8 ms·

This is absurd apologism. If Indiegogo projects are fundamentally incompatible with PayPal's risk profile as you imply, the onus is on PayPal not to accept mone

by _pius 13y ago

This is absurd apologism. If Indiegogo projects are fundamentally incompatible with PayPal's risk profile as you imply, the onus is on PayPal not to accept money for those projects. Full stop. Why on Earth should we sympathize with PayPal about internal aspects of their underwriting at the expense of a small business whose funds they've practically seized?

foobarbazqux 13y ago
> Why on Earth should we sympathize with PayPal about internal aspects of their underwriting at the expense of a small business whose funds they've practically seized? Cynical answer: because PayPal co-founder Elon Musk is the next Steve Jobs, and cult worship doesn't listen to reason. (I told you it was cynical.)
teraflop 13y ago
As has been pointed out elsewhere, PayPal has an explicit policy about how they handle presales. Why can't I turn your argument around and say that if somebody doesn't like that policy, the onus is on them to not use PayPal?
- _pius 13y ago
  I don't grant your premise that crowdfunding constitutes "presales." Crowdfunding is an inherently speculative activity, a way to invest in a team with the hopes that they will create a product that you'd like to see in the world. Trying to fit Indiegogo into a presales model to justify PayPal's outrageous behavior here is a Procrustean approach that helps no one.
  - jessedhillon 13y ago
    That's even worse than engaging in presales! It's practically fucking gambling the way you describe it, why the fuck would Paypal be enticed by that subtle shift in framing?
    - _pius 13y ago
      Yeah, it's "gambling" the way donating to an artist you like is gambling. And who's trying to entice them? Again, if doing business with Indiegogo projects is incompatible with Paypal's risk profile they shouldn't do business with Indiegogo projects. That seems straightforward. Bizarre to think we should be sympathizing with, enticing, or otherwise fellating PayPal in this situation.
      - jessedhillon 13y ago
        Bizarre to think we should be sympathizing with, enticing, or otherwise fellating PayPal in this situation. While I understand how easy it is to sympathize with the merchant here, as none of us will ever be payment processors, the reality is that the sum of your suggestions or assertions, if explored just as a thought experiment, quickly lead to a world where nobody can do payment processing without imposing absurdly high fees. Of course we can all see how unfair it seems to have all this money promised by seemingly wide-eyed and clear-minded open source software supporters. But Paypal has millions of clients and has to act in a way that generalizes across all of them, and which requires the least amount of trust to be placed in those clients. The only argument that Mailpile has is "but we're not evil," which is true, but still insufficient.
        likeclockwork 13y ago
        The thing is... ...nothing is being sold.
        llimllib 13y ago
        Which, presumably, would not stop people filing chargebacks if Mailpile fails to deliver on their promises.
        gtirloni 13y ago
        The other thing is, things don't work like that in the real world. If you go to court over this, the judge will check the material evidence (for example, that MailPile's page says they will deliver a beta by Jan2014) and will want to know if that was delivered.
  - smackfu 13y ago
    >Crowdfunding is an inherently speculative activity, Crowdfunding is only popular because it's got a high success rate though. If only 50% of projects succeeded and provided rewards, and 50% took your money and ran, how many supporters do you really think would be left?
- surge 13y ago
  Because PayPal's job is simply do deliver money from Party A to Party B. It's not their job to worry about how the money is used, the USPS does not audit the check your Grandma sent for your birthday. Crowdsourcing is a gift, like a donation to PBS, where you might get a coffee mug, but if PBS decides to to stop showing Downton Abbey, you can't rescind your donation. If PayPal has a problem with charge backs, they could simply stop taking payments for indiegogo projects (which its indiegogo's job to vet projects, not PayPal's) or put in big fat letters that THIS IS A NON-SALE OF GOODS TRANSACTION AND ABSOLUTELY NO CHARGE BACKS WILL BE ALLOWED FOR MONEY SENT TO THIS ACCOUNT AFTER FUNDS HAVE BEEN PROCESSED before they click the final confirmation button. Which is basically in writing already when you agree to send funds to indiegogo or Kickstarter. Problem solved. If you have a problem with projects not delivering, don't donate, take it up with indiegogo, or take it to small claims court.
  - wmf 13y ago
    Because PayPal's job is simply do deliver money from Party A to Party B. The problem is that PayPal is not dealing with real money but with credit cards. AFAIK, companies like Western Union don't have such onerous restrictions because they accept cash or as-good-as-cash. ...ABSOLUTELY NO CHARGE BACKS WILL BE ALLOWED... Credit cards fundamentally allow chargebacks; you can't turn them off. If you want to do business with no chargebacks you cannot accept credit cards either directly or indirectly.
    - Xylakant 13y ago
      > Credit cards fundamentally allow chargebacks; you can't turn them off. If you want to do business with no chargebacks you cannot accept credit cards either directly or indirectly. So why is this not a problem for IGG? Since it obviously isn't - they cash out 15 days after funding closes. If the difference is that IGG takes a higher cut, then fair enough, let PayPal take a higher cut.
      - wmf 13y ago
        If the difference is that IGG takes a higher cut, then fair enough, let PayPal take a higher cut. So you're asking PayPal to create a new level of service. (They probably won't, but their business is up to them.) That's fine, but you[1] should probably do that before using PayPal. And if PayPal doesn't create the new service you want, don't use PayPal. [1] By "you" I really mean anyone who's crowdfunding.
bnr 13y ago
> for the sake of argument > This is absurd apologism. I agree that what happens to Mailpile is A Bad Thing, but the reasoning as to why it makes financial (not moral) sense for PayPal to withhold the money is solid. There are other ways to send money across the world, maybe the lesson for crowdfunders is to switch to one that is more instant and less reversible, or at least offer them as alternatives.
jessedhillon 13y ago
If Indiegogo projects are fundamentally incompatible with PayPal's risk profile as you imply, He didn't imply this, he laid out a very eloquent case for it. ...the onus is on PayPal not to accept money for those projects. Full stop. No, please don't stop with a naked assertion completely unsupported by any other statements you've made. Please describe for me how a business operating in one of the most regulated industries in our country, whose disclosures are voluminous and thorough, and whose business model is turnkey merchant accounts, has this obligation.
tptacek 13y ago
Your argument might be stronger if it didn't rely on labeling ("absurd apologism", which is itself an absurd accusation when you think about what apologism means) and appeals to emotion. The short answer to your question is that you should concern yourself (not sympathize) with their problems when those problems intersect with yours and guide their decisions.
- _pius 13y ago
  Pretty glib. Your argument might be stronger if it didn't rely on labeling ... The argument doesn't rely on labeling, though it does call a spade a spade. A definition of "apologism" is "a defense or excuse, a speech or written answer made in justification." I'd love to hear why this is an incorrect characterization of the comment. The short answer to your question is that you should concern yourself (not sympathize) with their problems when those problems intersect with yours and guide their decisions. If I retain Matasano for work, I shouldn't need to obsess over the details of your cost structure or employee benefits packages; our contract should suffice. Similarly here, Patrick's description of Paypal's theory of underwriting is interesting, but irrelevant. Deflecting blame based on these issues is, indeed, absurd. If PayPal's risk profile does not support doing business with Indiegogo projects, they should cease doing business with those projects rather than seizing thousands of dollars on spurious grounds. Feel free to debate the merits, if you actually have a difference in opinion.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    No. Were you to retain Matasano, you'd discover that our relationship would be governed by a series of contracts. If you were of any significant size, those contracts would be scrutinized on your side by your counsel. If you were a typical client of size, your counsel and management would likely have questions or concerns about those terms, which would then be the subject of negotiation. Our risk tolerance and cost structure would very much matter to those negotiations. Regarding the label you used: what makes it absurd is the notion that Patrick would be motivated by an urge to justify the actions of a 3rd party business he's barely engaged with. Here it pains me to cite Paul Graham's "Things You Can't Say" on the semiotic significance of deploying labels to make arguments.

by _pius 13y ago

foobarbazqux 13y ago

> Why on Earth should we sympathize with PayPal about internal aspects of their underwriting at the expense of a small business whose funds they've practically seized? Cynical answer: because PayPal co-founder Elon Musk is the next Steve Jobs, and cult worship doesn't listen to reason. (I told you it was cynical.)

teraflop 13y ago

As has been pointed out elsewhere, PayPal has an explicit policy about how they handle presales. Why can't I turn your argument around and say that if somebody doesn't like that policy, the onus is on them to not use PayPal?

_pius 13y ago
I don't grant your premise that crowdfunding constitutes "presales." Crowdfunding is an inherently speculative activity, a way to invest in a team with the hopes that they will create a product that you'd like to see in the world. Trying to fit Indiegogo into a presales model to justify PayPal's outrageous behavior here is a Procrustean approach that helps no one.
- jessedhillon 13y ago
  That's even worse than engaging in presales! It's practically fucking gambling the way you describe it, why the fuck would Paypal be enticed by that subtle shift in framing?
  - _pius 13y ago
    Yeah, it's "gambling" the way donating to an artist you like is gambling. And who's trying to entice them? Again, if doing business with Indiegogo projects is incompatible with Paypal's risk profile they shouldn't do business with Indiegogo projects. That seems straightforward. Bizarre to think we should be sympathizing with, enticing, or otherwise fellating PayPal in this situation.
    - jessedhillon 13y ago
      Bizarre to think we should be sympathizing with, enticing, or otherwise fellating PayPal in this situation. While I understand how easy it is to sympathize with the merchant here, as none of us will ever be payment processors, the reality is that the sum of your suggestions or assertions, if explored just as a thought experiment, quickly lead to a world where nobody can do payment processing without imposing absurdly high fees. Of course we can all see how unfair it seems to have all this money promised by seemingly wide-eyed and clear-minded open source software supporters. But Paypal has millions of clients and has to act in a way that generalizes across all of them, and which requires the least amount of trust to be placed in those clients. The only argument that Mailpile has is "but we're not evil," which is true, but still insufficient.
      - likeclockwork 13y ago
        The thing is... ...nothing is being sold.
        llimllib 13y ago
        Which, presumably, would not stop people filing chargebacks if Mailpile fails to deliver on their promises.
        gtirloni 13y ago
        The other thing is, things don't work like that in the real world. If you go to court over this, the judge will check the material evidence (for example, that MailPile's page says they will deliver a beta by Jan2014) and will want to know if that was delivered.
- smackfu 13y ago
  >Crowdfunding is an inherently speculative activity, Crowdfunding is only popular because it's got a high success rate though. If only 50% of projects succeeded and provided rewards, and 50% took your money and ran, how many supporters do you really think would be left?
surge 13y ago
Because PayPal's job is simply do deliver money from Party A to Party B. It's not their job to worry about how the money is used, the USPS does not audit the check your Grandma sent for your birthday. Crowdsourcing is a gift, like a donation to PBS, where you might get a coffee mug, but if PBS decides to to stop showing Downton Abbey, you can't rescind your donation. If PayPal has a problem with charge backs, they could simply stop taking payments for indiegogo projects (which its indiegogo's job to vet projects, not PayPal's) or put in big fat letters that THIS IS A NON-SALE OF GOODS TRANSACTION AND ABSOLUTELY NO CHARGE BACKS WILL BE ALLOWED FOR MONEY SENT TO THIS ACCOUNT AFTER FUNDS HAVE BEEN PROCESSED before they click the final confirmation button. Which is basically in writing already when you agree to send funds to indiegogo or Kickstarter. Problem solved. If you have a problem with projects not delivering, don't donate, take it up with indiegogo, or take it to small claims court.
- wmf 13y ago
  Because PayPal's job is simply do deliver money from Party A to Party B. The problem is that PayPal is not dealing with real money but with credit cards. AFAIK, companies like Western Union don't have such onerous restrictions because they accept cash or as-good-as-cash. ...ABSOLUTELY NO CHARGE BACKS WILL BE ALLOWED... Credit cards fundamentally allow chargebacks; you can't turn them off. If you want to do business with no chargebacks you cannot accept credit cards either directly or indirectly.
  - Xylakant 13y ago
    > Credit cards fundamentally allow chargebacks; you can't turn them off. If you want to do business with no chargebacks you cannot accept credit cards either directly or indirectly. So why is this not a problem for IGG? Since it obviously isn't - they cash out 15 days after funding closes. If the difference is that IGG takes a higher cut, then fair enough, let PayPal take a higher cut.
    - wmf 13y ago
      If the difference is that IGG takes a higher cut, then fair enough, let PayPal take a higher cut. So you're asking PayPal to create a new level of service. (They probably won't, but their business is up to them.) That's fine, but you[1] should probably do that before using PayPal. And if PayPal doesn't create the new service you want, don't use PayPal. [1] By "you" I really mean anyone who's crowdfunding.

bnr 13y ago

> for the sake of argument > This is absurd apologism. I agree that what happens to Mailpile is A Bad Thing, but the reasoning as to why it makes financial (not moral) sense for PayPal to withhold the money is solid. There are other ways to send money across the world, maybe the lesson for crowdfunders is to switch to one that is more instant and less reversible, or at least offer them as alternatives.

jessedhillon 13y ago

If Indiegogo projects are fundamentally incompatible with PayPal's risk profile as you imply, He didn't imply this, he laid out a very eloquent case for it. ...the onus is on PayPal not to accept money for those projects. Full stop. No, please don't stop with a naked assertion completely unsupported by any other statements you've made. Please describe for me how a business operating in one of the most regulated industries in our country, whose disclosures are voluminous and thorough, and whose business model is turnkey merchant accounts, has this obligation.

tptacek 13y ago

Your argument might be stronger if it didn't rely on labeling ("absurd apologism", which is itself an absurd accusation when you think about what apologism means) and appeals to emotion. The short answer to your question is that you should concern yourself (not sympathize) with their problems when those problems intersect with yours and guide their decisions.

_pius 13y ago
Pretty glib. Your argument might be stronger if it didn't rely on labeling ... The argument doesn't rely on labeling, though it does call a spade a spade. A definition of "apologism" is "a defense or excuse, a speech or written answer made in justification." I'd love to hear why this is an incorrect characterization of the comment. The short answer to your question is that you should concern yourself (not sympathize) with their problems when those problems intersect with yours and guide their decisions. If I retain Matasano for work, I shouldn't need to obsess over the details of your cost structure or employee benefits packages; our contract should suffice. Similarly here, Patrick's description of Paypal's theory of underwriting is interesting, but irrelevant. Deflecting blame based on these issues is, indeed, absurd. If PayPal's risk profile does not support doing business with Indiegogo projects, they should cease doing business with those projects rather than seizing thousands of dollars on spurious grounds. Feel free to debate the merits, if you actually have a difference in opinion.
- tptacek 13y ago
  No. Were you to retain Matasano, you'd discover that our relationship would be governed by a series of contracts. If you were of any significant size, those contracts would be scrutinized on your side by your counsel. If you were a typical client of size, your counsel and management would likely have questions or concerns about those terms, which would then be the subject of negotiation. Our risk tolerance and cost structure would very much matter to those negotiations. Regarding the label you used: what makes it absurd is the notion that Patrick would be motivated by an urge to justify the actions of a 3rd party business he's barely engaged with. Here it pains me to cite Paul Graham's "Things You Can't Say" on the semiotic significance of deploying labels to make arguments.