4 ms·

So what about things which they have actually done?

by prvit 4y ago

endigma 4y ago
Did you read any of the attached? They have banned people for no reason and decided the money in their account was forefit as a result, all of these things they have "actually done", I'm not sure what more you'd hope for them to do before declaring it bad? Updating user agreements with nonsensical statements, threatening users with "fines" without involving the court system at all? Declaring themselves capable of deciding what's acceptable internet conduct for their users to engage in? If these and all the attached threads don't seem like a red flag to you at all, I'd question what the hell does?
- prvit 4y ago
  > If these and all the attached threads don't seem like a red flag to you at all, I'd question what the hell does? Everything described seems perfectly normal, it’s like this no matter which bank you work with. Paypal just attracts a lot of people who haven’t worked with payment processing before, so this naturally comes as a shock to them.
  - endigma 4y ago
    Status Quo != Acceptable, even if other payment processors decide they are doing the same thing, PayPal also operates in large as a wallet of sorts, meaning it's not only commercial companies but users who are affected by this. Unclear writing means PayPal could "at their sole discretion" decide you tweeted (for example) something they didn't like or deemed against their user agreement and without involving the law at all just fine you for it? My personal bank has no such clauses in their user agreement, nor anything apart from their compliance with legal requests to freeze accounts. For users who treat PayPal like a sort of bank, this is a problem. I'd also like to see the clauses in Stripe, Square, etc agreements that parallel PayPal's position that they can decide who is doing mean things on the internet and fine them for it.

4 ms·

So what about things which they have actually done?

by prvit 4y ago

So what about things which they have actually done?

endigma 4y ago
Did you read any of the attached? They have banned people for no reason and decided the money in their account was forefit as a result, all of these things they have "actually done", I'm not sure what more you'd hope for them to do before declaring it bad? Updating user agreements with nonsensical statements, threatening users with "fines" without involving the court system at all? Declaring themselves capable of deciding what's acceptable internet conduct for their users to engage in? If these and all the attached threads don't seem like a red flag to you at all, I'd question what the hell does?
- prvit 4y ago
  > If these and all the attached threads don't seem like a red flag to you at all, I'd question what the hell does? Everything described seems perfectly normal, it’s like this no matter which bank you work with. Paypal just attracts a lot of people who haven’t worked with payment processing before, so this naturally comes as a shock to them.
  - endigma 4y ago
    Status Quo != Acceptable, even if other payment processors decide they are doing the same thing, PayPal also operates in large as a wallet of sorts, meaning it's not only commercial companies but users who are affected by this. Unclear writing means PayPal could "at their sole discretion" decide you tweeted (for example) something they didn't like or deemed against their user agreement and without involving the law at all just fine you for it? My personal bank has no such clauses in their user agreement, nor anything apart from their compliance with legal requests to freeze accounts. For users who treat PayPal like a sort of bank, this is a problem. I'd also like to see the clauses in Stripe, Square, etc agreements that parallel PayPal's position that they can decide who is doing mean things on the internet and fine them for it.