents of your speech, so long as you self-custody and adequately protect your keys. I understand that's also not something all laypeople can be expected to do, but I prefer to have the option than to not have the option.

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

#44

Post by WWLink »

anonym29 wrote: post #32
ZetaZero wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>How will Bitcoin fix it? The problem is theft of your funds without your consent over your unpopular political speech. Bitcoin cannot be taken from you by any third party, provided you self-custody and adequately protect your keys. >If I buy a video card with bitcoin, but get sent a brick instead, how does "Blockchain as Arbiter" get my bitcoins back? Unrelated to the problem being discussed, but still a problem. Un…

> The problem is theft of your funds without your consent over your unpopular political speech.

As much as I want to roll my eyes at this, it's important no matter what your political opinion is! For now we might be talking "unpopular" but what if you have political speech that is popular but opposes what the people in charge at the time think?

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

#45

Post by 8note »

anonym29 wrote: post #43
8note wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it theft if you've agreed to a contract stating those as penalties?

Legally, no, which is why I don't use PayPal and never will again, but to the layperson, who almost invariably does not read those contracts, and might be incapable of understanding the contract even if they chose to read it, I suspect it would look, sound, and feel a lot like theft. But again, that's the beauty of Bitcoin. There is no dense legalese with sneaky technicalities that allow other parties to seize your f…

Isn't that the beauty of PayPal too? As long as I follow certain tricky practices including self censorship, my money is safe.

Swapping out dense legalese with sneaky technicalities for dense technical requirements with sneaky technicalities isn't particularly different.

Even then, you still aren't protected from signing bad contracts, either smart or regular

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

#46

Post by mgamache »

dragontamer wrote: post #34
LightHugger wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

Who do I complain to to get the BTC back from Celsius?

Who do I complain to get my money from holding USD?

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

#47

Post by qubex »

anonym29 wrote: post #40
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?

>You do realise that money was created to deal with a lack of trust I disagree. I posit that money was created to establish a fungible, divisble, common store of value for the purpose of facilitating exchange of goods and services of dissimilar value that are not always needed by the counterparty. Without money, the barber would need to pay for his groceries with haircuts. This poses problems if the grocer or farmer…

The “half barter” theory of the origin of money has been refuted — there is no evidence that ‘primitive’ societies use barter and eventually experienced an urge to facilitate transactions by introducing “universal tokens”. Bated is what people habituated to money revert to when money is not available (those famous “cigarette economies” of POW camps) but that’s not the same thing — indeed it’s just indicative of pervasive cognitive bias. Rather, all evidence points towards money arising for the sake of political centralisation: demand that taxes be paid in terms of these tokens and you create scarcity (tax bills due soon! need money!), a way to pay your soldiers (actually, displaced village folk), and a local demand for the tokens you’re paying them with. What do native societies use: mental tallies of favours and goods rendered, because after all our evolutionary environment is small units of fifty or less individuals in a high-trust environment. I suggest you read Debt by David Graeber, of Occupy Wall Street fame.

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

#48

Post by Eumenes »

anonym29 wrote: post #42
Eumenes wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where can't you use cash?

The internet, with extremely few exceptions.

you can load a prepaid card at cvs/walgreens with cash, which can be used for most things

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

#49

Post by qubex »

bpodgursky wrote: post #36
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?

That's not really accurate; favors aren't fungible. I can't give you potatoes, and then use that favor to take a cow from your neighbor. You have to keep track of the balance somehow.

True, but in the fifty-or-so individuals in a high-trust environment as has been true for most of our evolutionary history, keeping mental tabs on running totals is really no difficulty at all.

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

#50

Post by Dreako »

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?

lightning network will never scale as big as paypal sadly, this isnt it
Post reply on HN