6 ms·

PayPal ends business dealings with Alex Jones's Infowars

67 points by petethomas 8y ago

dboreham 8y ago
BTC buy signal?
megous 8y ago
Sadly, these enforcement actions are very selective. It's not like PayPal or other SV companies for that matter like Patreon really care about their Community Guidelines. I reported a person to Patreon some time ago who takes it as a job to spread hateful/false info about white helmets, even advocating for killing them many times. High profile enough person to be documented by journalists, and have special chapters in large reports about russian propaganda. No response. And it's not like these people are not being killed regularly, by the same government that regularly tags her in images posted to twitter from their embassy accounts. But hey, baby steps.
- darpa_escapee 8y ago
  Bullshit. Paypal drops merchants for arbitrary reasons all of the time. They've been doing it for over a decade.
  - DuskStar 8y ago
    Paypal dropping merchants for arbitrary reasons is not evidence in favor of them caring about their community guidelines. Consistently dropping merchants for well-defined violations would be.
trophycase 8y ago
I don't care about Alex Jones, but this is why we need Bitcoin.
- bdcravens 8y ago
  We have Bitcoin, but it is still more challenging to use than Paypal for most users.
  - andirk 8y ago
    Use Square's Cash App. It has USD and BTC
- orf 8y ago
  Bitcoin exists though.
convery 8y ago
Cue the: "if you don't like it; just create your own internet and payment-processor" responses.
patrickg_zill 8y ago
I think that Monday I will be talking to the money transmission licensing board in my state. Maybe PayPal needs to explain to my state why they should retain the ability to continue to operate...not sure that their one-sided values are in alignment with the law. EDIT: remember that if you tolerate this behavior towards people you disagree with (I myself don't pay any attention to Jones as I think he is someone who doesn't really try to understand reality), then when the tables are turned, as they do quite often in politics, what basis will you have to complain about the poor treatment you or someone whose views you champion, receives?
- smt88 8y ago
  I get that their guidelines aren't uniformly enforced, but how are the values themselves one-sided? Are you suggesting they should also ban people who voice support for Muslims or gun control? What is the "other side"?
  - sheepmullet 8y ago
    > or gun control? I mean this seems legitimate. Our founding document clearly highlights the inalienable right to bear arms.
- Mtinie 8y ago
  A commercial business is not allowed to pick and chose who it’s customers are? I’m not picking sides in this discussion, only curious to understand your viewpoint and to learn more about what legal boundary PayPal crossed.
  - bdcravens 8y ago
    There is an entire category of laws dedicated to discrimination by businesses, yes. The question is here is whether Mr. Jones is part of a protected class, and how broadly a company can use their terms of service (which is essentially discrimination by policy)
  - patrickg_zill 8y ago
zuttton 8y ago
People doesn't realize that all this will effect them. Ya, scapegoat the guy who everyone thinks deserves it. But, then it's on to the people who might deserve it. Then, they come knocking on your door and you question how. It's happening right now in front of your eyes. I would be very scared at what is to come from letting these massive corporations exercise this kind of mass banning power.
- empath75 8y ago
  So you demand that these private corporations need to do business with someone they find contemptible? Nobody is putting him in jail. He’s free to speak his noxious views. And other people are not obligated to publish or advertise on them.
  - bdcravens 8y ago
    As long as it's not a wedding cake, right?
    - code_duck 8y ago
      Yeah, you have to not violate federal law, which is the same reason people who sell glass pipes get banned from PayPal.
    - orf 8y ago
      Are you saying spreading hate speech a protected class now?
      - andybak 8y ago
        Whilst I probably would find no common ground with the person you're responding to (I'm pro-lgbtq in general and always have been) I do think there's a nuance here worth engaging with.
      - bdcravens 8y ago
        Didn't say that at all. Only addressing this statement: "So you demand that these private corporations need to do business with someone they find contemptible?"
nikolay 8y ago
All the liberal evil corps are after silencing voices they don't want to hear. This kind of censorship reminds me of the communist era in Bulgaria. Same Commies, different times...
- seattle_spring 8y ago
  Won't someone please think of the violent far-right conspiracy theorists!!
mynameishere 8y ago
This kind of thing is the one unquestionable good reason for having crypto currencies available. They're not just for drugs and contracts! Forget paypal. The oligopoly that is Visa and MasterCard could easily shut down anyone they want because of "hate" or whatever abstract noun we're using to attack those the NY Times doesn't like.
CapitalistCartr 8y ago
The First Amendment isn't defended at Michelangelo's "David", but at Larry Flynt's "Hustler".
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- waterphone 8y ago
  The First Amendment doesn't obligate private companies to do business with people or other businesses they don't want to be involved with. If the U.S. government were ordering his accounts closed, you might have an argument.
  - CapitalistCartr 8y ago
    The ideal is bigger than that. If we only support rights for people and ideas we support, then they aren't rights. Freedom of speech is not just a constraint on our government; its an ideal that only survives if we stand up for it vigorously. Its absurd to expect our government to be a better "person" than we expect of ourselves.
    - camel_Snake 8y ago
      Do we have a right to a business's services though? Should bars be unable to ban unruly customers? I don't see how this is very different.
throwaway_trust 8y ago
As much as I detest that site, this is now dangerous precedence. Payment processors choosing not to do business at their whim. Imagine scenario - there is a totalitarian government in some banana republic that forces these companies (who are already global) not to support dissidents of it's regime in order to operate in their countries, what moral high ground will they take? The totalitarian regime will say you are doing this in US then why not in our country too? Internet was supposed to be great equalizer. But supposedly monopolies are abusing their power. This is too close to net neutrality argument. Payment processors is oligopoly business like ISPs. It's a high barrier to enter due to governmental regulations. Now why can't be case made for net neutrality for payment processors? And "build your payment processing company" -- give me a break. Any media organization can't just build payment processing services. I know there is BTC/ETH, saving grace for decentralization of Internet and working as true intended goal.
- orf 8y ago
  > there is a totalitarian government in some banana republic that forces these companies (who are already global) not to support dissidents of it's regime in order to operate in their countries, what moral high ground will they take? I mean, I get your point, but doesn't the US do this exact thing? Forcing companies not to do business with what it considers to be dissidents in foreign countries (ones that just happen to not align with its interests...)
- the8472 8y ago
  > It's a high barrier to enter due to governmental regulations. Well-designed regulations can also protect consumer choice. In europe there's SEPA and IBAN transfers between any bank, and there's plenty of those. And banks are obligated to give anyone an account. So it would be near-impossible to shut someone down like this.
  - dogma1138 8y ago
    Banks in Europe are not obligated to give anyone an account when it comes to business accounts this isn’t about individual basic accounts, current accounts and business accounts are completely discretionary and business accounts are actually notoriously hard to open in some countries even the UK.
wavefarer 8y ago
What's with all the shills and bots in here? PayPal is a private company it's perfectly within their rights to not do business with someone, it's not censorship.
- throwaway_trust 8y ago
  Not everyone is shill or a bot. I neither support nor critique their decision. They are entitled to make this decision. I just believe this is dangerous precedence to set and can open whole lot of can of worms.
- rossdavidh 8y ago
  Well it's not censorship if you define censorship as government actions. But, it is pretty chilling to think that you can get your business shut down for political reasons. In the immediate post-9/11 atmosphere, anybody suggesting that the Patriot Act was not a good idea got a lot of negative feedback. I recall putting anti-war signs in my yard during the early years of the Iraq war and getting them torn down. But, back then, I wouldn't have had the risk of getting driven out of business because of my politics. Banks are private companies too, as are car companies. I wouldn't want them to be able to keep me from opening a bank account or buying a car, not matter how reprehensible my politics might be.
  - wavefarer 8y ago
    That is the definition of censorship - the government is the only entity that can legally hold a gun to your head to stop you from doing something.
    - DuskStar 8y ago
      No, it's not... Otherwise 'government censorship' would be redundant. I just checked the top 5 google results for "censorship definition" [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] and NONE of them limited it to government only. I mean, the first sentence of the Wikipedia article even mentions corporate censorship specifically: "...as determined by a government or private institution, for example, corporate censorship." 0: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship 1: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/censorship https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/censorship 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship 3: https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/censorship https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/censorship 4: https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship
wpdev_63 8y ago
Its paypal business who they do business with but it shows a very low threshold on the integrity of their service. They may not like what he says or what's he generally about(I am not a fan of him) but he's not doing anything illegal. If I was in working in a business they were not a fan of(who knows?), I would definitely be looking for other options. They have a history of doing this sort of thing and they have known to be less than righteous. It's really discerning that a money handler can do something like this at their whim. I haven't had great experiences doing typical business with them.
R_haterade 8y ago
And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
mschuster91 8y ago
About damn time. There are limits to "free speech", namedly when said speech is inciting racial hatred. And it's about time companies realize their role in actually enabling the hatred - and act upon their responsibility.
- driverdan 8y ago
  > namedly when said speech is inciting racial hatred. There is no such limit in the US.
  - mschuster91 8y ago
    > There is no such limit in the US. ...which makes the US fairly unique in the world. Nearly all other developed countries have developed laws to combat hate speech. With the result being that the US is probably the only country in the world where people wearing swastika flags and doing the Hitler salute will be defended by ordinary citizens. 400k US citizens died in WW2 fighting the Nazi regime and in 2018 open Nazis can carry the swastika flag in the US. What a disgrace.
    - sheepmullet 8y ago
      > 400k US citizens died in WW2 fighting the Nazi regime and in 2018 open Nazis can carry the swastika flag in the US. What a disgrace. We have seen an equally horrific history with communism. Can we at least agree we should remove all communists and their supporters from all government positions?
    - deathanatos 8y ago
      We (or, I hope, some of us) still believe in the same values. Murder and genocide are not condoned, nor do we want a repeat of what happened in WW2. Free speech is the protected value. That my countryman might choose to use that freedom poorly is his choice, but that's part of it: he's free to choose. Unorthodox ideas might be the next freedom or civil rights movement, or they might just be absolute garbage; it isn't the government's place to pick or choose what ideas get expressed. The old quote applies, > I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. That said, I don't see why a private enterprise should be forced to do business with someone unwillingly. (Again, if this were the government, I'd have a very different opinion.) As for some of the more egregious things he's done, such as claiming Sandy Hook was a hoax, > six families of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as well as an FBI agent who responded to the attack filed a defamation lawsuit against Jones for his role in spreading conspiracy theories about the shooting. This is the proper forum for this to occur in, and hopefully justice will be done.
influx 8y ago
How far will this go? Banks refusing to finance his mortgage? Grocery stores banning him from buying food? He hasn’t done anything illegal he’s just an asshole.
- behringer 8y ago
  Slander is a crime.
  - R_haterade 8y ago
    *tort
- pcbro141 8y ago
  He violated the Acceptable Use Policy he agreed to abide by, so naturally they chose to stop doing business with him. I don't think PayPal was accusing him of breaking any law.
jsendros 8y ago
What the fuck are these comments? At some point, when everyone has shut you out, don't you realize that you are the problem?
- andybak 8y ago
  Some people think abstract principles matter more than specific edge-cases.
  - GW150914 8y ago
    I think some people also use abstract principles as canards when they actually identify with said edge cases. Either way, it’s exhausting and pointless and poisons every conversation online (and some off) that touch on these issues. It’s like arguing about the value of birth control with a pope from a few decades ago. Facts don’t matter, only positions matter.
  - noelsusman 8y ago
    I'll just throw out that it's not a coincidence which specific edge-cases these people choose to get up in arms about. Like, I don't see a lot of outrage from free speech types when liberal professors get fired for saying stupid shit. It's only a certain kind of speech being suppressed that they seem to care about. http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/college/ut-condemns-teacher-whose-tweet-blames-harvey-on-texas-gop-vote/2335504 http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/college/ut-condemns-t... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/26/professor-fired-after-defending-blacks-only-event-on-fox-news-i-was-publicly-lynched-she-says/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/2...
    - sheepmullet 8y ago
      > Like, I don't see a lot of outrage from free speech types when liberal professors get fired for saying stupid shit Is it the same thing? A better example would be if power companies and phone companies started disconnecting liberal professors for saying stupid shit.
noonespecial 8y ago
Despite my feelings of "It couldn't have happened to a 'nicer' fellow", I still have to stand by "It shouldn't have happened to any fellow".
avar 8y ago
As much as Alex Jones says some indefensible things, this continuing saga is a great argument for why we need to start regulating certain things on the Internet like utilities. Imagine Alex Jones's power company deciding to shut down power to his studio because they (rightly) think he's being an asshole, or the phone company disconnecting his landline. Just because something's a private company doesn't mean we should put up with them selectively denying people access to their "platform". Being plugged into the power company is also being on their "platform", and would probably be regulated as loosely as Facebook, YouTube, PayPal et al if electric power was a thing that had only really taken off in the last 20 years.
Censorme 8y ago
Damn they really are doing a number on him. A conspiracy to silence Alex Jones and deplatform him completely.. I never really saw him as a serious guy to over the top screaming etc.. but this is pretty insane.
- jsmeaton 8y ago
  A conspiracy implies all of these companies .. conspired, rather than independently reaching a conclusion that supporting this fellow with their services was bad for their own business.
  - tomp 8y ago
    How could they “independently” reach the same conclusion at roughly the same time? I’m not saying they necessarily “conspired”, could be as simple as one CEO seeing the news and saying “that’s a good idea, we should do that too”, but the chances of these decisions being completely independent is almost zero.
    - jsmeaton 8y ago
      Either it’s a conspiracy or it is not. If there are a bunch of people running down the street, and I see that they’re running from a fire, then I’m going to run too. That is not a conspiracy. The decision is independent even if the reason is shared. That’s not to say it’s just one big coincidence.
rgbrenner 8y ago
Visa, Discover and Amex prohibit hate-group sites on their networks. Mastercard doesn't allow merchants that promote or incite violence. PayPal too, it's the 2nd paragraph in their AUP: https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/acceptableuse-full https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/acceptableuse-full What do you guys expect PayPal to do? Draw a line at InfoWars, and die on their sword, as the major credit card networks cut them off and kill the company? Infowars isn't going to be able to continue processing credit card payments. It's up to paypal if they want to go with Infowars and die or not.
tareqak 8y ago
I have a question for the commenters who are disappointed by this event: how do you feel about PayPal's actions here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18017635 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18017635 (PayPal’s crackdown on ASMR creators)? If you have a different reaction to that, then please explain the difference between the two kinds of events for me as plainly as you can for my understanding.
- tomp 8y ago
  What’s a reasonable explanation of the ASMR ban. I’m asking because I just don’t see any ewuivalence between these two issues. I’m personally deeply disappointed by (and oppose) both bans, but at least I can see some reason for Infowars ban (“he’s spreading harmful information”) whereas I cannot really come up with any not-obviously-contrived (i.e. “sex-fear-mongering”) explanation.
  - tareqak 8y ago
    My question is aimed at developing my understanding of the people who support the ASMR ban, but are against the InfoWars one.
    - repolfx 8y ago
      Are there any such people? I tried to figure out what was going on from your story but it's like coming into the middle of a family fight that's been going on for years. The stuff they're currently arguing about is probably not how it started. In particular PayPal says specifically in that article that they don't have any policies against ASMR (which apparently is mostly videos of women making weird sound effects?). So why are they suspending accounts, well presumably they think they're doing it for other reasons. The article goes on to talk about YouTube being "anti sex" or something so presumably there's more to these videos than is being let on. At any rate, I think it's dumb that payment processors suspend accounts for sex-related stuff too, but that's at least something with a basis in US law so PayPal may feel they are legally forced to do it. FOSTA is mentioned.
bdcravens 8y ago
I fear Mr. Jones will go from being a fringe loon to being a major talking point in 2020, spoon feeding people what they want to hear about their fears (similar to what we saw in 2016).
dev_dull 8y ago
The barrier to being categorized as “hate speech” seems to becoming increasingly easier to apply.
GW150914 8y ago
I truly wish the predictable conversation to follow could be something other than the inevitable bike shedding over what constitutes free speech, slippery slopes, and conspiracy theories. In a dozen submissions of similar topics the comments could be largely interchanged with only a few proper nouns being changed. All too often it seems like people firing mortars from deep within ideological trenches, and worse, some people making weak fallacious arguments of doom instead of openly supporting the speech in question. It’s all very twisty, predictable, and pointless and I’ve never seen anyone budge. It’s just “over the top boys” and at the end of the day no man’s land gets a few more craters.
- tomp 8y ago
  Do you have a more substantial viewpoint to share? I think to a large extent the same arguments are repeated because stories like these are literally arguments for both sides: “See, I was right, censorship will not stop at at anything, it’s a slippery slope!” “See, bad people/ideas should be censored and it helps make society better.”
  - GW150914 8y ago
    My point is that it is pointless to have these conversations here, because no exchange of ideas takes place, no intellectual curiosity is satisfied, and bad faith arguments are the norm. You may not like that point, but that doesn’t make it any less of a point. For whatever reason (I already presented my thoughts on those reasons as I see them) this site can’t handle this discussion, and the results are distracting and disheartening. I suspect that a major reason I haven’t yet mentioned is that everyone who isn’t identifying as being on a “side” stays the hell away from them. That leaves the raving ideologues for the most part, with a smattering of the same being shouted down for not hewing to what is Obviously Correct. My substantive point is that the moderation on this site should treat this like any other instance of politics that it buries, because it is, and because it creates the same kinds of endless and repetitive arguments and flame wars.
2_listerine_pls 8y ago
PayPal would have prevented American Independence, citing violence.
educationdata 8y ago
Paypal's own words: "We undertook an extensive review of the InfoWars sites, and found instances that promoted hate and discriminatory intolerance against certain communities and religions that run counter to our core value of inclusion." The problems are: 1) There are many websites "promoted hate and discriminatory intolerance against certain communities and religions". As an atheist, I would say I have seem many atheist websites doing this. 2) This may not be fair. Nobody would believe Paypal has reviewed the speech of all the websites using their service. So why did they pick InfoWars? For what reason? Was that because there were lots of complains? Paypal not only need to explain why InfoWars should be banned, they also need to explain why they picked InfoWars. 3) There is no due process. Does InfoWars has a chance to appeal the decision? Were they informed before the decision was made? Were they given time for transition? 4) Yes. Paypal as a private company can make this decision. But nobody here is claiming that Paypal's decision is illegal. Many people feel this is dangerous, and there are good reasons to feel this way: a) The nature of Paypal's business has nothing to do with speech. It is dangerous for a financial company to censor speech. It is different from facebook or twitter, which are speech platforms, so the content of speech are important to them. Why should Paypal even care about the speech on other websites? We do not need financial companies to shape the world of speech. b) InfoWars promotes hate speech, but it is not illegal in the U.S. It is not a terrorist group. If it really incited violence, law enforcement will handle it. The difference between law enforcement and business: law enforcement has to follow the due process, but business makes arbitrary decision.

67 points by petethomas 8y ago

BTC buy signal?

Sadly, these enforcement actions are very selective. It's not like PayPal or other SV companies for that matter like Patreon really care about their Community Guidelines. I reported a person to Patreon some time ago who takes it as a job to spread hateful/false info about white helmets, even advocating for killing them many times. High profile enough person to be documented by journalists, and have special chapters in large reports about russian propaganda. No response. And it's not like these people are not being killed regularly, by the same government that regularly tags her in images posted to twitter from their embassy accounts. But hey, baby steps.

darpa_escapee 8y ago
Bullshit. Paypal drops merchants for arbitrary reasons all of the time. They've been doing it for over a decade.
- DuskStar 8y ago
  Paypal dropping merchants for arbitrary reasons is not evidence in favor of them caring about their community guidelines. Consistently dropping merchants for well-defined violations would be.

trophycase 8y ago

I don't care about Alex Jones, but this is why we need Bitcoin.

bdcravens 8y ago
We have Bitcoin, but it is still more challenging to use than Paypal for most users.
- andirk 8y ago
  Use Square's Cash App. It has USD and BTC
orf 8y ago
Bitcoin exists though.

convery 8y ago

Cue the: "if you don't like it; just create your own internet and payment-processor" responses.

patrickg_zill 8y ago

I think that Monday I will be talking to the money transmission licensing board in my state. Maybe PayPal needs to explain to my state why they should retain the ability to continue to operate...not sure that their one-sided values are in alignment with the law. EDIT: remember that if you tolerate this behavior towards people you disagree with (I myself don't pay any attention to Jones as I think he is someone who doesn't really try to understand reality), then when the tables are turned, as they do quite often in politics, what basis will you have to complain about the poor treatment you or someone whose views you champion, receives?

smt88 8y ago
I get that their guidelines aren't uniformly enforced, but how are the values themselves one-sided? Are you suggesting they should also ban people who voice support for Muslims or gun control? What is the "other side"?
- sheepmullet 8y ago
  > or gun control? I mean this seems legitimate. Our founding document clearly highlights the inalienable right to bear arms.
Mtinie 8y ago
A commercial business is not allowed to pick and chose who it’s customers are? I’m not picking sides in this discussion, only curious to understand your viewpoint and to learn more about what legal boundary PayPal crossed.
- bdcravens 8y ago
  There is an entire category of laws dedicated to discrimination by businesses, yes. The question is here is whether Mr. Jones is part of a protected class, and how broadly a company can use their terms of service (which is essentially discrimination by policy)
- patrickg_zill 8y ago

zuttton 8y ago

People doesn't realize that all this will effect them. Ya, scapegoat the guy who everyone thinks deserves it. But, then it's on to the people who might deserve it. Then, they come knocking on your door and you question how. It's happening right now in front of your eyes. I would be very scared at what is to come from letting these massive corporations exercise this kind of mass banning power.

empath75 8y ago
So you demand that these private corporations need to do business with someone they find contemptible? Nobody is putting him in jail. He’s free to speak his noxious views. And other people are not obligated to publish or advertise on them.
- bdcravens 8y ago
  As long as it's not a wedding cake, right?
  - code_duck 8y ago
    Yeah, you have to not violate federal law, which is the same reason people who sell glass pipes get banned from PayPal.
  - orf 8y ago
    Are you saying spreading hate speech a protected class now?
    - andybak 8y ago
      Whilst I probably would find no common ground with the person you're responding to (I'm pro-lgbtq in general and always have been) I do think there's a nuance here worth engaging with.
    - bdcravens 8y ago
      Didn't say that at all. Only addressing this statement: "So you demand that these private corporations need to do business with someone they find contemptible?"

nikolay 8y ago

All the liberal evil corps are after silencing voices they don't want to hear. This kind of censorship reminds me of the communist era in Bulgaria. Same Commies, different times...

seattle_spring 8y ago
Won't someone please think of the violent far-right conspiracy theorists!!

mynameishere 8y ago

This kind of thing is the one unquestionable good reason for having crypto currencies available. They're not just for drugs and contracts! Forget paypal. The oligopoly that is Visa and MasterCard could easily shut down anyone they want because of "hate" or whatever abstract noun we're using to attack those the NY Times doesn't like.

CapitalistCartr 8y ago

The First Amendment isn't defended at Michelangelo's "David", but at Larry Flynt's "Hustler".

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
waterphone 8y ago
The First Amendment doesn't obligate private companies to do business with people or other businesses they don't want to be involved with. If the U.S. government were ordering his accounts closed, you might have an argument.
- CapitalistCartr 8y ago
  The ideal is bigger than that. If we only support rights for people and ideas we support, then they aren't rights. Freedom of speech is not just a constraint on our government; its an ideal that only survives if we stand up for it vigorously. Its absurd to expect our government to be a better "person" than we expect of ourselves.
  - camel_Snake 8y ago
    Do we have a right to a business's services though? Should bars be unable to ban unruly customers? I don't see how this is very different.

throwaway_trust 8y ago

As much as I detest that site, this is now dangerous precedence. Payment processors choosing not to do business at their whim. Imagine scenario - there is a totalitarian government in some banana republic that forces these companies (who are already global) not to support dissidents of it's regime in order to operate in their countries, what moral high ground will they take? The totalitarian regime will say you are doing this in US then why not in our country too? Internet was supposed to be great equalizer. But supposedly monopolies are abusing their power. This is too close to net neutrality argument. Payment processors is oligopoly business like ISPs. It's a high barrier to enter due to governmental regulations. Now why can't be case made for net neutrality for payment processors? And "build your payment processing company" -- give me a break. Any media organization can't just build payment processing services. I know there is BTC/ETH, saving grace for decentralization of Internet and working as true intended goal.

orf 8y ago
> there is a totalitarian government in some banana republic that forces these companies (who are already global) not to support dissidents of it's regime in order to operate in their countries, what moral high ground will they take? I mean, I get your point, but doesn't the US do this exact thing? Forcing companies not to do business with what it considers to be dissidents in foreign countries (ones that just happen to not align with its interests...)
the8472 8y ago
> It's a high barrier to enter due to governmental regulations. Well-designed regulations can also protect consumer choice. In europe there's SEPA and IBAN transfers between any bank, and there's plenty of those. And banks are obligated to give anyone an account. So it would be near-impossible to shut someone down like this.
- dogma1138 8y ago
  Banks in Europe are not obligated to give anyone an account when it comes to business accounts this isn’t about individual basic accounts, current accounts and business accounts are completely discretionary and business accounts are actually notoriously hard to open in some countries even the UK.

wavefarer 8y ago

What's with all the shills and bots in here? PayPal is a private company it's perfectly within their rights to not do business with someone, it's not censorship.

throwaway_trust 8y ago
Not everyone is shill or a bot. I neither support nor critique their decision. They are entitled to make this decision. I just believe this is dangerous precedence to set and can open whole lot of can of worms.
rossdavidh 8y ago
Well it's not censorship if you define censorship as government actions. But, it is pretty chilling to think that you can get your business shut down for political reasons. In the immediate post-9/11 atmosphere, anybody suggesting that the Patriot Act was not a good idea got a lot of negative feedback. I recall putting anti-war signs in my yard during the early years of the Iraq war and getting them torn down. But, back then, I wouldn't have had the risk of getting driven out of business because of my politics. Banks are private companies too, as are car companies. I wouldn't want them to be able to keep me from opening a bank account or buying a car, not matter how reprehensible my politics might be.
- wavefarer 8y ago
  That is the definition of censorship - the government is the only entity that can legally hold a gun to your head to stop you from doing something.
  - DuskStar 8y ago
    No, it's not... Otherwise 'government censorship' would be redundant. I just checked the top 5 google results for "censorship definition" [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] and NONE of them limited it to government only. I mean, the first sentence of the Wikipedia article even mentions corporate censorship specifically: "...as determined by a government or private institution, for example, corporate censorship." 0: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship 1: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/censorship https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/censorship 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship 3: https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/censorship https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/censorship 4: https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship

wpdev_63 8y ago

Its paypal business who they do business with but it shows a very low threshold on the integrity of their service. They may not like what he says or what's he generally about(I am not a fan of him) but he's not doing anything illegal. If I was in working in a business they were not a fan of(who knows?), I would definitely be looking for other options. They have a history of doing this sort of thing and they have known to be less than righteous. It's really discerning that a money handler can do something like this at their whim. I haven't had great experiences doing typical business with them.

R_haterade 8y ago

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

mschuster91 8y ago

About damn time. There are limits to "free speech", namedly when said speech is inciting racial hatred. And it's about time companies realize their role in actually enabling the hatred - and act upon their responsibility.

driverdan 8y ago
> namedly when said speech is inciting racial hatred. There is no such limit in the US.
- mschuster91 8y ago
  > There is no such limit in the US. ...which makes the US fairly unique in the world. Nearly all other developed countries have developed laws to combat hate speech. With the result being that the US is probably the only country in the world where people wearing swastika flags and doing the Hitler salute will be defended by ordinary citizens. 400k US citizens died in WW2 fighting the Nazi regime and in 2018 open Nazis can carry the swastika flag in the US. What a disgrace.
  - sheepmullet 8y ago
    > 400k US citizens died in WW2 fighting the Nazi regime and in 2018 open Nazis can carry the swastika flag in the US. What a disgrace. We have seen an equally horrific history with communism. Can we at least agree we should remove all communists and their supporters from all government positions?
  - deathanatos 8y ago
    We (or, I hope, some of us) still believe in the same values. Murder and genocide are not condoned, nor do we want a repeat of what happened in WW2. Free speech is the protected value. That my countryman might choose to use that freedom poorly is his choice, but that's part of it: he's free to choose. Unorthodox ideas might be the next freedom or civil rights movement, or they might just be absolute garbage; it isn't the government's place to pick or choose what ideas get expressed. The old quote applies, > I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. That said, I don't see why a private enterprise should be forced to do business with someone unwillingly. (Again, if this were the government, I'd have a very different opinion.) As for some of the more egregious things he's done, such as claiming Sandy Hook was a hoax, > six families of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as well as an FBI agent who responded to the attack filed a defamation lawsuit against Jones for his role in spreading conspiracy theories about the shooting. This is the proper forum for this to occur in, and hopefully justice will be done.

influx 8y ago

How far will this go? Banks refusing to finance his mortgage? Grocery stores banning him from buying food? He hasn’t done anything illegal he’s just an asshole.

behringer 8y ago
Slander is a crime.
- R_haterade 8y ago
  *tort
pcbro141 8y ago
He violated the Acceptable Use Policy he agreed to abide by, so naturally they chose to stop doing business with him. I don't think PayPal was accusing him of breaking any law.

jsendros 8y ago

What the fuck are these comments? At some point, when everyone has shut you out, don't you realize that you are the problem?

andybak 8y ago
Some people think abstract principles matter more than specific edge-cases.
- GW150914 8y ago
  I think some people also use abstract principles as canards when they actually identify with said edge cases. Either way, it’s exhausting and pointless and poisons every conversation online (and some off) that touch on these issues. It’s like arguing about the value of birth control with a pope from a few decades ago. Facts don’t matter, only positions matter.
- noelsusman 8y ago
  I'll just throw out that it's not a coincidence which specific edge-cases these people choose to get up in arms about. Like, I don't see a lot of outrage from free speech types when liberal professors get fired for saying stupid shit. It's only a certain kind of speech being suppressed that they seem to care about. http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/college/ut-condemns-teacher-whose-tweet-blames-harvey-on-texas-gop-vote/2335504 http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/college/ut-condemns-t... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/26/professor-fired-after-defending-blacks-only-event-on-fox-news-i-was-publicly-lynched-she-says/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/2...
  - sheepmullet 8y ago
    > Like, I don't see a lot of outrage from free speech types when liberal professors get fired for saying stupid shit Is it the same thing? A better example would be if power companies and phone companies started disconnecting liberal professors for saying stupid shit.

noonespecial 8y ago

Despite my feelings of "It couldn't have happened to a 'nicer' fellow", I still have to stand by "It shouldn't have happened to any fellow".

avar 8y ago

As much as Alex Jones says some indefensible things, this continuing saga is a great argument for why we need to start regulating certain things on the Internet like utilities. Imagine Alex Jones's power company deciding to shut down power to his studio because they (rightly) think he's being an asshole, or the phone company disconnecting his landline. Just because something's a private company doesn't mean we should put up with them selectively denying people access to their "platform". Being plugged into the power company is also being on their "platform", and would probably be regulated as loosely as Facebook, YouTube, PayPal et al if electric power was a thing that had only really taken off in the last 20 years.

Censorme 8y ago

Damn they really are doing a number on him. A conspiracy to silence Alex Jones and deplatform him completely.. I never really saw him as a serious guy to over the top screaming etc.. but this is pretty insane.

jsmeaton 8y ago
A conspiracy implies all of these companies .. conspired, rather than independently reaching a conclusion that supporting this fellow with their services was bad for their own business.
- tomp 8y ago
  How could they “independently” reach the same conclusion at roughly the same time? I’m not saying they necessarily “conspired”, could be as simple as one CEO seeing the news and saying “that’s a good idea, we should do that too”, but the chances of these decisions being completely independent is almost zero.
  - jsmeaton 8y ago
    Either it’s a conspiracy or it is not. If there are a bunch of people running down the street, and I see that they’re running from a fire, then I’m going to run too. That is not a conspiracy. The decision is independent even if the reason is shared. That’s not to say it’s just one big coincidence.

rgbrenner 8y ago

Visa, Discover and Amex prohibit hate-group sites on their networks. Mastercard doesn't allow merchants that promote or incite violence. PayPal too, it's the 2nd paragraph in their AUP: https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/acceptableuse-full https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/acceptableuse-full What do you guys expect PayPal to do? Draw a line at InfoWars, and die on their sword, as the major credit card networks cut them off and kill the company? Infowars isn't going to be able to continue processing credit card payments. It's up to paypal if they want to go with Infowars and die or not.

tareqak 8y ago

I have a question for the commenters who are disappointed by this event: how do you feel about PayPal's actions here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18017635 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18017635 (PayPal’s crackdown on ASMR creators)? If you have a different reaction to that, then please explain the difference between the two kinds of events for me as plainly as you can for my understanding.

tomp 8y ago
What’s a reasonable explanation of the ASMR ban. I’m asking because I just don’t see any ewuivalence between these two issues. I’m personally deeply disappointed by (and oppose) both bans, but at least I can see some reason for Infowars ban (“he’s spreading harmful information”) whereas I cannot really come up with any not-obviously-contrived (i.e. “sex-fear-mongering”) explanation.
- tareqak 8y ago
  My question is aimed at developing my understanding of the people who support the ASMR ban, but are against the InfoWars one.
  - repolfx 8y ago
    Are there any such people? I tried to figure out what was going on from your story but it's like coming into the middle of a family fight that's been going on for years. The stuff they're currently arguing about is probably not how it started. In particular PayPal says specifically in that article that they don't have any policies against ASMR (which apparently is mostly videos of women making weird sound effects?). So why are they suspending accounts, well presumably they think they're doing it for other reasons. The article goes on to talk about YouTube being "anti sex" or something so presumably there's more to these videos than is being let on. At any rate, I think it's dumb that payment processors suspend accounts for sex-related stuff too, but that's at least something with a basis in US law so PayPal may feel they are legally forced to do it. FOSTA is mentioned.

bdcravens 8y ago

I fear Mr. Jones will go from being a fringe loon to being a major talking point in 2020, spoon feeding people what they want to hear about their fears (similar to what we saw in 2016).

dev_dull 8y ago

The barrier to being categorized as “hate speech” seems to becoming increasingly easier to apply.

GW150914 8y ago

I truly wish the predictable conversation to follow could be something other than the inevitable bike shedding over what constitutes free speech, slippery slopes, and conspiracy theories. In a dozen submissions of similar topics the comments could be largely interchanged with only a few proper nouns being changed. All too often it seems like people firing mortars from deep within ideological trenches, and worse, some people making weak fallacious arguments of doom instead of openly supporting the speech in question. It’s all very twisty, predictable, and pointless and I’ve never seen anyone budge. It’s just “over the top boys” and at the end of the day no man’s land gets a few more craters.

tomp 8y ago
Do you have a more substantial viewpoint to share? I think to a large extent the same arguments are repeated because stories like these are literally arguments for both sides: “See, I was right, censorship will not stop at at anything, it’s a slippery slope!” “See, bad people/ideas should be censored and it helps make society better.”
- GW150914 8y ago
  My point is that it is pointless to have these conversations here, because no exchange of ideas takes place, no intellectual curiosity is satisfied, and bad faith arguments are the norm. You may not like that point, but that doesn’t make it any less of a point. For whatever reason (I already presented my thoughts on those reasons as I see them) this site can’t handle this discussion, and the results are distracting and disheartening. I suspect that a major reason I haven’t yet mentioned is that everyone who isn’t identifying as being on a “side” stays the hell away from them. That leaves the raving ideologues for the most part, with a smattering of the same being shouted down for not hewing to what is Obviously Correct. My substantive point is that the moderation on this site should treat this like any other instance of politics that it buries, because it is, and because it creates the same kinds of endless and repetitive arguments and flame wars.

2_listerine_pls 8y ago

PayPal would have prevented American Independence, citing violence.

educationdata 8y ago

Paypal's own words: "We undertook an extensive review of the InfoWars sites, and found instances that promoted hate and discriminatory intolerance against certain communities and religions that run counter to our core value of inclusion." The problems are: 1) There are many websites "promoted hate and discriminatory intolerance against certain communities and religions". As an atheist, I would say I have seem many atheist websites doing this. 2) This may not be fair. Nobody would believe Paypal has reviewed the speech of all the websites using their service. So why did they pick InfoWars? For what reason? Was that because there were lots of complains? Paypal not only need to explain why InfoWars should be banned, they also need to explain why they picked InfoWars. 3) There is no due process. Does InfoWars has a chance to appeal the decision? Were they informed before the decision was made? Were they given time for transition? 4) Yes. Paypal as a private company can make this decision. But nobody here is claiming that Paypal's decision is illegal. Many people feel this is dangerous, and there are good reasons to feel this way: a) The nature of Paypal's business has nothing to do with speech. It is dangerous for a financial company to censor speech. It is different from facebook or twitter, which are speech platforms, so the content of speech are important to them. Why should Paypal even care about the speech on other websites? We do not need financial companies to shape the world of speech. b) InfoWars promotes hate speech, but it is not illegal in the U.S. It is not a terrorist group. If it really incited violence, law enforcement will handle it. The difference between law enforcement and business: law enforcement has to follow the due process, but business makes arbitrary decision.