4 ms·
Niteo produce a product to produce content farms and generate spam. PayPal has done the world a favour by banning them.
by metaprotocol 7y ago
Niteo produce a product to produce content farms and generate spam.
PayPal has done the world a favour by banning them.
- dmurko 7y agoFounder here. We're not processing SaaS through PayPal, as mentioned in the post: > The most interesting thing is that we’ve moved away from PayPal in the last two years and have only been receiving some minor payments and paying for a few online services. We've stopped using PayPal for our SaaS business a few years ago.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- mprev 7y agoBut you do enable spam.
- CameronBanga 7y ago"We do this thing that probably got us banned, but we don't do it on PayPal so what's the problem."
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- marcosdumay 7y agoPayPal should avoid doing vigilantism if they want to keep people's money under trust. It matters very little how despicable the company is, monetary services must not hold opinions unless explicitly told one by a local government.
- yitchelle 7y agoThe Swiss bank model.
- mprev 7y agoThis is BS. It matters very much to me as a customer of a financial services provider what sort of company I am keeping. For example, I don't want my bank to provide services to organised crime because I both feel that would be morally wrong and I think it'd open the bank's staff to influences that aren't in the best interests of other customers. Also, your argument isn't with PayPal; it's with the entire FS industry.
- sbov 7y agoOrganized crime is illegal and content farms are not, so this is a terrible example. A better example might be highly religious community not wanting their bank to do business with companies focused on the gay and lesbian community. This is a good example because: it is not illegal for a company to cater to the gay and lesbian community, it is not illegal to discriminate against gay and lesbian people in many states, and there are communities that would dislike this sort of company.
- mprev 7y agoYour example is irrelevant as that’s a civil rights issue. Either way, I gave the example of organised crime not in an attempt for people to take it as a literal suggestion of equivalence but to argue against the idea that a financial institution has no place being choosey about its customers.
- colpabar 7y agoIt's not being choosey to not support organized crime, because it's illegal; the choice has been made through the law. It IS choosey to chose not to support an organization that's doing something legal that you don't like.
- lopatin 7y ago> "should void doing vigilantism", "monetary services must not hold opinions" That sounds like a very interesting idea, but how about this one? > "You must follow PayPal's terms and conditions or should expect to have your account terminated" Because that's how every payment processor in existence works. Don't like it? Use bitcoin.
- marcosdumay 7y agoIf every payment processor worked like this, this story wouldn't be here.
- astura 7y agoAre you kidding me? For one example, see American Express's Merchant Operating Guide https://icm.aexp-static.com/Internet/NGMS/US_en/Images/MerchantPolicyOptBlue.pdf https://icm.aexp-static.com/Internet/NGMS/US_en/Images/Merch... See section 10.2 Prohibited Merchants. There's a whole list of them. Here's a select few: Multi-level Pyramid Sales, Prostitution, Payday Lenders, Timeshares, Gambling, Virtual Currency, Escort Services and Non-Licensed Massage Parlors, Mortgage Payments.
- marcosdumay 7y agoAmerican Express does not take people's money under trust. No payment processor does that, it's a bank thing.