5 ms·
They intentionally named their site that way to capitalize on Google search result traffic. If you read their articles, you realize they can barely put together
by ccnafr 8y ago
They intentionally named their site that way to capitalize on Google search result traffic. If you read their articles, you realize they can barely put together two English sentences with proper grammar and structure. Furthermore, most of their articles are stolen from other sites. I've seen journalists from Motherboard, The Register, and Bleeping Computer accuse them of blatantly copying articles, and when I checked out the articles, they were right. I have zero problems with this. Couldn't have happened to a bunch of bigger assholes.
And I'm not the only one who noticed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18783710 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18783710
- SilasX 8y agoSo ... PayPal made the right call.
- 1001101 8y agoCutting a business off from the financial system seems like a fairly harsh punishment for plagiarism, especially when there are other routes for a remedy. We may never know if that was the reason, though, so it's hard to measure whether justice was done or not.
- judge2020 8y agoI suspect that one of the sites they plagiarized which accept PP donations/subscriptions asked PP to take them off or risk the large news company switching to another payment processor.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y agoWell, there's plagiarism and then there's impersonating a well-known (admittedly in niche circles) brand to make money. I think they made a good call here.
- slang800 8y agoSo, rather than using our existing copyright / trademark system to handle cases of brand impersonation or stealing content, we're just going to rely on payment processor companies to punish people? That sounds like a really bad idea.
- abnry 8y agoI don't know if it is too harsh. What seems unfair is that paypal gives no reason.
- naasking 8y agoWhy should a payment processor be able to make such legal decisions? That's what the courts are for. The current trend of cutting services for political reasons is problematic at best, particularly when there's arguably a monopoly. There needs to be more transparency, and a clear and fair system for arbitration and dispute resolution. Better still, one that's consistent across all digital services so people know what to expect when signing up without wading through a novel's worth of user agreements.
- danso 8y agoYou’re arguing that companies should only be able to decline service after a court allows them to?
- jammygit 8y agoI think he's saying that near-monopolies should have to follow special rules because the market system breaks down
- toufiqbarhamov 8y agoCounterpoint: The “market system” is already a fiction, and contesting the laws to further promulgate that fiction is a non-starter. Calling a business a somethingnotquitea-monopoly isn’t an incantation that makes it true or legally sound.
- yellowapple 8y agoAs popular as PayPal may be, it's a far cry from being a monopoly. That said, I do think holding money should be cause for more stringent regulations. Stopping service is one thing; holding funds entirely should absolutely happen only under direct court order (anything else would be theft).
- naasking 8y agoWe have discrimination laws don't we? Are banks allowed to refuse service for any reason whatsoever? We're talking about people's livelihood here. If transactions don't violate any laws, payment processors should not be permitted to refuse service. When they do refuse service, there should be transparency in reporting.
- amazingman 8y agoWho can know?