6 ms·

Paypal is not the government. Stop this absurd misrepresentation of censorship.

by zorpner 8y ago

WillPostForFood 8y ago
Stop the absurd misrepresentation that only the government censor.
- orf 8y ago
  When will society stop censoring my racist and xenophobic views! Free speech means everyone has to tolerate and accept what I'm saying!!1
- zorpner 8y ago
  That is literally true. Paypal is choosing not to do business with someone. Is your preference that companies must be forced to conduct business with all comers?
  - Khaine 8y ago
    FFS the government has already forced people to do business with those they don't like. You do remember the raison etre of the Civil Rights Act don't you? I'm pretty sure companies in the 1960s South didn't want to serve black Americans. In fact, many want the Government to go further and force bakers to make cakes for gay weddings when the owners don't support gay marriage [1] [1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-05/court-sides-with-colorado-baker-on-same-sex-wedding-cake/9834790 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-05/court-sides-with-colo...
    - zorpner 8y ago
      You have completely failed to understand the jurisprudence surrounding the idea of a protected class.
      - Khaine 8y ago
        The fact that the Government created protected classes is the entire point. Government's already have forced businesses to do business with people. That is a fact. This argument has nothing to do with what is and isn't a protected class. What is a protected class could be expanded and the Government can force everyone to do business with unsavoury types.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  The idea that “you seem unpleasant, I don’t want to do business with you” is censorship is absurd.
vfclists 8y ago
Payment processors are government licensed oligopolies and if private processors can deny service for no reason, then the goverment should set up its own with a universal service obligation. If making and receiving payments is considered a necessary utility posting and handling large amounts of cash is restricted, then providers should not have a right to deny service to customers who are not taking payments in violation of the law, regardless of distasteful their activities may be. Would you agree if the state sided with electrical or water utilities to be able to refuse service to a customer such as brothel, on the grounds that their activitites where distasteful and immoral, not matter how legal? That would be fine if the person denied service had the right to connect to a river or a well, lay down their own pipes and power and draw their water and electricity directly, but those rights are curtailed by the state, and it requires certain permissions and rights to do those. The same can be said of online payments and credit card payments. They have become a necessary utility so much so that brothels and panhandlers have credit card machines. If private providers can deny such service arbitrarily then the state must become the providers of last resort.
- zorpner 8y ago
  This is exactly the fight you should be having -- the government should be a universal payment processor. I agree wholeheartedly. I am arguing again the people who state that a corporation should be obligated to serve a non-protected class. if private processors can deny service for no reason Ah yes, the "no reason" of being violence-inciting Nazis. What a reasonless judgement.
  - vfclists 8y ago
    Yes Paypal denied service for no reason, or more explicitly, no stated reason. Do you see a reason stated in the termination notice?
  - vfclists 8y ago
    If you agree that the government should be a universal payment processor, then you must agree that the government should set itself as a universal payment processor "first", before granting the oligopolies they have licensed the right to deny service for no legal reason.

Paypal is not the government. Stop this absurd misrepresentation of censorship.

WillPostForFood 8y ago

Stop the absurd misrepresentation that only the government censor.

orf 8y ago
When will society stop censoring my racist and xenophobic views! Free speech means everyone has to tolerate and accept what I'm saying!!1
zorpner 8y ago
That is literally true. Paypal is choosing not to do business with someone. Is your preference that companies must be forced to conduct business with all comers?
- Khaine 8y ago
  FFS the government has already forced people to do business with those they don't like. You do remember the raison etre of the Civil Rights Act don't you? I'm pretty sure companies in the 1960s South didn't want to serve black Americans. In fact, many want the Government to go further and force bakers to make cakes for gay weddings when the owners don't support gay marriage [1] [1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-05/court-sides-with-colorado-baker-on-same-sex-wedding-cake/9834790 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-05/court-sides-with-colo...
  - zorpner 8y ago
    You have completely failed to understand the jurisprudence surrounding the idea of a protected class.
    - Khaine 8y ago
      The fact that the Government created protected classes is the entire point. Government's already have forced businesses to do business with people. That is a fact. This argument has nothing to do with what is and isn't a protected class. What is a protected class could be expanded and the Government can force everyone to do business with unsavoury types.
village-idiot 8y ago
The idea that “you seem unpleasant, I don’t want to do business with you” is censorship is absurd.

vfclists 8y ago

Payment processors are government licensed oligopolies and if private processors can deny service for no reason, then the goverment should set up its own with a universal service obligation. If making and receiving payments is considered a necessary utility posting and handling large amounts of cash is restricted, then providers should not have a right to deny service to customers who are not taking payments in violation of the law, regardless of distasteful their activities may be. Would you agree if the state sided with electrical or water utilities to be able to refuse service to a customer such as brothel, on the grounds that their activitites where distasteful and immoral, not matter how legal? That would be fine if the person denied service had the right to connect to a river or a well, lay down their own pipes and power and draw their water and electricity directly, but those rights are curtailed by the state, and it requires certain permissions and rights to do those. The same can be said of online payments and credit card payments. They have become a necessary utility so much so that brothels and panhandlers have credit card machines. If private providers can deny such service arbitrarily then the state must become the providers of last resort.

zorpner 8y ago
This is exactly the fight you should be having -- the government should be a universal payment processor. I agree wholeheartedly. I am arguing again the people who state that a corporation should be obligated to serve a non-protected class. if private processors can deny service for no reason Ah yes, the "no reason" of being violence-inciting Nazis. What a reasonless judgement.
- vfclists 8y ago
  Yes Paypal denied service for no reason, or more explicitly, no stated reason. Do you see a reason stated in the termination notice?
- vfclists 8y ago
  If you agree that the government should be a universal payment processor, then you must agree that the government should set itself as a universal payment processor "first", before granting the oligopolies they have licensed the right to deny service for no legal reason.