12 ms·

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 to

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.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
jedberg 8y ago
Banks can't pick and choose like PayPal can. PayPal has gone to great lengths to avoid being classified as a bank specifically so they can avoid banking regulations, like cutting off services to people without oversight.
- dogma1138 8y ago
  Doesn’t PayPal has a banking license in the US and the EU? IIRC they merged with x.com specifically because x had a banking license and they had gotten an EU license in the mid 2000’s. Also banks can pick and choose in fact they do it all the time try asking for a loan form a bank as a porn production company or even opening a business account with one, most of them won’t touch you same goes for many other businesses. Banks in some cases may not be allowed to deny services to individuals for non financial reasons they same does not hold true for businesses and organizations.
  - jedberg 8y ago
    I'm an engineer and not a lawyer, but from what I remember, the license lets them do some banking functions, but doesn't make them count as a full bank subject to all the banking regulations.
    - dogma1138 8y ago
      PayPal EU is a bank registered in Luxemburg and their EU operations are regulated as one: http://www.e-comlaw.com/e-finance-and-payments-law-and-policy/article_template.asp?ID=887&Search=Yes&txtsearch=ebay http://www.e-comlaw.com/e-finance-and-payments-law-and-polic... PayPal issues credit and loans and credit cards they are an issuing bank and they also serve as an acquiring bank for processing payments. Their account balance may not count as deposit and as such that part might not be under banking regulations in the US but in the EU they are regulated as one.
scrollaway 8y ago
> Payment processors choosing not to do business at their whim. Where have you been the past decade? This is nothing new, especially for Paypal. Payment processors choose not to do business at their whim, whether it's because you have too high a chargeback, you're from the wrong country, you're too troublesome or your business simply is in a category card issuers don't like. Payment processing is an area there's never ever even been a semblance of a "neutral pipe" system.
mschuster91 8y ago
> Payment processors choosing not to do business at their whim. In the case of Jones, everyone can see with his/her own eyes what Jones/Infowars have been doing: peddling lies and inciting vile hatred (especially the "crisis actor" conspiracy stuff). Either one stands up against such people or one supports them. There is no "center" when it comes to Jones and his neo-Nazi friends.
- tomp 8y ago
  > peddling lies and inciting vile hatred I’m not sure this is a good argument. You could say the same thing about pretty much any mainstream media, e.g. in relation to Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction” (and they probably resulted in more deaths than anything reported by Infowars). Censorship is mostly arbitrary, really.
  - pcbro141 8y ago
    We're really saying Alex Jones calling politicians serial killers and rapists is comparable to typical mainstream media bias, and is more or less a reasonable thing to say depending on if you're 'Liberal' or 'Conservative'? C'mon: When I think about all the children Hillary Clinton has personally murdered and chopped up and raped, I have zero fear standing up against her. Yeah, you heard me right. Hillary Clinton has personally murdered children. I just can't hold back the truth anymore. Hillary Clinton is one of the most vicious serial killers the planet's ever seen.[0] [0] http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/alex-jones-hillary-clinton-has-personally-murdered-and-chopped-up-and-raped-children/ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/alex-jones-hillary-clinto...
    - GW150914 8y ago
      I know the US has very lax laws around these things, but doesn’t that rise to the level of defamation/libel even there? Out and out accusing someone of serial murder and child rape seems a bit much.
      - burfog 8y ago
MrEldritch 8y ago
With all due respect, PayPal has already been pulling the "choosing not to do business at their whim" shit for QUITE some time now. And yes, it IS a serious problem. But it's way, way too late to set the precedent.
moosingin3space 8y ago
This is an effect of free speech: a merchant is not obligated to engage in business with customers they do not approve of, unless it runs afoul of the law. The law does not grant Alex Jones protected status to spread bullshit. Freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequence.
- insickness 8y ago
  > Freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequence. This is double speak. If the government throws you in jail for saying something, you could say the same thing. You had freedom of speech but not freedom from consequence. You're distorting the meaning of freedom of speech.
  - yzmtf2008 8y ago
    >If the government throws you in jail for saying something, you could say the same thing. Which is why we have the first amendment, and why it covers government only.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - krapp 8y ago
    Are you claiming that free speech means merchants should be forced to do business with customers they don't approve of? Or that no one who disagrees with a particular point of view should be able to express that disagreement? Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence when that consequence is also an expression of free speech.
noelsusman 8y ago
Having a moral high ground doesn't stop authoritarians from being authoritarian. They'll abuse power anyway, it's what they do.
rgbrenner 8y ago
Payment processors choosing not to do business at their whim. It's not on a whim. Payment processors -- including Visa, Amex, Discover, Mastercard -- have clear rules about hate sites and promoting violence. This is a rule clearly spelled out that all merchants must follow. Infowars violates rules they agreed to follow when they became a merchant. That's breach of contract. Edit: and here's Paypals AUP: https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/acceptableuse-full https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/acceptableuse-full You may not use the PayPal service for activities that: ... relate to transactions involving ... the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory Seriously... that's breach of contract. Does infowars need to follow the contracts they agree to? Do those that promote hate get to disregard contracts? Peddling hate speech does not earn you the ability to disregard contracts you have agreed to.
- dev_dull 8y ago
  Hate speech is protected free speech. Not because anyone loves hate speech, but defining your opponents views and journalism as “hate” is very easy to do depending on your worldview.
  - woofyman 8y ago
    That has no relevance in this discussion since the Government wasn’t involved.
    - dev_dull 8y ago
      The government intervenes and is involved all of the time in private companies regarding constitutional rights (e.g., a bakery making cakes for non-traditional marriages). I don't like Alex Jones or his view, but we have strong protections for speech in this country for good reasons and I don't want to see us sacrifice them because someone we hate comes along.
      - woofyman 8y ago
        PayPal has free speech rights as well. Would you force a Black owned printer to do business with the KKK?
yzmtf2008 8y ago
> We undertook an extensive review of the Infowars sites, and found instances that promoted hate or discriminatory intolerance against certain communities and religions, which run counter to our core value of inclusion Stop trying to come up with far fetching conclusions that don't even make sense. Why can't Paypal ban someone (especially someone like Alex Jones) for this reason? Would I want to earn transaction fees from Alex Jones' sales? If I were the owner of Paypal, I wouldn't want to do business with him, either.
toofy 8y ago
> ...this is now dangerous precedence. Payment processors choosing not to do business at their whim. Hasn't this been going on since the beginning of payment processors? I'm pretty confident in thinking that almost every payment processor does this frequently for all kinds of reasons.
gumby 8y ago
> 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? This is already how it works with gambling and sex related sites in the United States. The CC processors crank up the merchant fees for those businesses (sometimes above 30%) and in exchange congress backs down on whatever regulatory threat they have pending. Then congress can tell their constituents that they are “cracking down on vice”

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.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

jedberg 8y ago

Banks can't pick and choose like PayPal can. PayPal has gone to great lengths to avoid being classified as a bank specifically so they can avoid banking regulations, like cutting off services to people without oversight.

dogma1138 8y ago
Doesn’t PayPal has a banking license in the US and the EU? IIRC they merged with x.com specifically because x had a banking license and they had gotten an EU license in the mid 2000’s. Also banks can pick and choose in fact they do it all the time try asking for a loan form a bank as a porn production company or even opening a business account with one, most of them won’t touch you same goes for many other businesses. Banks in some cases may not be allowed to deny services to individuals for non financial reasons they same does not hold true for businesses and organizations.
- jedberg 8y ago
  I'm an engineer and not a lawyer, but from what I remember, the license lets them do some banking functions, but doesn't make them count as a full bank subject to all the banking regulations.
  - dogma1138 8y ago
    PayPal EU is a bank registered in Luxemburg and their EU operations are regulated as one: http://www.e-comlaw.com/e-finance-and-payments-law-and-policy/article_template.asp?ID=887&Search=Yes&txtsearch=ebay http://www.e-comlaw.com/e-finance-and-payments-law-and-polic... PayPal issues credit and loans and credit cards they are an issuing bank and they also serve as an acquiring bank for processing payments. Their account balance may not count as deposit and as such that part might not be under banking regulations in the US but in the EU they are regulated as one.

scrollaway 8y ago

> Payment processors choosing not to do business at their whim. Where have you been the past decade? This is nothing new, especially for Paypal. Payment processors choose not to do business at their whim, whether it's because you have too high a chargeback, you're from the wrong country, you're too troublesome or your business simply is in a category card issuers don't like. Payment processing is an area there's never ever even been a semblance of a "neutral pipe" system.

mschuster91 8y ago

> Payment processors choosing not to do business at their whim. In the case of Jones, everyone can see with his/her own eyes what Jones/Infowars have been doing: peddling lies and inciting vile hatred (especially the "crisis actor" conspiracy stuff). Either one stands up against such people or one supports them. There is no "center" when it comes to Jones and his neo-Nazi friends.

tomp 8y ago
> peddling lies and inciting vile hatred I’m not sure this is a good argument. You could say the same thing about pretty much any mainstream media, e.g. in relation to Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction” (and they probably resulted in more deaths than anything reported by Infowars). Censorship is mostly arbitrary, really.
- pcbro141 8y ago
  We're really saying Alex Jones calling politicians serial killers and rapists is comparable to typical mainstream media bias, and is more or less a reasonable thing to say depending on if you're 'Liberal' or 'Conservative'? C'mon: When I think about all the children Hillary Clinton has personally murdered and chopped up and raped, I have zero fear standing up against her. Yeah, you heard me right. Hillary Clinton has personally murdered children. I just can't hold back the truth anymore. Hillary Clinton is one of the most vicious serial killers the planet's ever seen.[0] [0] http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/alex-jones-hillary-clinton-has-personally-murdered-and-chopped-up-and-raped-children/ http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/alex-jones-hillary-clinto...
  - GW150914 8y ago
    I know the US has very lax laws around these things, but doesn’t that rise to the level of defamation/libel even there? Out and out accusing someone of serial murder and child rape seems a bit much.
    - burfog 8y ago

MrEldritch 8y ago

With all due respect, PayPal has already been pulling the "choosing not to do business at their whim" shit for QUITE some time now. And yes, it IS a serious problem. But it's way, way too late to set the precedent.

moosingin3space 8y ago

This is an effect of free speech: a merchant is not obligated to engage in business with customers they do not approve of, unless it runs afoul of the law. The law does not grant Alex Jones protected status to spread bullshit. Freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequence.

insickness 8y ago
> Freedom of speech does not imply freedom from consequence. This is double speak. If the government throws you in jail for saying something, you could say the same thing. You had freedom of speech but not freedom from consequence. You're distorting the meaning of freedom of speech.
- yzmtf2008 8y ago
  >If the government throws you in jail for saying something, you could say the same thing. Which is why we have the first amendment, and why it covers government only.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- krapp 8y ago
  Are you claiming that free speech means merchants should be forced to do business with customers they don't approve of? Or that no one who disagrees with a particular point of view should be able to express that disagreement? Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence when that consequence is also an expression of free speech.

noelsusman 8y ago

Having a moral high ground doesn't stop authoritarians from being authoritarian. They'll abuse power anyway, it's what they do.

rgbrenner 8y ago

Payment processors choosing not to do business at their whim. It's not on a whim. Payment processors -- including Visa, Amex, Discover, Mastercard -- have clear rules about hate sites and promoting violence. This is a rule clearly spelled out that all merchants must follow. Infowars violates rules they agreed to follow when they became a merchant. That's breach of contract. Edit: and here's Paypals AUP: https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/acceptableuse-full https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/acceptableuse-full You may not use the PayPal service for activities that: ... relate to transactions involving ... the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory Seriously... that's breach of contract. Does infowars need to follow the contracts they agree to? Do those that promote hate get to disregard contracts? Peddling hate speech does not earn you the ability to disregard contracts you have agreed to.

dev_dull 8y ago
Hate speech is protected free speech. Not because anyone loves hate speech, but defining your opponents views and journalism as “hate” is very easy to do depending on your worldview.
- woofyman 8y ago
  That has no relevance in this discussion since the Government wasn’t involved.
  - dev_dull 8y ago
    The government intervenes and is involved all of the time in private companies regarding constitutional rights (e.g., a bakery making cakes for non-traditional marriages). I don't like Alex Jones or his view, but we have strong protections for speech in this country for good reasons and I don't want to see us sacrifice them because someone we hate comes along.
    - woofyman 8y ago
      PayPal has free speech rights as well. Would you force a Black owned printer to do business with the KKK?

yzmtf2008 8y ago

> We undertook an extensive review of the Infowars sites, and found instances that promoted hate or discriminatory intolerance against certain communities and religions, which run counter to our core value of inclusion Stop trying to come up with far fetching conclusions that don't even make sense. Why can't Paypal ban someone (especially someone like Alex Jones) for this reason? Would I want to earn transaction fees from Alex Jones' sales? If I were the owner of Paypal, I wouldn't want to do business with him, either.

toofy 8y ago

> ...this is now dangerous precedence. Payment processors choosing not to do business at their whim. Hasn't this been going on since the beginning of payment processors? I'm pretty confident in thinking that almost every payment processor does this frequently for all kinds of reasons.

gumby 8y ago

> 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? This is already how it works with gambling and sex related sites in the United States. The CC processors crank up the merchant fees for those businesses (sometimes above 30%) and in exchange congress backs down on whatever regulatory threat they have pending. Then congress can tell their constituents that they are “cracking down on vice”