5 ms·

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:

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?
  - Semaphor 4y ago
    Check webarchive, I'm on my phone right now so I don't have a link. I don't see the difference between the old and the new terms regarding your comment, I'm afraid. Now is that a dumb role that obviously invites arbitrary enforcement? Sure. But it's not new, those issues were there for at least 11 years.

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?
- Semaphor 4y ago
  Check webarchive, I'm on my phone right now so I don't have a link. I don't see the difference between the old and the new terms regarding your comment, I'm afraid. Now is that a dumb role that obviously invites arbitrary enforcement? Sure. But it's not new, those issues were there for at least 11 years.