"PayPal tells users it will fine them $2,500 for misinformation,. . .

[Quagmire]

. . . then backtracks immediately"

PayPal tells users it will fine them $2,500 for misinformation, then backtracks immediately – Fortune

PayPal is claiming the memo was sent by mistake. But a lot of prominent voices aren't buying their explanation.

 

[The Hammer]

What's the problem?

 

[Quagmire]

I haven't been able to find an actual copy of the message PayPal is supposed to have sent to its users, in spite if the fact that every news source on the planet is talking about it today, but I found an eccerpt:

(From bitcoin.com. excerpt in bold)
--- 'Paypal’s user agreement shows that people who post or publish hate speech or misinformation “may subject you to damages, including liquidated damages of $2,500.00 U.S. dollars per violation, which may be debited directly from your Paypal account.” The Daily Wire first discovered the upcoming terms of service (ToS) agreement.

The prohibited acts include “the sending, posting, or publication of any messages, content, or materials” that “promote misinformation,” the payments company warns'. ---

 

[Debater Slayer]

What's the problem?

I would be quite concerned if a service I entrusted with my money deemed itself an arbiter of where my money should go based on my beliefs. It seems to me that any penalties or fines for misinformation or hate speech shouldn't be handled by banking entities where you have deposited your finances, especially considering the major conflict of interest that could involve.

 

[Quagmire]

What's the problem?

*fines @The Hammer $2500 for not getting it*

 

[The Hammer]

I would be quite concerned if a service I entrusted with my money deemed itself an arbiter of where my money should go based on my beliefs. It seems to me that any penalties or fines for misinformation or hate speech shouldn't be handled by banking entities where you have deposited your finances, especially considering the major conflict of interest that could involve.

It's a business. They have a right to regulate how they want, especially in regards to info and safety.

 

[Quagmire]

It's a business. They have a right to regulate how they want, especially in regards to info and safety.

Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It's a business. They have a right to regulate how they want, especially in regards to info and safety.

Not all regulation is valid or sound, though. Google or Facebook might have the right to sell some data to the Chinese government based on user agreements that many users don't even bother reading, but that wouldn't make the practice any less damaging or concerning.

 

[The Hammer]

Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

But it's well within their purview. Just like a bank can choose not to bank for a mobster, or an unregulated business.

I don't see right or wrong here. As is.

 

[The Hammer]

Not all regulation is valid or sound, though. Google or Facebook might have the right to sell some data to the Chinese government based on user agreements that many users don't even bother reading, but that wouldn't make the practice any less damaging or concerning.

That's what the ToS is for. If people aren't reading it. That's our fault. Not the company for doing what they said they'd do.

 

[Debater Slayer]

That's what the ToS is for. If people aren't reading it. That's our fault. Not the company for doing what they said they'd do.

I personally think shady or questionable corporate practices warrant criticism even if a corporation has the right to implement them. Legality is not the only measure by which I would evaluate the ethics of corporate actions.

 

[Quagmire]

But it's well within their purview. Just like a bank can choose not to bank for a mobster, or an unregulated business.

I don't see right or wrong here. As is.

. . . or anybody who's political views and/or ways of expressing themselves they disagree with.

Sure they do.

And as a customer, I have a right to tell them to go **** themselves if they inact the policy that I disagree with.

I also feel I have a responsibility to make noise about it to make it more difficult for them to sneak it in somewhere.

I mean, do you read every single email that PayPal sends you? I know I don't.

 

[The Hammer]

. . . or anybody who's political views and/or ways of expressing themselves they disagree with.

Sure they do.

And as a customer, I have a right to tell them to go **** themselves if they inact the policy that I disagree with.

I also feel I have a responsibility to make noise about it to make it more difficult for them to sneak it in somewhere.

I mean, do you read every single email that PayPal sends you? I know I don't.

Yeah you're right it works both ways. Nad of course no one reads the ToS or all the emails. But like I said, that's our problem as consumers. Not the business.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I find myself objecting more to the idea of a fine than an outright ban. If they banned people who posted hate speech or misinformation, I wouldn't necessarily trust their judgment about what constituted either, but I would respect their right to self-regulate and distance themselves from problematic content.

On the other hand, a fine withdrawn from your finances that you deposited in their service sounds like a landmine and borderline profiteering.

 

[Quagmire]

That's what the ToS is for. If people aren't reading it. That's our fault. Not the company for doing what they said they'd do.

Have you read all 25 pages of PayPal's user agreement?

Of course you have. I mean, who hasn't?

I know I have. Can't wait until they turn into a movie. Although I guess they'll probably have to make a trilogy out of it.
PayPal

 

[Quagmire]

***Thread moved to General Debates for the usual reasons***​

 

[The Hammer]

Have you read all 25 pages of PayPal's user agreement?

Of course you have. I mean, who hasn't?

I know I have. Can't wait until they turn into a movie. Although I guess I'll probably have to make a trilogy out of it.
PayPal

Absolutely riveting stuff for sure. They honestly need to make those easier to read. Most legal jargon can be boiled down to simple phrasing.

 

[Quagmire]

Absolutely riveting stuff for sure. They honestly need to make those easier to read. Most legal jargon can be boiled down to simple phrasing.

They can at least make it rhyme

"These are our terms,
The terms you should follow,
Though some of our jargon may be hard to swallow, . . ."

See? I would read that

 

[The Hammer]

***Thread moved to General Debates for the usual reasons***​

We can't debate in "current events"?

My apologies.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Absolutely riveting stuff for sure. They honestly need to make those easier to read. Most legal jargon can be boiled down to simple phrasing.

They should totally start the terms of service with, "Howdy, Pal..."