Paypal's own words: "We undertook an extensive review of the InfoWars sites, and found instances that promoted hate and discriminatory intolerance against cert

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.