3 ms·

This does not seem to be accurate. I couldn't find anything in their TOS other than reasonable sounding restrictions on what can be sold. Sorry. https://www.pa

by mhb 4y ago

This does not seem to be accurate. I couldn't find anything in their TOS other than reasonable sounding restrictions on what can be sold. Sorry. https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full

torstenvl 4y ago
Admittedly I haven't done a close read, but on first skimming I didn't see anything that limits this to commercial transactions between arms-length buyers and sellers. Where are you getting that from? To my view, there's a world of difference between "You can't use PayPal as a payment processor for gun sales" and "You can't use PayPal to pay pals back for covering your range fees last Saturday." Yet the AUP seems broad enough to cover both: "You may not use the PayPal service for activities that... relate to transactions involving... ammunition, firearms, or certain firearm parts or accessories...." https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full
- Test0129 4y ago
  > To my view, there's a world of difference between "You can't use PayPal as a payment processor for gun sales" and "You can't use PayPal to pay pals back for covering your range fees last Saturday." Firearms are for absolutely no reason what-so-ever taboo on most payment processors. The AUP is broad enough to cover both because the pearl clutchers don't see a difference. The best part of this is "certain firearm parts or accessories" as if they had a qualified expert anywhere in their company that could identify a bolt from a slide. It's deliberately written to trap you, and now, extort you for $2,500.
  - shocked1129 4y ago
    I think it's simpler than that. Some executive didn't want to have to hire a PR crisis management firm if some kid shot up his school with a gun bought through their payment system. Same with a lot of other stuff. It's all about money.
Ferrotin 4y ago
It is right there in the second link: > (f) the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory
- mhb 4y ago
  Ah. OK. Thanks.
  - ccvannorman 4y ago
    Prefaced with "You may not use the PayPal service for activities that:" It's not as if they're looking at your HN posts for violations, only payment transactions.
    - nescioquid 4y ago
      Imagine that you paid reddit using PayPal. Based on the language, it's not clear that every subsequent reddit post isn't fair game for enforcement.
      - Ferrotin 4y ago
        Or suppose you have a t-shirt printing business.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
lilsoso 4y ago
See https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full and search for 2,500, which reveals: "You acknowledge and agree that $2,500.00 U.S. dollars per violation of the Acceptable Use Policy is presently a reasonable minimum estimate of PayPal’s actual damages". So it depends on the interpretation of the Acceptable Use Policy and how that policy changes over time. edit: As the person below me points out, the acceptable use policy is defined at https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full, which includes obscenity and intolerance.
- lilsoso 4y ago
  Imagine Robert Mapplethorpe being fined $2,500 per photo by PayPal for obscenity: definitions drift over time.
- Semaphor 4y ago
  Eh, so it’s a change from > items that promote hate, violence, racial intolerance, or the financial exploitation of a crime to > the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory And otherwise mostly the same as it was in 2011, including the $2,500
  - lilsoso 4y ago
    I don't think that's quite true and I don't have a copy of their terms of service from 2011. Let's apply their rules as they stand today to various artists: "(f) the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory or the financial exploitation of a crime" This could apply to the French author Michel Houellebecq for his novel Submission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submission_(novel)#Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submission_(novel)#Controversy), along with another novel by the author. Let's not even entertain the thought of this rule applied to various rap artists in popular culture. "(g) items that are considered obscene" & "(i) certain sexually oriented materials or services" This could apply to a number of artists, such as Robert Mapplethorpe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mapplethorpe#Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mapplethorpe#Controvers...). His art was considered obscene, and prurient, yet is now exhibited in major museums. If your enemy were to again power, or an unjust ruler, how might these laws be used against you and the culture? Just because your "side" is winning now doesn't mean that will always be the case. Just because we're now "enlightened" and we would no longer jail Galileo or throw a fuss over Mapplethorpe does not mean that will always be the case. Are the rules just? Why is a finance company policing expression on the internet? Why are we turning to a finance company for moral guidance?

by mhb 4y ago

torstenvl 4y ago

Admittedly I haven't done a close read, but on first skimming I didn't see anything that limits this to commercial transactions between arms-length buyers and sellers. Where are you getting that from? To my view, there's a world of difference between "You can't use PayPal as a payment processor for gun sales" and "You can't use PayPal to pay pals back for covering your range fees last Saturday." Yet the AUP seems broad enough to cover both: "You may not use the PayPal service for activities that... relate to transactions involving... ammunition, firearms, or certain firearm parts or accessories...." https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full

Test0129 4y ago
> To my view, there's a world of difference between "You can't use PayPal as a payment processor for gun sales" and "You can't use PayPal to pay pals back for covering your range fees last Saturday." Firearms are for absolutely no reason what-so-ever taboo on most payment processors. The AUP is broad enough to cover both because the pearl clutchers don't see a difference. The best part of this is "certain firearm parts or accessories" as if they had a qualified expert anywhere in their company that could identify a bolt from a slide. It's deliberately written to trap you, and now, extort you for $2,500.
- shocked1129 4y ago
  I think it's simpler than that. Some executive didn't want to have to hire a PR crisis management firm if some kid shot up his school with a gun bought through their payment system. Same with a lot of other stuff. It's all about money.

Ferrotin 4y ago

It is right there in the second link: > (f) the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory

mhb 4y ago
Ah. OK. Thanks.
- ccvannorman 4y ago
  Prefaced with "You may not use the PayPal service for activities that:" It's not as if they're looking at your HN posts for violations, only payment transactions.
  - nescioquid 4y ago
    Imagine that you paid reddit using PayPal. Based on the language, it's not clear that every subsequent reddit post isn't fair game for enforcement.
    - Ferrotin 4y ago
      Or suppose you have a t-shirt printing business.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

lilsoso 4y ago

See https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full and search for 2,500, which reveals: "You acknowledge and agree that $2,500.00 U.S. dollars per violation of the Acceptable Use Policy is presently a reasonable minimum estimate of PayPal’s actual damages". So it depends on the interpretation of the Acceptable Use Policy and how that policy changes over time. edit: As the person below me points out, the acceptable use policy is defined at https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/acceptableuse-full, which includes obscenity and intolerance.

lilsoso 4y ago
Imagine Robert Mapplethorpe being fined $2,500 per photo by PayPal for obscenity: definitions drift over time.
Semaphor 4y ago
Eh, so it’s a change from > items that promote hate, violence, racial intolerance, or the financial exploitation of a crime to > the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory And otherwise mostly the same as it was in 2011, including the $2,500
- lilsoso 4y ago
  I don't think that's quite true and I don't have a copy of their terms of service from 2011. Let's apply their rules as they stand today to various artists: "(f) the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory or the financial exploitation of a crime" This could apply to the French author Michel Houellebecq for his novel Submission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submission_(novel)#Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submission_(novel)#Controversy), along with another novel by the author. Let's not even entertain the thought of this rule applied to various rap artists in popular culture. "(g) items that are considered obscene" & "(i) certain sexually oriented materials or services" This could apply to a number of artists, such as Robert Mapplethorpe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mapplethorpe#Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mapplethorpe#Controvers...). His art was considered obscene, and prurient, yet is now exhibited in major museums. If your enemy were to again power, or an unjust ruler, how might these laws be used against you and the culture? Just because your "side" is winning now doesn't mean that will always be the case. Just because we're now "enlightened" and we would no longer jail Galileo or throw a fuss over Mapplethorpe does not mean that will always be the case. Are the rules just? Why is a finance company policing expression on the internet? Why are we turning to a finance company for moral guidance?