4 ms·
Yes this is the major point of the exchange to me. It is not really for scam prevention and it has nothing to do with what is a donation or legal context. I ju
by Zarathust 15y ago
Yes this is the major point of the exchange to me. It is not really for scam prevention and it has nothing to do with what is a donation or legal context. I just don't get the reason why people is not ok.
- skore 15y agoI think this one is very simple to understand: Pets don't commit fraud. Or put differently: If somebody is running a scam here, the "pet" scenario would mean that it is you. The "poor people" scenario would mean that it is somebody else, making the whole situation a lot more complex. I think this is simply a matter of internal risk assessment triggers.
- there 15y agoi don't think it's an issue of people vs. animals, it's an issue of "save poor people that aren't being named and won't produce an audit trail" vs "save this cat that belongs to me, the owner of this paypal account". strictly on a risk assessment basis, an organization not registered as a 501(c) taking in lots of money for a generic cause is more likely to be fraudulent than one specific person that paypal can easily identify taking a smaller amount of money to save his cat. paypal is probably just as comfortable with "save walter white" as they are with "save mr. marbles", but not "save people like walter white" or "save cats like mr. marbles".