6 ms·

He has irrefutable information about what they believe - he knows that either the words published on his site, or the legal defences mounted by the FSU, or both

He has irrefutable information about what they believe - he knows that either the words published on his site, or the legal defences mounted by the FSU, or both, have upset PayPal's beliefs significantly enough to result in account termination.

SilverBirch 4y ago
Ok first of all, the board of Paypal isn't in any way involved in terminating people's accounts. Secondly, it could for example be that Paypal's entire board believes deeply in an incredibly expansive definition of Free Speech and they personally donate and subscribe to the FSU. But that they've made a decision as fiduciaries for paypal that they cannot have a policy to conduct business with people like this person. You quite literally have no idea. And secondly, he has no idea why they suspended his account and their reason absolutely could be in line with a broad understanding of Free Speech.
- origin_path 4y ago
  He didn't talk about PayPal's board, that's something you just came up with. He talked about the attitudes of the C-suite and it's fair to assume that account termination policy is indeed set by the C-suite. Who else would set such policies? > he has no idea why they suspended his account Yes he does. From the article: "The only clue as to what might be going on was a message sent a couple of days ago from PayPal on the now closed Daily Sceptic account. The crucial passage read: PayPal’s policy is not to allow our services to be used for activities that promote hate, violence or racial intolerance" This is clearly not a statement in favour of free speech, it's an enumeration of what types of speech they think they are banning. However, he disagrees that anything on the site promotes hate, violence or racial intolerance. And he's right. So the question is what did trigger this. IMO it's very likely the work of the trans lobby. DS hasn't had any problems until now but they only started posting news about stuff like Tavistock very recently. To some people, disapproving of almost anything trans-related is the same thing as "hate".
  - SilverBirch 4y ago
    You're missing the point, anyone working at Paypal could have any view on Free Speech. That doesn't determine what they decide when determining what is the correct way to balance competing priorities when running a business. It's fine for Paypal Execs to be free speech maximalists, but if they think that will have an adverse business impact, for example due to reputational damage, that will determine how they run their business. >This is clearly not a statement in favour of free speech, it's an enumeration of what types of speech they think they are banning. Disregarding the fact that this one passage has been cherry picked from what will obviously be a pro-forma response, depending on the details of what they define as promoting hate, violence or racial intolerance, they could absolutely be taking a maximalist free speech approach. It depends what degree or definition of those terms Paypal is choosing to apply. I don't read the daily sceptic, clearly you do, as you already have some topics in mind for what they might be in trouble for. I just looked it up, I think you're probably right, if as you claim the Daily Sceptic has been directing and encouraging harassment and violent threats against doctors at a hospital, I think even the most vociferous free speech advocate would understand Paypal's reasonable approach.
    - origin_path 4y ago
      "if as you claim the Daily Sceptic has been directing and encouraging harassment and violent threats against doctors" I didn't say anywhere that the DS has been "directing and encouraging harassment". I didn't even imply it, because it's not true. That's something that, again, you just made up right now. You keep doing this: please respond to what people actually say, not what you wish they'd said. "this one passage has been cherry picked from what will obviously be a pro-forma response" Your original claim was that he had no idea why he was banned, but he cited an explanation from PayPal. You now reject PayPal's own words on the grounds that you don't believe it's meaningful. In other words, having made an incorrect claim you're now trying to make it unfalsifiable. But PayPal can easily say nothing and did so for the other terminations. For this one, they cited a specific part of their ToS. We can assume that is the reason. Finally, a "maximalist" is by definition not someone who suppresses free speech because they think it's the best for their business.

SilverBirch 4y ago

Ok first of all, the board of Paypal isn't in any way involved in terminating people's accounts. Secondly, it could for example be that Paypal's entire board believes deeply in an incredibly expansive definition of Free Speech and they personally donate and subscribe to the FSU. But that they've made a decision as fiduciaries for paypal that they cannot have a policy to conduct business with people like this person. You quite literally have no idea. And secondly, he has no idea why they suspended his account and their reason absolutely could be in line with a broad understanding of Free Speech.

origin_path 4y ago
He didn't talk about PayPal's board, that's something you just came up with. He talked about the attitudes of the C-suite and it's fair to assume that account termination policy is indeed set by the C-suite. Who else would set such policies? > he has no idea why they suspended his account Yes he does. From the article: "The only clue as to what might be going on was a message sent a couple of days ago from PayPal on the now closed Daily Sceptic account. The crucial passage read: PayPal’s policy is not to allow our services to be used for activities that promote hate, violence or racial intolerance" This is clearly not a statement in favour of free speech, it's an enumeration of what types of speech they think they are banning. However, he disagrees that anything on the site promotes hate, violence or racial intolerance. And he's right. So the question is what did trigger this. IMO it's very likely the work of the trans lobby. DS hasn't had any problems until now but they only started posting news about stuff like Tavistock very recently. To some people, disapproving of almost anything trans-related is the same thing as "hate".
- SilverBirch 4y ago
  You're missing the point, anyone working at Paypal could have any view on Free Speech. That doesn't determine what they decide when determining what is the correct way to balance competing priorities when running a business. It's fine for Paypal Execs to be free speech maximalists, but if they think that will have an adverse business impact, for example due to reputational damage, that will determine how they run their business. >This is clearly not a statement in favour of free speech, it's an enumeration of what types of speech they think they are banning. Disregarding the fact that this one passage has been cherry picked from what will obviously be a pro-forma response, depending on the details of what they define as promoting hate, violence or racial intolerance, they could absolutely be taking a maximalist free speech approach. It depends what degree or definition of those terms Paypal is choosing to apply. I don't read the daily sceptic, clearly you do, as you already have some topics in mind for what they might be in trouble for. I just looked it up, I think you're probably right, if as you claim the Daily Sceptic has been directing and encouraging harassment and violent threats against doctors at a hospital, I think even the most vociferous free speech advocate would understand Paypal's reasonable approach.
  - origin_path 4y ago
    "if as you claim the Daily Sceptic has been directing and encouraging harassment and violent threats against doctors" I didn't say anywhere that the DS has been "directing and encouraging harassment". I didn't even imply it, because it's not true. That's something that, again, you just made up right now. You keep doing this: please respond to what people actually say, not what you wish they'd said. "this one passage has been cherry picked from what will obviously be a pro-forma response" Your original claim was that he had no idea why he was banned, but he cited an explanation from PayPal. You now reject PayPal's own words on the grounds that you don't believe it's meaningful. In other words, having made an incorrect claim you're now trying to make it unfalsifiable. But PayPal can easily say nothing and did so for the other terminations. For this one, they cited a specific part of their ToS. We can assume that is the reason. Finally, a "maximalist" is by definition not someone who suppresses free speech because they think it's the best for their business.