PayPal has reinstated its $2,500 fine for "misinformation."
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Appears to be a thing...
Paypal's Objectionable Terms Are Back, $2500 Fines For Content They Don't Like - View from the Wing
Two weeks ago Paypal introduced language into its terms and conditions that allowed them to withdraw $2500 from your account for each time they believed you "promot[ed] misinformation" or you sent, posted or published "messages, content, or materials that, in PayPal’s sole discretion, (a) are...
viewfromthewing.com
10/10 they announced it, then retracted it, then this warning came out and now I'm seeing stuff dated 10/26 saying it is back.
PayPal Can Still Fine Its Users $2500 for Wrongthink
The firm — not especially profitable — could come to need the money from fines for Wrongthink, to pay operating expenses. That’s a risk users run.
mindmatters.ai
Im not saying this is bullshit, but not a single link in those articles goes to the paypal terms of service. Which would of course be the best and undeniable proof. Seems weird to make all this noise, and not do that.
I looked at paypals tos and the timeline doesnt even match up for the update theyre claiming happened.
There is the september update which does contain the above language about prohibiting the business of that list of items, but I am unable to find any fines related to it.
Starting to see why these websites link to each other and themselves, rather than paypal or other credible sources.
There is the september update which does contain the above language about prohibiting the business of that list of items, but I am unable to find any fines related to it.
Starting to see why these websites link to each other and themselves, rather than paypal or other credible sources.
PayPal Will STILL FINE YOU $2500 For Hate Speech, They Never Got Rid Of It
PayPal Will STILL FINE YOU $2500 For Hate Speech, They Never Got Rid Of It Sign Up For Exclusive Episodes At https://timcast.com/ Merch - https://timcast.creator-spring.com Hosts: Tim @Timcast (everyw
rumble.com
Yes. Those articles are filled with screenshots. Screenshots that do not match the paypal website in real time, and would mean they adjusted the user agreements without documenting it (kinda illegal).
Maybe it's the fact I get redirected to the .com.au paypal, or maybe it's because it's made up bullshit.
The right loves to say things like be more critical, ask questions, verify. So uh, do that. I will eat crow if the US site is different and has these terms, but its crazy they're not linking directly to that. It's literally the whole story.
Maybe it's the fact I get redirected to the .com.au paypal, or maybe it's because it's made up bullshit.
The right loves to say things like be more critical, ask questions, verify. So uh, do that. I will eat crow if the US site is different and has these terms, but its crazy they're not linking directly to that. It's literally the whole story.
Does Boilerplate TOS say they think $2,500 is a reasonable price to charge anyone that violates the TOS?
One thing people are getting right, this has been a thing for quite some time. Wonder why all the attention now?
Reviewing https://stripe.com/
Gorfias, you're a good guy, but you're easily and often led by the nose by bullshit artists.
The fine in that scenario, would be if it caused damages (in a legally defined sense), not for violating the tos. IF that is even a real version of the tos.
PayPal Acceptable Use Policy - PayPal
All PayPal users must adhere to the terms of PayPal's Acceptable Use Policy. Read the list of prohibited activities and services that require pre-approval.
www.paypal.com
Reading the language there, it does appear they can call wrong think a violation of their TOS, and is defacto at least $2,500.00 in damages.
I cannot find similar language in stripe.com's site but there is a ton to review. I could just be missing it.
EDIT: Odd, this does look different than the screenshot from Tim but..
EDIT: And the part that is causing the alarm: "(f) the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory" . Example: Tim asks if he says he would prefer a male firefighter were he in need of rescue, can that be argued to have violated the TOS?
Last edited:
Alright! That's the actual user agreement and that section is there. However it is 2500 in damages, which means paypal would have to reach the legal criteria to prove damages, not just an arbirtray fine cause they said so.
I find this fascinating that those sites wont directly link to paypal, the primary source of their story.
I also am amazed by the scope of difference in the user agreements between US paypal and AU paypal. But then we have a shitton more consumer protection to adhere to I guess.
I find this fascinating that those sites wont directly link to paypal, the primary source of their story.
I also am amazed by the scope of difference in the user agreements between US paypal and AU paypal. But then we have a shitton more consumer protection to adhere to I guess.
So what's like the whole deal with this? I'm at work and the OG link says it's a security risk. Wouldn't "misinformation" for anything PayPal related be squarely only with the description of whatever your selling? Or are they gonna take $2500 for you posting something on your Twitter account or something like that? Even if it's like in messages to seller and buyer, it would be a bit sketchy because PayPal doesn't have actual messaging either I think? I kinda stopped using PayPal once you couldn't use it for eBay anymore.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,475
- 4,261
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
I don't think they can fine you and actually get money unless its in your paypal account already, so assuming they actually use anything, it will probably be used against people that are big, moving a lot of money through paypal and lying about shit, think Alex Jones or one of the trumples lawyers who say drastically different things in court then on the media.
I think PayPal (and what I found out is theirs, VENMO) do have messaging capacity.
But suppose someone collects money from a Paypal client for selling this client this book:
@Eliji One can argue that this book violates their TOS. If you have $2,500 in your Paypal account, can they seize it claiming Defacto damages? They state they can hold funds in the account for 180 days. https://www.paypal.com/np/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full#restricted
Also, " You acknowledge and agree that $2,500 USD (or equivalent) per violation of the Acceptable Use Policy is presently a reasonable minimum estimate of PayPal's actual damages - including, but not limited to internal administrative costs incurred by PayPal to monitor and track violations, damage to PayPal’s brand and reputation, and penalties imposed upon PayPal by its business partners resulting from a user’s violation - considering all currently existing circumstances, including the relationship of the sum to the range of harm to PayPal that reasonably could be anticipated because, due to the nature of the violations of the Acceptable Use Policy, actual damages would be impractical or extremely difficult to calculate. PayPal may deduct such damages directly from any existing balance in any PayPal account you control." (Emphasis added)
At no time do they state this will be dependent upon a court finding. This is something you, in theory are already agreeing to.
EDIT: They write actually calculating damages which you need if you are trying to get a court finding, would be impractical or extremely difficult to calculate.
This does seem like much ado about nothing as this has been in place for some time and not, to my knowledge, ever used. Why all the concern now?
Last edited:
Damages isnt just a vague word. It's a legal term. They'd have to be able to prove damages to their service or brand.
That sounds more like a phishing scam than something actually from Paypal. I'd look it up, but I don't care. Anytime I get an email offering me free money I'm going to keep marking it as junk.