Jump to content
IGNORED

PayPal to fine users $2,500 for ToS violations?


Blazing Lazers

Recommended Posts

It's never a good thing when I suddenly get messages from more than one person asking me about the same thing in the news. This time it was related to PayPal, from friends who know that I (used to) sell online. While PayPal already seems to have backtracked, this blew up pretty quickly online and it's very alarming that they would even consider doing something like this, let alone have it approved by multiple layers of management and legal people, as it surely must have been. Perhaps this corporate mentality of theirs is why their stock is down over half from the start of this year? In the few hours between this announcement and the retraction of it, I was seriously considering closing my accounts with them, and the following links are posted as a courtesy to everyone else that uses PayPal.

 

https://m.slashdot.org/story/405689

 

https://news.yahoo.com/paypal-policy-permits-company-fine-143946902.html

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/new-paypal-policy-lets-company-pull-2500-from-users-accounts-if-they-promote-misinformation

 

https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/paypal-user-agreement-fining-users-promoting-misinformation-sent-error-spox-says

 

https://www.teslarati.com/elon-musk-agrees-with-fmr-president-paypal/

 

https://news.bitcoin.com/new-paypal-policy-lets-firm-fine-users-2500-for-spreading-misinformation-tos-condemned-and-called-an-abomination/

 

https://www.thestreet.com/technology/paypal-in-self-inflicted-trouble

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if that were to stand, they seem to be backtracking for now though, I think would end them as a leader in their slice of the financial world.  You basically publish/do anything they feel isn't right using the vague term of misinformation and they can just automatically leech 2500 off your account funds or charge you it I guess?  Steal from your linked bank account?  If that stood I could only imagine the exodus from there and an immigration of lawyers to their borders to sue their collective asses off in the process.  They are a credit card and money holding agency, that's it, they're not the arbiter of first amendment rights and never will be.  It's curious to see that *mistake* happen given it was founded by Elon Musk who is pretty hard core about freedom of speech enough he went after taking down twitters abuses with that buyout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You gotta love to corporate double-speak, we never intended that to be inserted into the TOS. I guess PayPal regularly works on the wording of clauses in their contracts that they never intend to use.

Quote

You may not use the PayPal service for activities that … involve the sending, posting, or publication of any messages, content, or materials that, in PayPal’s sole discretion … promote misinformation.

I have my own TOS where I refuse to keep giving money to companies who in my sole discretion believe they get to control my speech outside their offices/websites/forums under their immediate control.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in 2007 I was driving through the central valley of CA and said to my mother,"We can not base our economy on just making the next neighborhood, the next mall." 

Then 2008 came around...

Now I will say this, "We can not base our whole world's economy on 'electrons', on money that does not really exist, and on a few evil people that control it." Then 2024 will roll around.....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They pulled back on the cash grab, but they did add quite a bit of other rotten restrictions.

 

Take for instance if you are into firearms, anything related, even a brush to clean the barrel out, buying/selling that is banned and you get consequences.  They're regulating what you can use them for buying and selling items into some really unreasonable stuff.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a few vendors that I need Paypal for,  so I can't close my account.    But what I did instead was take the balance in my Paypal account and push it back to the bank.    That way Paypal isn't earning interest on it, and if there's a run on Paypal and it becomes insolvent I don't risk anything (not sure if FDIC-type stuff applies there)

 

I was using Paypal for personal spending-  it was amazing,  just having a separate debit cards with spending money separate from the family bank account cuts down on so many arguments with the wife about purchases and having enough to cover the bills-   but now I guess I'll have to go back to carrying more cash around-   

 

But I do feel like Big Tech is pushing me to go back to lower-tech solutions.   Just migrated my documents from Google Doc-type services back to a local shared drive.   Been thinking about going back to collecting CDs--  The companies selling digital downloads are pushing you hard to go streaming and I feel like in a couple years they may discontinue downloads.   Streaming can't be trusted, they may remove your favorite songs due to lyrical content, the artist did a bad thing, or artists may take their music off a platform because someone they don't like is on the platform-- we've seen all that in recent years.

 

On 10/9/2022 at 2:12 AM, CapitanClassic said:

You gotta love to corporate double-speak, we never intended that to be inserted into the TOS. I guess PayPal regularly works on the wording of clauses in their contracts that they never intend to use.

ugh,  yeah its BS-   That we "posted it by accident" excuse might fly for a startup, but a financial service like Paypal?  No way!   I know at my company everything we put out for customers gets reviewed by legal, by regulatory, by marketing and others.   Plus you don't "accidentally" draft something that you weren't seriously considering doing.  

 

Maybe corporations should have to pay us $2,500 every time they put out misleading communication? 😅   Oh wait,  you mean this wasn't about truth?  :P

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zzip said:

ugh,  yeah its BS-   That we "posted it by accident" excuse might fly for a startup, but a financial service like Paypal?  No way!   I know at my company everything we put out for customers gets reviewed by legal, by regulatory, by marketing and others.   Plus you don't "accidentally" draft something that you weren't seriously considering doing.  

 

Maybe corporations should have to pay us $2,500 every time they put out misleading communication? 😅   Oh wait,  you mean this wasn't about truth?  :P

 

Too funny! I haven't seen anything move backwards that fast since I used to go crawdadding as a kid in central Kentucky!

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, zzip said:

I have a few vendors that I need Paypal for,  so I can't close my account.    But what I did instead was take the balance in my Paypal account and push it back to the bank

I have some customers who pay me via PayPal.  I always do the same, transfer money out right away.  I have the debit cards which, being that I have not had any credit cards for 14 years, is the only way for me to get any cash-back, and 1% adds up.  I do not keep money in the account, but the debit cards draw from my checking accounts.  Been that way for almost 20 years.

 

4 hours ago, zzip said:

(not sure if FDIC-type stuff applies there)

It does not.

 

4 hours ago, zzip said:

That we "posted it by accident" excuse might fly for a startup, but a financial service like Paypal?  No way!

Yup.  First, that page has been available for a while, but only just made active.  They have legions of attorneys, managers, &c. who go over this stuff.  They knew what they wanted, they just underestimated the response.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like it takes about 20 years for tech companies to go from cool young disruptive forces fighting the big boys to becoming anti-consumer bastards themselves.   Paypal is slightly over 20 years old now so it fits the pattern

 

Microsoft -  founded in '75,  monopolistic by '95

Google - "Don't be Evil" in '98,  evil by 2018

eBay,  awesome in 2000,  where do we start? in 2022

Amazon - A cool way to buy books in 96,  monopolistic by 2016

Edited by zzip
  • Like 5
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@zzip I can relate on much of that post.

 

When ebay middle fingered paypal back in 2020 I was more late (Apr 2021) dragged into their hands aggravatingly and reading their TOS I was hell no on bank access to where my house budget/paychecks go.  I had to make an online account, grabbed an Aspiration one which has been solid.  And how PP had been acting I decided to double middle finger both of them cutting off their own access to my funds entirely using each other in a way against themselves.  For ebay I had the money go into the aspiration account but set it up so nothing comes OUT without my permission, period, and ebay never forced me to update my settings so they had no access other than to paypal so I left it.  Paypal though I left open, and it's annoying due to the days of delay, as a buffer.  I'd buy only using them, any money I'd get from third person sales off ebay (like here, etc) I'd instantly put into the aspiration account which they got blocked on too as I'd instigate and authorize one time transfers only and as a debit card, not bank routing.  The card only works when I want, and if they attempted anything or even pulled it one click or call I could just dispute and retract the funds and they'd be stuck.

 

That's how I left it, it still is there.  Anytime I sell stuff still locally I take the cash to my bank, once it pends clear, I move the lump to PP, as soon as they have it I move it to the aspiration account.  PP sees nothing, can take nothing in either direction, they're stuck basically as an added shield for scammers.  Ebay never was the wiser either and never made me update my settings for some reason, or since I ignored it they just never disabled it despite threats. :)

 

And I'm the same on going back to easier stuff, using a portable USB drive for everything, using cards and usually cash.  Too much shady stuff going on.  And like you I won't buy MP3s, I buy CDs, then use freeware CDEX ot make MP3s, and since iTunes is cancerous shit, I use CopyTrans Manager, which is itunes app free and I can down/upload music, pics, ringtones and more to my phone with no bs.  I've also been going back to buying DVDs/BRs on movies that don't stream or usually get handed around and removed for months/years at a time as it's petty stupidity I'm over with.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tanooki said:

And like you I won't buy MP3s, I buy CDs, then use freeware CDEX ot make MP3s,

I do still buy MP3s (and FLACs),  however in the past couple of years, Amazon has made MP3 purchases much more difficult than it used to be..  probably because they want us to use their streaming service.    Google stopped selling MP3s, a few years back.  And services like Napster and Musicmatch have gone away.   Outside of Amazon and iTunes there's only a few services that sell MP3s, and most don't have as complete catalog of music as those two.    So the trend feels like digital downloads are on their way out.   If that happens I will have to go back to CDs.   I don't like buying a full CD for one or two tracks which is why I like the download model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Way back when,  I tried buying from Apple (in my iTunes), and (no doubt as an anti-piracy measure) they had DRM that "cancelled" the song if you put it on more than 7 comp (CDs),  which was my way of doing playlists at that time.  You could still re-import it from one of your discs, but that's a pain for a song you paid for.  So that was it for them,...They had their chance.  I tried Amazon for a while, but their downloader was a pain and made things difficult (and some songs I paid for disappeared)...Now,  I'm done with all of it.  We tried doing things the legal and correct way,  and big tech screwed with us,...Not the bands' fault either...It rather sucks nowadays.   Bands tour to make money, as opposed to sell product,  which means if you want to work in the studio,  as,  let's say a project or one man band, or non-touring entity,  there's no money in it...Not that I've ever worried about money when it comes to bands/projects I was in anyway...(Though I did see a Monastat 7 CD (I was vocals) on eBay just sold for almost $40!...Nice to see someone still cares :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, VectorGamer said:

iTunes sells AAC, not MP3. I still download from iTunes if I want singles only. Everything else I buy the CD and rip it into ALAC or download FLAC from Bandcamp if it's available.

Correct,  my digital collection is a combination of MP3, AAC and FLAC, but modern players can handle all 3 with no issues

 

12 minutes ago, GoldLeader said:

Way back when,  I tried buying from Apple (in my iTunes), and (no doubt as an anti-piracy measure) they had DRM that "cancelled" the song if you put it on more than 7 comp (CDs),  which was my way of doing playlists at that time.  You could still re-import it from one of your discs, but that's a pain for a song you paid for.  So that was it for them

To be fair,  that was years ago.   Once Amazon started selling DRM-free MP3s,  Apple scrapped their DRM too.   There was a DRM scheme for Windows Music stores too.    It was all unworkable,  too many players didn't support it.  You had to manage which computers could play the files.    Thankful that's gone.    You could burn the DRM'd itunes music to CD and read it back to 'liberate' it, but you were taking a quality hit when you reencoded it I'm sure.    I still have a folder full of WMA files that my wife bought that I haven't been able to jailbreak and probably never will.

 

19 minutes ago, GoldLeader said:

Bands tour to make money, as opposed to sell product,  which means if you want to work in the studio,  as,  let's say a project or one man band, or non-touring entity,

I buy from Bandcamp when I can since I believe more of the money goes to the artist,  but in general you are correct,  there's less and less money in recording music (which explains why the quality deteriorates over time) and most of it is in touring.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zzip said:

Correct,  my digital collection is a combination of MP3, AAC and FLAC, but modern players can handle all 3 with no issues

 

To be fair,  that was years ago.   Once Amazon started selling DRM-free MP3s,  Apple scrapped their DRM too.   There was a DRM scheme for Windows Music stores too.    It was all unworkable,  too many players didn't support it.  You had to manage which computers could play the files.    Thankful that's gone.    You could burn the DRM'd itunes music to CD and read it back to 'liberate' it, but you were taking a quality hit when you reencoded it I'm sure.    I still have a folder full of WMA files that my wife bought that I haven't been able to jailbreak and probably never will.

 

I buy from Bandcamp when I can since I believe more of the money goes to the artist,  but in general you are correct,  there's less and less money in recording music (which explains why the quality deteriorates over time) and most of it is in touring.

Yeah,  of course I was exaggerating a bit when I said no money ...Should have said very little...As for No Apple DRM,  Everybody and their dog told me that when songs went from $.99 to $1.29 and they were dead WRONG.  The files still behaved the same way.  Make 7 copies of ONE SONG (Not a WHOLE CD) and the song would become Unavailable as if you were pirating CDs.  Now that was a Long Time Ago.  So it Probably is different NOW,  But,   Like I say They had their chance.  They came in trying to convince the world that MP3s/MP4s (Whatever) were just as good as CDs and nothing's changed, but they were LYING.  (Don't get me wrong,  I love MP3 Players, and the ability to burn my own CD Comps (Mix CDs), etc.)...

 

Now,  Streaming services are trying to do the same thing...But it is what it is,  just realize the differences is my advice.  Spotify charged my credit card after I cancelled so that was the end of that (They had their chance)...And I have to stay below certain limits to stay cheap on my phone bill so Streaming is not for me but to each their own...

 

Sorry to be off topic  (shutting up now (heh))

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/11/2022 at 8:01 PM, Classic Pac said:

I wonder how many of you heard the tale of Flipper Zero, they are not the only ones sadly.

I have one of these devices.  Really cool, and I had no idea their funds were tied up by PayPal.  WTFO?!

 

15 hours ago, zzip said:

Seems like it takes about 20 years for tech companies to go from cool young disruptive forces fighting the big boys to becoming anti-consumer bastards themselves.

Usually, I see this happen when the founders lose control of the company either by board manipulation or company sale.

 

Google is a bit different, though: they either lied from the start or very quickly became evil; while everyone was focused on Microsoft in the late 90s and 2000s, I saw Google's shit start up and mentioned it to coworkers at the time.  Not that Sergey Brin has not made some insidious statements, but Eric Schmidt came on board as CEO in 2001 and had some interesting things to say about privacy not too many years afterward.  Notice in 2010 he said you should not do anything you want to keep private, then in 2014 said if you want privacy you have to fight for it.  Who fought for their privacy in the face of free stuff?  Right.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Big tech is making things too complex for quick, consistent, reliable, day-to-day use. Online streaming and cloud services change too much too often for my tastes. If not the policies, then the user interface.. Always in a state of flux. The more layers and caveats they pile on the more I move away from them. There is something to be said for simplicity.

 

I don't do streaming and I don't do google docs. We stick with purchasing CDs and DVDs - and rip them to local media drives for instant access. Don't do subscription software either.

 

Just the other day I was re-evaluating upgrading from Office 2003 to 2010. I didn't like all the excess complexity and bloat that came with 2010. Neither did my colleagues.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, GoldLeader said:

Yeah,  of course I was exaggerating a bit when I said no money ...Should have said very little...As for No Apple DRM,  Everybody and their dog told me that when songs went from $.99 to $1.29 and they were dead WRONG.  The files still behaved the same way.  Make 7 copies of ONE SONG (Not a WHOLE CD) and the song would become Unavailable as if you were pirating CDs.  Now that was a Long Time Ago.  So it Probably is different NOW,  But,   Like I say They had their chance.  They came in trying to convince the world that MP3s/MP4s (Whatever) were just as good as CDs and nothing's changed, but they were LYING.  (Don't get me wrong,  I love MP3 Players, and the ability to burn my own CD Comps (Mix CDs), etc.)...

Well let's put the blame where it's due...   the music industry had to be dragged into the digital age kicking and screaming,   putting DRM on the songs was the only way to get them on board.   And it was terrible.

 

The quality of the MP3s sold over time has increased.   In the beginning they were a lower bitrate, but now they are usually encoded at the highest bitrate.   There's also several services selling FLAC,  you can buy FLACs at CD quality or as high as 96khz 24-bit,  so now you really can download tracks at better than CD quality (whether your ears can tell the difference is another matter)

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, OLD CS1 said:

Google is a bit different, though: they either lied from the start or very quickly became evil; while everyone was focused on Microsoft in the late 90s and 2000s, I saw Google's shit start up and mentioned it to coworkers at the time.  Not that Sergey Brin has not made some insidious statements, but Eric Schmidt came on board as CEO in 2001 and had some interesting things to say about privacy not too many years afterward.  Notice in 2010 he said you should not do anything you want to keep private, then in 2014 said if you want privacy you have to fight for it.  Who fought for their privacy in the face of free stuff?  Right.

In the 90s/early 2000s. Silicon valley was full of these young idealistic tech entrepreneur "visionaries" believing they were changing the world for the better.  They weren't just creating new tech,  they were reinventing capitalism, and trying to do away with what they thought the bad parts were,  For instance, I've worked at a tech companies where the CEO sat in a cubicle like everybody else because they didn't believe in hierarchy or something, others that do away with cubicles in favor of an open plan with sofas and other furniture.   

 

Anyway,  given all that, when the Google guys decided "Don't Be Evil" would be a good slogan,  they may have been young and naive enough to really believe it.   I always laughed at the slogan then because I thought "give it a decade or two,  we'll see how evil they turn out!"--  it's hard to become big and throw your weight around and not get involved in things that  appear unethical in some quarters.

 

And the old "evil" companies at least had a sense of neutrality towards their customers.    The phone company wouldn't charge you for spreading rumors they didn't like, neither would your bank or the post office   You'd have to be involved in fraud or other tangible illegal activity before they took action.    It definitely wouldn't be because you hurt someone's feelings.

 

But because silicon valley cultivated an environment of moral superiority vs the old ways,  now they can't help themselves.   They seem to think it's wrong to remain neutral and instead think it's fine use their platforms to enforce morality,  which is impossible to do fairly--  there's nothing even resembling a trial,  they are judge jury and executioner.  You wake up one day to find they took your money or shut down your account with often only a vague explanation of what you did (you committed TOS violations!)

 

The tech "utopia" they thought they were building in the 90s is quickly turning into dystopia.   Maybe the Paypal backlash will cause others to think twice.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...