4 ms·

>Legal marijuana shops are still mostly cash only specifically because they can’t bank, due to weed being federally illegal. There is a world of difference bet

>Legal marijuana shops are still mostly cash only specifically because they can’t bank, due to weed being federally illegal. There is a world of difference between closing accounts that are used to pay for activities that are illegal and closing accounts because the client does something you don't like, especially if the service provider can't even point out which part of their TOS was violated. >businesses designed to spam, defraud, mislead or abuse people If you don't draw any distinctions between "defraud" (illegal and well-defined activity) and "mislead" (can be applied to almost anything), there is literally nothing to discuss here. You don't draw any objectively defined lines between what should and should not be bannable and your stance boils down to "I like when PayPal bans someone I don't like".

sfkdjf9j3j 7y ago
What are you getting at here? Do you want the government to restrict free association in order to provide access to payment platforms for spammers?
- gambler 7y ago
  Where exactly in my post I asked for government restricting free association? It sounds like you just wanted to post this particular talking point and couldn't find a place with more relevance. What do I want? I want large payment service providers to have clear and universally enforced rules that pertain only to services they provide, stick to those rules when deciding whom to ban, provide exact reasons for their decision and have a process of redress. It's pretty obvious that PayPal fails at this, miserably, even if you can point out some individual cases where they might be "in the right". I also want posters who act like corporate cheerleaders here to provide independently observable criteria for whatever bans they "approve". Increasingly often I see astounding hypocrisy when the same person cheers for banning of one organization and against banning another, even though both are banned for the exact same behavior.

sfkdjf9j3j 7y ago

What are you getting at here? Do you want the government to restrict free association in order to provide access to payment platforms for spammers?

gambler 7y ago
Where exactly in my post I asked for government restricting free association? It sounds like you just wanted to post this particular talking point and couldn't find a place with more relevance. What do I want? I want large payment service providers to have clear and universally enforced rules that pertain only to services they provide, stick to those rules when deciding whom to ban, provide exact reasons for their decision and have a process of redress. It's pretty obvious that PayPal fails at this, miserably, even if you can point out some individual cases where they might be "in the right". I also want posters who act like corporate cheerleaders here to provide independently observable criteria for whatever bans they "approve". Increasingly often I see astounding hypocrisy when the same person cheers for banning of one organization and against banning another, even though both are banned for the exact same behavior.