8 ms·

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 t

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
    No, I mean you talked about the hospital so I googled it and found all these stories about doctors receiving death threats. Isn't that what you were talking about? Sorry if I mis-read something, but go Google it, there's a shit-tonne of stuff about people harassing and threatening to kill doctors that treat gender-dysphoria. if that's not what you meant I'm a bit confused why you referenced it. It's the exact thing we're talking about - that even a free speech maximalist probably draws the line before advocating the murder of medical practitioners.
    - origin_path 4y ago
      Here we go again: you stated that the Daily Sceptic specifically - the site this thread is about - had been "directing and encouraging harassment and violent threats against doctors". When pointed out that this is isn't true you fall back on "I googled and found some mention of some people doing that", which isn't the same thing. At all. Not even close. If two groups of people both disagree with another group of people, that doesn't mean the first two groups can be arbitrarily treated as the same or blamed for the actions of the other. The extraordinary level of slippage your replies on this thread involve makes it very hard for people to debate with you, are you aware of that? You keep asserting that various people or groups have said things that they never said, or that they didn't say things when they did, based apparently on ad-hoc or arbitrary connections in your own mind. It's not surprising that you're feeling confused! The problem you're displaying here crops up frequently in discussions about censorship. It's what Matt Taibbi calls "the transitive property of whatever". I was arguing a week ago with someone else on this forum who was claiming that Facebook was somehow implicated in the Rohingya Genocide. It's a form of overly-transitive reasoning in which belief in the power of words strengthens to the point at which everything appears connected to everything else. To invert the argument to a form you may recognize from the 'other side' it's like arguing that because a few Muslims have blown themselves up in response to religious teachings, therefore all mosques should be shut down. So if you have a specific and precise problem with the website in question, let's hear it. And if you want to reply with an assertion that X said Y, please quote their exact words where they say that.

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
  No, I mean you talked about the hospital so I googled it and found all these stories about doctors receiving death threats. Isn't that what you were talking about? Sorry if I mis-read something, but go Google it, there's a shit-tonne of stuff about people harassing and threatening to kill doctors that treat gender-dysphoria. if that's not what you meant I'm a bit confused why you referenced it. It's the exact thing we're talking about - that even a free speech maximalist probably draws the line before advocating the murder of medical practitioners.
  - origin_path 4y ago
    Here we go again: you stated that the Daily Sceptic specifically - the site this thread is about - had been "directing and encouraging harassment and violent threats against doctors". When pointed out that this is isn't true you fall back on "I googled and found some mention of some people doing that", which isn't the same thing. At all. Not even close. If two groups of people both disagree with another group of people, that doesn't mean the first two groups can be arbitrarily treated as the same or blamed for the actions of the other. The extraordinary level of slippage your replies on this thread involve makes it very hard for people to debate with you, are you aware of that? You keep asserting that various people or groups have said things that they never said, or that they didn't say things when they did, based apparently on ad-hoc or arbitrary connections in your own mind. It's not surprising that you're feeling confused! The problem you're displaying here crops up frequently in discussions about censorship. It's what Matt Taibbi calls "the transitive property of whatever". I was arguing a week ago with someone else on this forum who was claiming that Facebook was somehow implicated in the Rohingya Genocide. It's a form of overly-transitive reasoning in which belief in the power of words strengthens to the point at which everything appears connected to everything else. To invert the argument to a form you may recognize from the 'other side' it's like arguing that because a few Muslims have blown themselves up in response to religious teachings, therefore all mosques should be shut down. So if you have a specific and precise problem with the website in question, let's hear it. And if you want to reply with an assertion that X said Y, please quote their exact words where they say that.