Thoughts on Paypal and the backpedaling?

[IPD]

I gotta be honest here.  If people forgave MS for the XBONE fuckery of "24/7 online to play games", then I don't expect much to change about the use of paypal.  It does creep me out though that this was even possible for them to be thinking of.  It would be unprecedented for something like this to go unchallenged in court.  $2500 for fraud, theft, etc--sure, I get that.  But $2500 for "We don't like what you are saying"?  That's just incredible.

[Holmes108]

It was pretty wild, to be sure. Is there a chance it really was an error and was never meant to be in the policy? I think it's possible, but highly highly unlikely. 

 

Although I generally advocate businesses being able to run things as they see fit (I tend to be against most regulations outside of absolute necessities and safety like water, electricity, medicine etc), the idea of "fining" people in general seems really sketchy. I can at least get inside the mindset of banning people from your platform, even if I don't personally agree with it in most cases. But I wonder about the fining thing. 

 

Obviously businesses have a right to apply service charges, and even penalties such as late fees, and NSF fees. But the idea of a $2500 "fine" seems like an overreach legally. Again, I'm the anti-regulation guy, so I can see that if it's agreed upon by both parties than maybe there could be a case made. But in a situation that's so.... grey? That's just unreasonable. Infractions would be so incredibly subjective and open to interpretation. It just wouldn't be manageable. 

 

If it really was going to be their plan, I almost wish it had gone forward, because I think it would have been business suicide.

[IPD]

If they'd said "we can fine you over misinformation" that would have been bad, but plausible for it to be a possible accident.

 

$2500 is a specific amount of money--more than some people make in a month.  Which simultaneously says it was too specific to be an accident--and also that the person who wrote it is detached from reality about the value of money.  I.e. it's a rich silicon-valley partisan.

[wanderingfool2]

The fact that it was written, put in and very specific to me seems more than just a "mistake".  The fact that that wording existed must mean internally there was a discussion, legal had to write it up and then someone had to post it.

 

2 hours ago, Holmes108 said:

Obviously businesses have a right to apply service charges, and even penalties such as late fees, and NSF fees. But the idea of a $2500 "fine" seems like an overreach legally. Again, I'm the anti-regulation guy, so I can see that if it's agreed upon by both parties than maybe there could be a case made. But in a situation that's so.... grey? That's just unreasonable. Infractions would be so incredibly subjective and open to interpretation. It just wouldn't be manageable. 

Generally I think a major problem arises in the fact that Paypal has become such a dominant online payment provider.  On some sites it becomes the only way that you can safely pay (or even paying at all).

 

Policies like the above can greatly limit people and businesses.  I'm already against paypal due to the stories of Paypal disabling accounts (with funds still in there), for items they deem against their TOS.  Actually I do find it interesting where in some cases they effectively already fine people by disabling the account and refusing to allow the withdrawal of money...at least that's how a few stories I've heard have gone.

[Jerakl]

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The fact that it was written, put in and very specific to me seems more than just a "mistake".  The fact that that wording existed must mean internally there was a discussion, legal had to write it up and then someone had to post it.

 

Generally I think a major problem arises in the fact that Paypal has become such a dominant online payment provider.  On some sites it becomes the only way that you can safely pay (or even paying at all).

 

Policies like the above can greatly limit people and businesses.  I'm already against paypal due to the stories of Paypal disabling accounts (with funds still in there), for items they deem against their TOS.  Actually I do find it interesting where in some cases they effectively already fine people by disabling the account and refusing to allow the withdrawal of money...at least that's how a few stories I've heard have gone.

When I was going thru the process of retaining a paralegal - for *ahem* something - the only payable option on their site was PayPal g&s. 

 

Now I have no clue what this thread is originally about because it seems like there's some context missing, but from what I've gathered more or less paypal has put in their terms they can charge you 2.5k bc they feel like it. Which is absolutely ludicrous with how prevalent they are. That'd be like AMEX or VISA saying they're gunna start charging you a 2.5k fee if you shop at a store they don't like etc. 

[suicidalfranco]

Who has eleceted PayPal as the arbiter of "truth"^TM 

That's all i have to say on the subject.

[Arika]

"hey, you retweeted a news article on your twitter from a news site we don't agree with. MISINFORMATION!!!!" *yoinks $2500 for themselves*

 

16 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

Who has eleceted PayPal as the arbiter of "truth"^TM

Paypal has.

 

Also if this was an "error" the original release was misinformation....where's my $2500 paypal?

[Bitter]

Who the heck keeps a balance with paypal??

[IPD]

3 hours ago, Jerakl said:

When I was going thru the process of retaining a paralegal - for *ahem* something - the only payable option on their site was PayPal g&s. 

 

Now I have no clue what this thread is originally about because it seems like there's some context missing, but from what I've gathered more or less paypal has put in their terms they can charge you 2.5k bc they feel like it. Which is absolutely ludicrous with how prevalent they are. That'd be like AMEX or VISA saying they're gunna start charging you a 2.5k fee if you shop at a store they don't like etc. 

Well VISA has essentially financially blacklisted users and accounts it doesn't like--and for ideological reasons.  I mean, sanctioning users in Russia is one thing...when they're engaged in imperialism and warmongering.  It's entirely another when they're going after someone for a tweet about vaccines or jan 6.

[wanderingfool2]

8 hours ago, Jerakl said:

Now I have no clue what this thread is originally about because it seems like there's some context missing, but from what I've gathered more or less paypal has put in their terms they can charge you 2.5k bc they feel like it. Which is absolutely ludicrous with how prevalent they are. That'd be like AMEX or VISA saying they're gunna start charging you a 2.5k fee if you shop at a store they don't like etc. 

Yea that's pretty much it.  The way I would summarize it, PayPal reserves the right to charge you $2,500 for dealing with misinformation when using their platform for damage to their reputation.

 

I still don't think this was a mistake, but the way I think they probably were closer to intending it was people selling things like bleach as covid cures.  Things such as that, they wanted to be able to fine them for selling goods like that.  With that said, I don't agree that payment providers should be the decider on that.

 

When it gets into clearly illegal activities I think that they should be able to step in without really going through due process of the court, but for almost everything else I think if they want compensation for damages they should pursue it like everyone else.

 

It speaks to the broader argument that payment providers have effectively an monopoly and can make billions a year by exploitative measures.  The biggest being credit card providers. Honestly, they offer the "rewards % back" which they charge the business for...then they charge the business an extra % fee for processing the transaction (and sometimes a extra minimum processing fee).  Then of course they bank on people "paying the minimum" until they force them to pay off the bill...so in some cases they get like 2x the purchase price in payments.  Oh, and if you issue a charge back, it doesn't matter sometimes if the business has a signed contract with signatures and initials on all the terms & conditions and the price...they can still turn around can issue a charge back.

[IPD]

People should be allowed to lie and say that bleach is the cure for covid.  Just like people should be allowed to lie and say that you can dry out your smartphone by putting it in the microwave.  Or add a headphone jack to your iphone by drilling in the correct place.  Or that your valve stems are tracking devices the FBI uses and should be removed.

 

Stupid should hurt.  The gene pool should be thinner.  If you can't be bothered to learn, research, grow, understand, etc--then I would prefer you get a Darwin Award.

[CBojorges]

16 hours ago, Bitter said:

Who the heck keeps a balance with paypal??

I'm guessing they can charge you to your stored credit cards. I closed my account because of this. 

[Holmes108]

18 hours ago, IPD said:

People should be allowed to lie and say that bleach is the cure for covid.  Just like people should be allowed to lie and say that you can dry out your smartphone by putting it in the microwave.  Or add a headphone jack to your iphone by drilling in the correct place.  Or that your valve stems are tracking devices the FBI uses and should be removed.

 

Stupid should hurt.  The gene pool should be thinner.  If you can't be bothered to learn, research, grow, understand, etc--then I would prefer you get a Darwin Award.

Hear hear!

[Sarra]

On 10/12/2022 at 1:39 PM, IPD said:

Stupid should hurt.

I do agree, to a point. But, let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment...

 

On 10/12/2022 at 1:39 PM, IPD said:

People should be allowed to lie and say that bleach is the cure for covid.

What happens when an idiot Karen dumps bleach in her 2 y/o's sippy cup, and the child ends up with permanent injury from it? Sure, the stupid hurt, but it hurt someone that was absolutely innocent, and should not have to spend a lifetime of pain to pay for the mother's stupidity.

 

22 hours ago, Holmes108 said:

Or add a headphone jack to your iphone by drilling in the correct place.

What about when... Okay, you got me here. Can I plead No Contest?

[IPD]

On 10/14/2022 at 9:42 AM, Sarra said:

What happens when an idiot Karen dumps bleach in her 2 y/o's sippy cup, and the child ends up with permanent injury from it? Sure, the stupid hurt, but it hurt someone that was absolutely innocent, and should not have to spend a lifetime of pain to pay for the mother's stupidity.

Any offspring of a parent like that is just a social problem waiting to happen.  Doesn't matter how intelligent they can be, how capable they can be, etc--the upbringing is toxic.

 

It's no different than a kid who loves learning and reading, and is constantly told by his environment that school is for suckers and only sellouts apply themselves to learn and strive for well paying jobs.

 

Bad parenting and bad upbringing can ruin even the most promising of children.  This is why I also support legal abortion up until the 87th trimester.

[YellowJersey]

Perhaps the intent was to get the backlash over with while planting the seed in our heads to slowly get us used to the idea. Companies have constantly pushed the limits of bullshit, walked it back a bit when things got too spicy, and then brought the bullshit back once the public became more used to the idea. We see this in video games over the last two decades.
 
 For, you see, the public are fickle, but not particularly smart.