2 ms·

The Supreme Court argument is immaterial. The Supreme Court can and does deem a lot of things legal (eg free speech for hate groups), which are a legal necessit

by beambot 11y ago

The Supreme Court argument is immaterial. The Supreme Court can and does deem a lot of things legal (eg free speech for hate groups), which are a legal necessity. I'm proud that our country embraces such freedoms, even if I personally don't always agree with the messages. For example, I wouldn't shop at any store that actively promotes hate speech, even though the speech is legal. Maybe PayPal is getting flak from rights holders (even Netflix), which makes VPN traffic too risky right now. Maybe they're really dogmatic about the issue ("we hate VPNs and copyright pirates!") or maybe they really just don't want to get caught in the middle of a political battle that they don't care about.

arca_vorago 11y ago
Which is completely separate and different from you original comment. Gotta love it when people just decide to move the goalposts and pretend they didnt.
- beambot 11y ago
  This comment was perfectly inline with my original comment. My original comment said: "PayPal is mitigating risky transactions." In this case, they stated that the risk is due to copyright infringement. For some unstated reason (eg. directly or via pressure via rights holders), PayPal has deemed that such website operators are "bad actors" and are an unnecessary risk. EDIT: Instead of making a snarky, low-information comment, I suggest you actually refute what I said. That's considered good HN etiquette.
  - FireBeyond 11y ago
    What is "risky" about PayPal processing a transaction for someone to a VPN provider, that "may be used for copyright infringement"? It's not risk. There may be / are reasons, but painting them as "high risk transactions" is entirely disingenuous.
    - mwfunk 11y ago
      Maybe they have data that shows otherwise? Obviously there's no causality but it's feasible that there are high levels of correlation amongst users of their service. Or maybe not. I have no idea and neither does anyone else here, unfortunately. Everyone is just engaging in Kremlinology based on crumbs of information.
  - qb45 11y ago
    In the context of payment processors, "risky transaction" means fraud. People are criticizing you because it looks like you wrote your first post without understanding the issue and now try to defend it by altering its meaning through redefinition of common terms.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    And my reply points out that there's no mention of risk anywhere in the letter. Do they state this elsewhere, or are you assuming?

by beambot 11y ago

arca_vorago 11y ago

Which is completely separate and different from you original comment. Gotta love it when people just decide to move the goalposts and pretend they didnt.

beambot 11y ago
This comment was perfectly inline with my original comment. My original comment said: "PayPal is mitigating risky transactions." In this case, they stated that the risk is due to copyright infringement. For some unstated reason (eg. directly or via pressure via rights holders), PayPal has deemed that such website operators are "bad actors" and are an unnecessary risk. EDIT: Instead of making a snarky, low-information comment, I suggest you actually refute what I said. That's considered good HN etiquette.
- FireBeyond 11y ago
  What is "risky" about PayPal processing a transaction for someone to a VPN provider, that "may be used for copyright infringement"? It's not risk. There may be / are reasons, but painting them as "high risk transactions" is entirely disingenuous.
  - mwfunk 11y ago
    Maybe they have data that shows otherwise? Obviously there's no causality but it's feasible that there are high levels of correlation amongst users of their service. Or maybe not. I have no idea and neither does anyone else here, unfortunately. Everyone is just engaging in Kremlinology based on crumbs of information.
- qb45 11y ago
  In the context of payment processors, "risky transaction" means fraud. People are criticizing you because it looks like you wrote your first post without understanding the issue and now try to defend it by altering its meaning through redefinition of common terms.
- mikeash 11y ago
  And my reply points out that there's no mention of risk anywhere in the letter. Do they state this elsewhere, or are you assuming?