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 harmful, obscene, harassing, or objectionable.”
They can take $25,000 from your account if they deem you to promote messages or spread misinformation. They could withdraw funds from your linked accounts if yourPayPal balance was zero.
They removed the language after an online backlash. They called it a mistake, but it wasn't a mistake that was placed into the wrong section of the terms, it was a mistake that was made.
They waited for the attention to stop. The policy is back in the terms. The $2500 fine per instance of violating their acceptable use policy is now specified by the t&c's. There is no definition of tolerance, and it could be considered.
The policy was roundly criticized online when it was first introduced, including by a former President of the company.
Agreed
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 8, 2022
The company refused to close accounts because they believed people were canceling based on misinformation and therefore wouldn't comply. What is best for you will be decided by Paypal. It wasn't misinformation in the beginning.
My PayPal account is still open. I got this reply which totally ignored what I wrote in my email to the company (below). Now they are insulting my intelligence.
"your organization has gone too far to even consider punishing people for having different thoughts and voicing them" pic.twitter.com/kaf1L8dcNc
— Charles V Payne (@cvpayne) October 13, 2022
Many people who have been paying attention for a long time have never used PayPal. It is not that PayPal has gone woke or anything like that. They want terms and conditions that give them flexibility to respond to the mob and regulators who often parrot the same.
Financial institutions are pushed to follow their own policies by regulators. Compliance with the objectives will make life easier or harder for the institution, they say. It's possible for a lender to approve a mortgage for a bank's branch. This is how regulators protect their reputation. This is a real cost to society.
Some Red States will push for a merchant code to track abortion services just as they push for a merchant code to track gun purchases. Financial regulators want to impose climate change policy on banks because of the risk.
The cost of anti-money-laundering rules is $7 million per conviction. Minimum balance requirements, along with other costs on accountholders, keep people out of the banking system, which in turn leads them to use expensive check cashing stores.
Financial institutions don't want their customers to be fined for ideas the company doesn't like. It is said that they are acting to appease regulators who hold the key to an institution's profitability and ability to conduct business.
The email that was sent to business account customers explained that from November 3 customers would be subject to $2,500 fines for every instance of promoting misinformation.
There are credit cards.
You can use a new service to send payments to anyone you want and charge them to your credit card with lower fees and more convenience.
In general.
There are a lot of important stories today. I keep you up to date on the most interesting writings I find on other websites.
In general.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
