Well well. Paypal now ass.

There was never any possibiilty that a policy had been "written" and keyed into a system for upload accidentally. It couldn't exist accidentally to "mistakingly" send. It was obviously just a little premature.

As for this quitely, considering Elon Musk just walked into Twitter today, some should go out of their way to make sure he hears about this this time too, as well as the former Paypal CEO that also jumped on them.

The changes that caused the recent uproar was being fined for "misinformation". Doesn't look like they added that back.

The fine other things users could be fined for had already been there and was not new.

So what can you be fined for?

violate any law, statute, ordinance or regulation.

relate to transactions involving (a) narcotics, steroids, certain controlled substances or other products that present a risk to consumer safety, (b) drug paraphernalia, (c) cigarettes, (d) items that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity, (e) stolen goods including digital and virtual goods, (f) the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory or the financial exploitation of a crime, (g) items that are considered obscene, (h) items that infringe or violate any copyright, trademark, right of publicity or privacy or any other proprietary right under the laws of any jurisdiction, (i) certain sexually oriented materials or services, (j) ammunition, firearms, or certain firearm parts or accessories, or (k) certain weapons or knives regulated under applicable law.

relate to transactions that (a) show the personal information of third parties in violation of applicable law, (b) support pyramid or ponzi schemes, matrix programs, other "get rich quick" schemes or certain multi-level marketing programs, (c) are associated with purchases of annuities or lottery contracts, lay-away systems, off-shore banking or transactions to finance or refinance debts funded by a credit card, (d) are for the sale of certain items before the seller has control or possession of the item, (e) are by payment processors to collect payments on behalf of merchants, (f) are associated with the sale of traveler's checks or money orders, (g)involve currency exchanges or check cashing businesses, (h) involve certain credit repair, debt settlement services, credit transactions or insurance activities, or (i) involve offering or receiving payments for the purpose of bribery or corruption.

involve the sales of products or services identified by government agencies to have a high likelihood of being fraudulent.

relate to transactions involving any activity that requires pre-approval without having obtained said approval.

It will be interesting when a lawyer defends someone for buying a coffee mug with the quote "somebody did some things" on it...

How does this not violate the first amendment?

BMX Bandit said:

---

(f) the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory or the financial exploitation of a crime,

---

What a strange way to say "MAGA merch"?

XXXVII said:

---

How does this not violate the first amendment?

---

Not sure if serious.

XXXVII said:

---

How does this not violate the first amendment?

---

Because it is a private company and you agree to their terms of service when you sign up.

No different than TexAgs deep sixing users.

Just cancelled my account

So, if you do something that PayPal's internal enforcers don't like and they want to make an example of you, they take up to $2500 of your money away. As long as you fly under their radar you might be fine, but if it is sufficiently public or noticeable that they feel the need to virtue signal that they are good and you are bad and need to be punished in order to "protect" themselves from the mob, they might hit you with this penalty.

Their list is extensive and sufficiently vague in some aspects that they will have wide latitude.

It is very vague in some parts which is why it may not be enforceable in many instances.


But it is also not new. I'd be curious to know how many times they've actually enforced this fine.

I think you pretty well summed it up, particularly your last sentence.

I wonder how far they'd push collection efforts on an account that goes negative following the fine?

WTH... Paypal thinks it's a law enforcement agency now?

It's use against an individual would purposefully draw attention and I think that would be its primary purpose: to politically signal to both regulators and activists that it "cares" about not being used for breaking laws and also political correctness.

I would bet it is rarely and selectively used.

Largest shareholders
Blackstone
Vanguard

Plus In January 2021, PayPal became the first foreign operator with 100% control of a payment platform in China, gaining an advanced position in the local online payment market.

Next is social credit scores.

We just waiting for that last fence panel while we feed.

Quote:

---

(j) ammunition, firearms, or certain firearm parts or accessories, or (k) certain weapons or knives regulated under applicable law.

---

So what does this mean? Buying something that is illegal... or ANY firearms/ammo/parts?

you can't buy guns through paypal. been that way for quite some time.

Rittenhouse would have been fined out the wazoo ajd anybody who donated with paypal.

...and he is innocent.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

So, if you do something that PayPal's internal enforcers don't like and they want to make an example of you, they take up to $2500 of your money away. As long as you fly under their radar you might be fine, but if it is sufficiently public or noticeable that they feel the need to virtue signal that they are good and you are bad and need to be punished in order to "protect" themselves from the mob, they might hit you with this penalty.

Their list is extensive and sufficiently vague in some aspects that they will have wide latitude.

---

would they now have to show that their policy is enforced 100% of the time for all users.

So if User A does something and gets fined but User B does the exact same thing and does not get fined, is PayPal not going to be sued by User A?

Didn't Biden say something about getting rid of junk fees?

taxpreparer said:

---

Didn't Biden say something about getting rid of junk fees?

---

There is a tax on people's "junk" now?

aggiehawg said:

---

taxpreparer said:

---

Didn't Biden say something about getting rid of junk fees?

---

There is a tax on people's "junk" now?

---

Well, he did say something about paying extra for six more inches beteewn seats.

LOL.

For a Dem closing argument, did not have that on my bingo card.

Are there any Unwoke quality alternatives to Paypal and Venmo?

XXXVII said:

---

How does this not violate the first amendment?

---

lol amazing.

Who keeps $2,500 in a Paypal account?

Never use it anyway.

jpb1999 said:

---

Quote:

---

(j) ammunition, firearms, or certain firearm parts or accessories, or (k) certain weapons or knives regulated under applicable law.

---

So what does this mean? Buying something that is illegal... or ANY firearms/ammo/parts?

---

Or... a "Creepy Porn Lawyer" coffee mug purchased from TuckerCarlson.com...

I don't see how this would stand up in court. Paypal is certainly going to get sued for charging a consumer for something he/she didn't consume. A lot of folks are just going to cancel.

I haven't closed mine but I did pay off my PayPal Credit account a while back and haven't used it since. Piss on 'em.