A little less than a week before the midterm elections in November, a new
PayPal account update will take effect that has sent the internet into an
uproar-- and also drawn condemnation from PayPal's former president David
Marcus.

PayPal is updating its acceptable use policy, with the update taking effect on
November 3. You might say to yourself, well, I don't use my account with the
financial services company for anything improper or illegal, so what do I have
to worry about? Here's why that might not necessarily be true:

PayPal says it's expanding its existing list of prohibited activities to
include the "sending, posting, or publication of messages, content, or
materials that meet certain criteria". The full details are explained in their
full policy document, but PayPal is basically set to start levying a fine when
users are found to have shared "misinformation" or promoted content that’s
deemed to be "discriminatory" or "promoting hate".

And you don't even have to be doing this 'bad stuff' through your PayPal
account. If they become aware of you acting contrary to the Agenda *anywhere*,
they reserve the right to fine you. So, for example, if they catch you posting
something on Twitter that contradicts, criticizes, or ridicules 'progressive'
ideology, or it becomes public knowledge that you attended a Trump event, or
that you donated to a pro-gun cause, and they know you have a PayPal account,
say goodbye to 2500 quatloos. And that's 2500 for each violation, so if they
catch you doing all three of those things, you're out 7500 smackeroos.

Former PayPal president David Marcus, for his part, described this new policy
as "insanity". A tweet from him on Saturday, October 8, reads in part: "A
private company now gets to decide to take your money if you say something
they disagree with."

Venture capitalist David Sacks chimed in, in response to Marcus: "Get your
money out of PayPal right now."

Elon Musk, an erstwhile member of the OG "PayPal Mafia", also added his
approval to Marcus' tweet, writing simply: "Agreed."

As word of this PayPal change began to spread over the weekend, FCC
Commissioner Brendan Carr described what’s happening here as "Orwellian".

UPDATE: After this article was published, PayPal released a statement to media
outlets insisting that the company will not, in fact, fine users for the
dissemination of misinformation: "An AUP notice recently went out in error
that included incorrect information. PayPal is not fining people for
misinformation and this language was never intended to be inserted in our
policy. Our teams are working to correct our policy pages. We're sorry for the
confusion this has caused."

BUT: As of the time of this writing on October 11, the language noted in the
post above is nevertheless still included in PayPal's user agreement here:

https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full?locale.x=en_US#restricted-activities

The apology has also struck many people as odd, because you'd think that
language like this wouldn't accidentally materialize-- in precisely
constructed corporate-speak-- on a policy page "in error" or randomly.
Especially when PayPal has already more or less gone down this road before,
deplatforming account-holders for reasons similar to what this new policy
language spells out.

This looks like a purposely intended attempt to control the thoughts, speech,
and actions of PayPal customers which blew up in the company's collective face
and this claim of it being an error is mere spin and damage control.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>A little less than a week before the midterm elections in November, a new
>PayPal account update will take effect that has sent the internet into an
>uproar-- and also drawn condemnation from PayPal's former president David
>Marcus.
>
>PayPal is updating its acceptable use policy, with the update taking effect on
>November 3. You might say to yourself, well, I don't use my account with the
>financial services company for anything improper or illegal, so what do I have
>to worry about? Here's why that might not necessarily be true:
>
>PayPal says it's expanding its existing list of prohibited activities to
>include the "sending, posting, or publication of messages, content, or
>materials that meet certain criteria". The full details are explained in their
>full policy document, but PayPal is basically set to start levying a fine when
>users are found to have shared "misinformation" or promoted content that’s
>deemed to be "discriminatory" or "promoting hate".
>
>And you don't even have to be doing this 'bad stuff' through your PayPal
>account. If they become aware of you acting contrary to the Agenda *anywhere*,
>they reserve the right to fine you. So, for example, if they catch you posting
>something on Twitter that contradicts, criticizes, or ridicules 'progressive'
>ideology, or it becomes public knowledge that you attended a Trump event, or
>that you donated to a pro-gun cause, and they know you have a PayPal account,
>say goodbye to 2500 quatloos. And that's 2500 for each violation, so if they
>catch you doing all three of those things, you're out 7500 smackeroos.
>
>Former PayPal president David Marcus, for his part, described this new policy
>as "insanity". A tweet from him on Saturday, October 8, reads in part: "A
>private company now gets to decide to take your money if you say something
>they disagree with."
>
>Venture capitalist David Sacks chimed in, in response to Marcus: "Get your
>money out of PayPal right now."
>
>Elon Musk, an erstwhile member of the OG "PayPal Mafia", also added his
>approval to Marcus' tweet, writing simply: "Agreed."
>
>As word of this PayPal change began to spread over the weekend, FCC
>Commissioner Brendan Carr described what’s happening here as "Orwellian".
>
>
>UPDATE: After this article was published, PayPal released a statement to media
>outlets insisting that the company will not, in fact, fine users for the
>dissemination of misinformation: "An AUP notice recently went out in error
>that included incorrect information. PayPal is not fining people for
>misinformation and this language was never intended to be inserted in our
>policy. Our teams are working to correct our policy pages. We're sorry for the
>confusion this has caused."
>
>BUT: As of the time of this writing on October 11, the language noted in the
>post above is nevertheless still included in PayPal's user agreement here:
>
>
>https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full?locale.x=en_US#restricted-activities
>
>The apology has also struck many people as odd, because you'd think that
>language like this wouldn't accidentally materialize-- in precisely
>constructed corporate-speak-- on a policy page "in error" or randomly.
>Especially when PayPal has already more or less gone down this road before,
>deplatforming account-holders for reasons similar to what this new policy
>language spells out.
>
>This looks like a purposely intended attempt to control the thoughts, speech,
>and actions of PayPal customers which blew up in the company's collective face
>and this claim of it being an error is mere spin and damage control.

Sound like the very definition of "error" to me, that they thought they
could police their customers' thoughts. And they would have gotten away
with it, too, if not for those meddling kids.

On 2022-10-11 10:57 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> A little less than a week before the midterm elections in November, a new
> PayPal account update will take effect that has sent the internet into an
> uproar-- and also drawn condemnation from PayPal's former president David
> Marcus.
>
> PayPal is updating its acceptable use policy, with the update taking effect on
> November 3. You might say to yourself, well, I don't use my account with the
> financial services company for anything improper or illegal, so what do I have
> to worry about? Here's why that might not necessarily be true:
>
> PayPal says it's expanding its existing list of prohibited activities to
> include the "sending, posting, or publication of messages, content, or
> materials that meet certain criteria". The full details are explained in their
> full policy document, but PayPal is basically set to start levying a fine when
> users are found to have shared "misinformation" or promoted content that’s
> deemed to be "discriminatory" or "promoting hate".
>
> And you don't even have to be doing this 'bad stuff' through your PayPal
> account. If they become aware of you acting contrary to the Agenda *anywhere*,
> they reserve the right to fine you. So, for example, if they catch you posting
> something on Twitter that contradicts, criticizes, or ridicules 'progressive'
> ideology, or it becomes public knowledge that you attended a Trump event, or
> that you donated to a pro-gun cause, and they know you have a PayPal account,
> say goodbye to 2500 quatloos. And that's 2500 for each violation, so if they
> catch you doing all three of those things, you're out 7500 smackeroos.
>
> Former PayPal president David Marcus, for his part, described this new policy
> as "insanity". A tweet from him on Saturday, October 8, reads in part: "A
> private company now gets to decide to take your money if you say something
> they disagree with."
>
> Venture capitalist David Sacks chimed in, in response to Marcus: "Get your
> money out of PayPal right now."
>
> Elon Musk, an erstwhile member of the OG "PayPal Mafia", also added his
> approval to Marcus' tweet, writing simply: "Agreed."
>
> As word of this PayPal change began to spread over the weekend, FCC
> Commissioner Brendan Carr described what’s happening here as "Orwellian".
>
>
> UPDATE: After this article was published, PayPal released a statement to media
> outlets insisting that the company will not, in fact, fine users for the
> dissemination of misinformation: "An AUP notice recently went out in error
> that included incorrect information. PayPal is not fining people for
> misinformation and this language was never intended to be inserted in our
> policy. Our teams are working to correct our policy pages. We're sorry for the
> confusion this has caused."
>
> BUT: As of the time of this writing on October 11, the language noted in the
> post above is nevertheless still included in PayPal's user agreement here:
>
>
> https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full?locale.x=en_US#restricted-activities
>
> The apology has also struck many people as odd, because you'd think that
> language like this wouldn't accidentally materialize-- in precisely
> constructed corporate-speak-- on a policy page "in error" or randomly.
> Especially when PayPal has already more or less gone down this road before,
> deplatforming account-holders for reasons similar to what this new policy
> language spells out.
>
> This looks like a purposely intended attempt to control the thoughts, speech,
> and actions of PayPal customers which blew up in the company's collective face
> and this claim of it being an error is mere spin and damage control.
>
>
The fact that the official wording of the User Agreement hasn't been
amended to remove the obnoxious wording is particularly alarming. If
they apologize and say it's not what they meant to do but don't change
the wording of the official document, then they are effectively saying
they *did* mean to fine you for any objectionable thoughts you express
anywhere. It's not at all clear what would happen if you tried to fight
one of their fines. I assume the official user agreement would still
trump their half-hearted retraction, right?

--
Rhino

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> A little less than a week before the midterm elections in November, a new
PayPal account update will take effect that has sent the internet into an
uproar-- and also drawn condemnation from PayPal's former president David
Marcus.
>
> PayPal is updating its acceptable use policy, with the update taking effect on
November 3. You might say to yourself, well, I don't use my account with
the
financial services company for anything improper or illegal, so what do
I have
to worry about? Here's why that might not necessarily be true:
>
> PayPal says it's expanding its existing list of prohibited activities to
include the "sending, posting, or publication of messages, content, or
materials that meet certain criteria". The full details are explained in
their
full policy document, but PayPal is basically set to start levying a fine
when
users are found to have shared "misinformation" or promoted content that’s
deemed to be "discriminatory" or "promoting hate".
>
> And you don't even have to be doing this 'bad stuff' through your PayPal
account. If they become aware of you acting contrary to the Agenda
*anywhere*,
they reserve the right to fine you. So, for example, if they catch you
posting
something on Twitter that contradicts, criticizes, or ridicules
'progressive'
ideology, or it becomes public knowledge that you attended a Trump event,
or
that you donated to a pro-gun cause, and they know you have a PayPal
account,
say goodbye to 2500 quatloos. And that's 2500 for each violation, so if
they
catch you doing all three of those things, you're out 7500 smackeroos.
>
> Former PayPal president David Marcus, for his part, described this new policy
as "insanity". A tweet from him on Saturday, October 8, reads in part: "A
private company now gets to decide to take your money if you say something
they disagree with."
>
> Venture capitalist David Sacks chimed in, in response to Marcus: "Get your
money out of PayPal right now."
>
> Elon Musk, an erstwhile member of the OG "PayPal Mafia", also added his
approval to Marcus' tweet, writing simply: "Agreed."
>
> As word of this PayPal change began to spread over the weekend, FCC
Commissioner Brendan Carr described what’s happening here as "Orwellian".
>
>
> UPDATE: After this article was published, PayPal released a statement to media
outlets insisting that the company will not, in fact, fine users for the
dissemination of misinformation: "An AUP notice recently went out in error
that included incorrect information.

Doesn’t that mean they owe each of us $2500?

PayPal is not fining people for
misinformation and this language was never intended to be inserted in our
policy. Our teams are working to correct our policy pages. We're sorry for
the
confusion this has caused."
>
> BUT: As of the time of this writing on October 11, the language noted in the
post above is nevertheless still included in PayPal's user agreement here:
>
>
https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full?locale.x=en_US#restricted-activities
>
> The apology has also struck many people as odd, because you'd think that
language like this wouldn't accidentally materialize-- in precisely
constructed corporate-speak-- on a policy page "in error" or randomly.
Especially when PayPal has already more or less gone down this road before,
deplatforming account-holders for reasons similar to what this new policy
language spells out.
>
> This looks like a purposely intended attempt to control the thoughts, speech,
and actions of PayPal customers which blew up in the company's collective
face
and this claim of it being an error is mere spin and damage control.
>

>

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>A little less than a week before the midterm elections in
>>November, a new PayPal account update will take effect
>>that has sent the internet into an uproar-- and also drawn
>>condemnation from PayPal's former president David Marcus.
>>
>>PayPal is updating its acceptable use policy, with the
>>update taking effect on November 3. You might say to
>>yourself, well, I don't use my account with the financial
>>services company for anything improper or illegal, so what
>>do I have to worry about? Here's why that might not
>>necessarily be true:
>>
>>PayPal says it's expanding its existing list of prohibited
>>activities to include the "sending, posting, or
>>publication of messages, content, or materials that meet
>>certain criteria". The full details are explained in their
>>full policy document, but PayPal is basically set to start
>>levying a fine when users are found to have shared
>>"misinformation" or promoted content that’s deemed to be
>>"discriminatory" or "promoting hate".
>>
>>And you don't even have to be doing this 'bad stuff'
>>through your PayPal account. If they become aware of you
>>acting contrary to the Agenda *anywhere*, they reserve the
>>right to fine you. So, for example, if they catch you
>>posting something on Twitter that contradicts, criticizes,
>>or ridicules 'progressive' ideology, or it becomes public
>>knowledge that you attended a Trump event, or that you
>>donated to a pro-gun cause, and they know you have a
>>PayPal account, say goodbye to 2500 quatloos. And that's
>>2500 for each violation, so if they catch you doing all
>>three of those things, you're out 7500 smackeroos.
>>
>>Former PayPal president David Marcus, for his part,
>>described this new policy as "insanity". A tweet from him
>>on Saturday, October 8, reads in part: "A private company
>>now gets to decide to take your money if you say something
>>they disagree with."
>>
>>Venture capitalist David Sacks chimed in, in response to
>>Marcus: "Get your money out of PayPal right now."
>>
>>Elon Musk, an erstwhile member of the OG "PayPal Mafia",
>>also added his approval to Marcus' tweet, writing simply:
>>"Agreed."
>>
>>As word of this PayPal change began to spread over the
>>weekend, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr described what’s
>>happening here as "Orwellian".
>>
>>
>>UPDATE: After this article was published, PayPal released
>>a statement to media outlets insisting that the company
>>will not, in fact, fine users for the dissemination of
>>misinformation: "An AUP notice recently went out in error
>>that included incorrect information. PayPal is not fining
>>people for misinformation and this language was never
>>intended to be inserted in our policy. Our teams are
>>working to correct our policy pages. We're sorry for the
>>confusion this has caused."
>>
>>BUT: As of the time of this writing on October 11, the
>>language noted in the post above is nevertheless still
>>included in PayPal's user agreement here:
>>
>>
>>https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-
full?locale.x=en_US#restricted-activities
>>
>>The apology has also struck many people as odd, because
>>you'd think that language like this wouldn't accidentally
>>materialize-- in precisely constructed corporate-speak--
>>on a policy page "in error" or randomly. Especially when
>>PayPal has already more or less gone down this road
>>before, deplatforming account-holders for reasons similar
>>to what this new policy language spells out.
>>
>>This looks like a purposely intended attempt to control
>>the thoughts, speech, and actions of PayPal customers
>>which blew up in the company's collective face and this
>>claim of it being an error is mere spin and damage
>>control.
>
> Sound like the very definition of "error" to me, that they
> thought they could police their customers' thoughts. And
> they would have gotten away with it, too, if not for those
> meddling kids.

I read about this a few days ago in another newsgroup, and
it got me to thinking.

Could you imagine a similar thing happening with, say,
a bank, brokerage house, or even a retail store?

Suddenly your bank/brokerage balance is docked $X with a
notation that a comment you left on a webpage wasn't in
keeping with the bank/brokerage/store's opinion. (Or in
the store's case, an invoice appears with a Payment Due
notice or billed directly to your credit card on file).

Yeah, sure.

How fast would it be that the word spread and accounts at
that bank/brokerage/store were pulled and moved to another,
less intrusive bank/brokerage/store? Or that the SEC or
FTC jumps in with an investigation after complaints are
filed?

The whole thing stinks of fish.

Nyssa, who has a PayPal account with a zero balance and
hasn't used it in years, but doesn't worry since she doubts
the average PayPal employee has ever even heard of Usenet

Nyssa <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net> wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>> A little less than a week before the midterm elections in
>>> November, a new PayPal account update will take effect
>>> that has sent the internet into an uproar-- and also drawn
>>> condemnation from PayPal's former president David Marcus.
>>>
>>> PayPal is updating its acceptable use policy, with the
>>> update taking effect on November 3. You might say to
>>> yourself, well, I don't use my account with the financial
>>> services company for anything improper or illegal, so what
>>> do I have to worry about? Here's why that might not
>>> necessarily be true:
>>>
>>> PayPal says it's expanding its existing list of prohibited
>>> activities to include the "sending, posting, or
>>> publication of messages, content, or materials that meet
>>> certain criteria". The full details are explained in their
>>> full policy document, but PayPal is basically set to start
>>> levying a fine when users are found to have shared
>>> "misinformation" or promoted content that’s deemed to be
>>> "discriminatory" or "promoting hate".
>>>
>>> And you don't even have to be doing this 'bad stuff'
>>> through your PayPal account. If they become aware of you
>>> acting contrary to the Agenda *anywhere*, they reserve the
>>> right to fine you. So, for example, if they catch you
>>> posting something on Twitter that contradicts, criticizes,
>>> or ridicules 'progressive' ideology, or it becomes public
>>> knowledge that you attended a Trump event, or that you
>>> donated to a pro-gun cause, and they know you have a
>>> PayPal account, say goodbye to 2500 quatloos. And that's
>>> 2500 for each violation, so if they catch you doing all
>>> three of those things, you're out 7500 smackeroos.
>>>
>>> Former PayPal president David Marcus, for his part,
>>> described this new policy as "insanity". A tweet from him
>>> on Saturday, October 8, reads in part: "A private company
>>> now gets to decide to take your money if you say something
>>> they disagree with."
>>>
>>> Venture capitalist David Sacks chimed in, in response to
>>> Marcus: "Get your money out of PayPal right now."
>>>
>>> Elon Musk, an erstwhile member of the OG "PayPal Mafia",
>>> also added his approval to Marcus' tweet, writing simply:
>>> "Agreed."
>>>
>>> As word of this PayPal change began to spread over the
>>> weekend, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr described what’s
>>> happening here as "Orwellian".
>>>
>>>
>>> UPDATE: After this article was published, PayPal released
>>> a statement to media outlets insisting that the company
>>> will not, in fact, fine users for the dissemination of
>>> misinformation: "An AUP notice recently went out in error
>>> that included incorrect information. PayPal is not fining
>>> people for misinformation and this language was never
>>> intended to be inserted in our policy. Our teams are
>>> working to correct our policy pages. We're sorry for the
>>> confusion this has caused."
>>>
>>> BUT: As of the time of this writing on October 11, the
>>> language noted in the post above is nevertheless still
>>> included in PayPal's user agreement here:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-
> full?locale.x=en_US#restricted-activities
>>>
>>> The apology has also struck many people as odd, because
>>> you'd think that language like this wouldn't accidentally
>>> materialize-- in precisely constructed corporate-speak--
>>> on a policy page "in error" or randomly. Especially when
>>> PayPal has already more or less gone down this road
>>> before, deplatforming account-holders for reasons similar
>>> to what this new policy language spells out.
>>>
>>> This looks like a purposely intended attempt to control
>>> the thoughts, speech, and actions of PayPal customers
>>> which blew up in the company's collective face and this
>>> claim of it being an error is mere spin and damage
>>> control.
>>
>> Sound like the very definition of "error" to me, that they
>> thought they could police their customers' thoughts. And
>> they would have gotten away with it, too, if not for those
>> meddling kids.
>
> I read about this a few days ago in another newsgroup, and
> it got me to thinking.
>
> Could you imagine a similar thing happening with, say,
> a bank, brokerage house, or even a retail store?
>
> Suddenly your bank/brokerage balance is docked $X with a
> notation that a comment you left on a webpage wasn't in
> keeping with the bank/brokerage/store's opinion. (Or in
> the store's case, an invoice appears with a Payment Due
> notice or billed directly to your credit card on file).
>
> Yeah, sure.
>
> How fast would it be that the word spread and accounts at
> that bank/brokerage/store were pulled and moved to another,
> less intrusive bank/brokerage/store? Or that the SEC or
> FTC jumps in with an investigation after complaints are
> filed?
>
> The whole thing stinks of fish.
>
> Nyssa, who has a PayPal account with a zero balance and
> hasn't used it in years, but doesn't worry since she doubts
> the average PayPal employee has ever even heard of Usenet
>
>

I send money through PayPal but I send it directly through and through.
I’ve never understood why you would keep money in a PayPal account in the
first place.

I suspect if PayPal decides to reach out and bill my credit card for
Wrongspeak I’ll have a pretty good fraud case against them.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 10/12/2022 7:39 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Nyssa <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net> wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>
>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>> A little less than a week before the midterm elections in
>>>> November, a new PayPal account update will take effect
>>>> that has sent the internet into an uproar-- and also drawn
>>>> condemnation from PayPal's former president David Marcus.
>>>>
>>>> PayPal is updating its acceptable use policy, with the
>>>> update taking effect on November 3. You might say to
>>>> yourself, well, I don't use my account with the financial
>>>> services company for anything improper or illegal, so what
>>>> do I have to worry about? Here's why that might not
>>>> necessarily be true:
>>>>
>>>> PayPal says it's expanding its existing list of prohibited
>>>> activities to include the "sending, posting, or
>>>> publication of messages, content, or materials that meet
>>>> certain criteria". The full details are explained in their
>>>> full policy document, but PayPal is basically set to start
>>>> levying a fine when users are found to have shared
>>>> "misinformation" or promoted content that’s deemed to be
>>>> "discriminatory" or "promoting hate".
>>>>
>>>> And you don't even have to be doing this 'bad stuff'
>>>> through your PayPal account. If they become aware of you
>>>> acting contrary to the Agenda *anywhere*, they reserve the
>>>> right to fine you. So, for example, if they catch you
>>>> posting something on Twitter that contradicts, criticizes,
>>>> or ridicules 'progressive' ideology, or it becomes public
>>>> knowledge that you attended a Trump event, or that you
>>>> donated to a pro-gun cause, and they know you have a
>>>> PayPal account, say goodbye to 2500 quatloos. And that's
>>>> 2500 for each violation, so if they catch you doing all
>>>> three of those things, you're out 7500 smackeroos.
>>>>
>>>> Former PayPal president David Marcus, for his part,
>>>> described this new policy as "insanity". A tweet from him
>>>> on Saturday, October 8, reads in part: "A private company
>>>> now gets to decide to take your money if you say something
>>>> they disagree with."
>>>>
>>>> Venture capitalist David Sacks chimed in, in response to
>>>> Marcus: "Get your money out of PayPal right now."
>>>>
>>>> Elon Musk, an erstwhile member of the OG "PayPal Mafia",
>>>> also added his approval to Marcus' tweet, writing simply:
>>>> "Agreed."
>>>>
>>>> As word of this PayPal change began to spread over the
>>>> weekend, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr described what’s
>>>> happening here as "Orwellian".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> UPDATE: After this article was published, PayPal released
>>>> a statement to media outlets insisting that the company
>>>> will not, in fact, fine users for the dissemination of
>>>> misinformation: "An AUP notice recently went out in error
>>>> that included incorrect information. PayPal is not fining
>>>> people for misinformation and this language was never
>>>> intended to be inserted in our policy. Our teams are
>>>> working to correct our policy pages. We're sorry for the
>>>> confusion this has caused."
>>>>
>>>> BUT: As of the time of this writing on October 11, the
>>>> language noted in the post above is nevertheless still
>>>> included in PayPal's user agreement here:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-
>> full?locale.x=en_US#restricted-activities
>>>>
>>>> The apology has also struck many people as odd, because
>>>> you'd think that language like this wouldn't accidentally
>>>> materialize-- in precisely constructed corporate-speak--
>>>> on a policy page "in error" or randomly. Especially when
>>>> PayPal has already more or less gone down this road
>>>> before, deplatforming account-holders for reasons similar
>>>> to what this new policy language spells out.
>>>>
>>>> This looks like a purposely intended attempt to control
>>>> the thoughts, speech, and actions of PayPal customers
>>>> which blew up in the company's collective face and this
>>>> claim of it being an error is mere spin and damage
>>>> control.
>>>
>>> Sound like the very definition of "error" to me, that they
>>> thought they could police their customers' thoughts. And
>>> they would have gotten away with it, too, if not for those
>>> meddling kids.
>>
>> I read about this a few days ago in another newsgroup, and
>> it got me to thinking.
>>
>> Could you imagine a similar thing happening with, say,
>> a bank, brokerage house, or even a retail store?
>>
>> Suddenly your bank/brokerage balance is docked $X with a
>> notation that a comment you left on a webpage wasn't in
>> keeping with the bank/brokerage/store's opinion. (Or in
>> the store's case, an invoice appears with a Payment Due
>> notice or billed directly to your credit card on file).
>>
>> Yeah, sure.
>>
>> How fast would it be that the word spread and accounts at
>> that bank/brokerage/store were pulled and moved to another,
>> less intrusive bank/brokerage/store? Or that the SEC or
>> FTC jumps in with an investigation after complaints are
>> filed?
>>
>> The whole thing stinks of fish.
>>
>> Nyssa, who has a PayPal account with a zero balance and
>> hasn't used it in years, but doesn't worry since she doubts
>> the average PayPal employee has ever even heard of Usenet
>>
>>
>
> I send money through PayPal but I send it directly through and through.
> I’ve never understood why you would keep money in a PayPal account in the
> first place.

I suppose if you buy and sell online quite a bit.

> I suspect if PayPal decides to reach out and bill my credit card for
> Wrongspeak I’ll have a pretty good fraud case against them.
>

anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

>I send money through PayPal but I send it directly through and through.
>I've never understood why you would keep money in a PayPal account in the
>first place.

If the PayPal account has credits in it used for purchases, then that can
protect your main checking account or credit card number from being
revealed to the seller.

>I suspect if PayPal decides to reach out and bill my credit card for
>Wrongspeak I'll have a pretty good fraud case against them.

In article
<1287796912.687248961.365654.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

> > UPDATE: After this article was published, PayPal released a statement to
> > media outlets insisting that the company will not, in fact, fine users
> > for the dissemination of misinformation: "An AUP notice recently went out
> > in error that included incorrect information.
>
> Doesn't that mean they owe each of us $2500?

Heh. Of course not. Haven't you learned by now that these strutting
martinets never obey the same rules they would impose on everyone else?

On Oct 12, 2022 at 7:05:22 AM PDT, "Nyssa" <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net> wrote:

> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>> A little less than a week before the midterm elections in
>>> November, a new PayPal account update will take effect
>>> that has sent the internet into an uproar-- and also drawn
>>> condemnation from PayPal's former president David Marcus.
>>>
>>> PayPal is updating its acceptable use policy, with the
>>> update taking effect on November 3. You might say to
>>> yourself, well, I don't use my account with the financial
>>> services company for anything improper or illegal, so what
>>> do I have to worry about? Here's why that might not
>>> necessarily be true:
>>>
>>> PayPal says it's expanding its existing list of prohibited
>>> activities to include the "sending, posting, or
>>> publication of messages, content, or materials that meet
>>> certain criteria". The full details are explained in their
>>> full policy document, but PayPal is basically set to start
>>> levying a fine when users are found to have shared
>>> "misinformation" or promoted content that’s deemed to be
>>> "discriminatory" or "promoting hate".
>>>
>>> And you don't even have to be doing this 'bad stuff'
>>> through your PayPal account. If they become aware of you
>>> acting contrary to the Agenda *anywhere*, they reserve the
>>> right to fine you. So, for example, if they catch you
>>> posting something on Twitter that contradicts, criticizes,
>>> or ridicules 'progressive' ideology, or it becomes public
>>> knowledge that you attended a Trump event, or that you
>>> donated to a pro-gun cause, and they know you have a
>>> PayPal account, say goodbye to 2500 quatloos. And that's
>>> 2500 for each violation, so if they catch you doing all
>>> three of those things, you're out 7500 smackeroos.
>>>
>>> Former PayPal president David Marcus, for his part,
>>> described this new policy as "insanity". A tweet from him
>>> on Saturday, October 8, reads in part: "A private company
>>> now gets to decide to take your money if you say something
>>> they disagree with."
>>>
>>> Venture capitalist David Sacks chimed in, in response to
>>> Marcus: "Get your money out of PayPal right now."
>>>
>>> Elon Musk, an erstwhile member of the OG "PayPal Mafia",
>>> also added his approval to Marcus' tweet, writing simply:
>>> "Agreed."
>>>
>>> As word of this PayPal change began to spread over the
>>> weekend, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr described what's
>>> happening here as "Orwellian".
>>>
>>>
>>> UPDATE: After this article was published, PayPal released
>>> a statement to media outlets insisting that the company
>>> will not, in fact, fine users for the dissemination of
>>> misinformation: "An AUP notice recently went out in error
>>> that included incorrect information. PayPal is not fining
>>> people for misinformation and this language was never
>>> intended to be inserted in our policy. Our teams are
>>> working to correct our policy pages. We're sorry for the
>>> confusion this has caused."
>>>
>>> BUT: As of the time of this writing on October 11, the
>>> language noted in the post above is nevertheless still
>>> included in PayPal's user agreement here:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-
> full?locale.x=en_US#restricted-activities
>>>
>>> The apology has also struck many people as odd, because
>>> you'd think that language like this wouldn't accidentally
>>> materialize-- in precisely constructed corporate-speak--
>>> on a policy page "in error" or randomly. Especially when
>>> PayPal has already more or less gone down this road
>>> before, deplatforming account-holders for reasons similar
>>> to what this new policy language spells out.
>>>
>>> This looks like a purposely intended attempt to control
>>> the thoughts, speech, and actions of PayPal customers
>>> which blew up in the company's collective face and this
>>> claim of it being an error is mere spin and damage
>>> control.
>>
>> Sound like the very definition of "error" to me, that they
>> thought they could police their customers' thoughts. And
>> they would have gotten away with it, too, if not for those
>> meddling kids.
>
> I read about this a few days ago in another newsgroup, and
> it got me to thinking.
>
> Could you imagine a similar thing happening with, say,
> a bank, brokerage house, or even a retail store?
>
> Suddenly your bank/brokerage balance is docked $X with a
> notation that a comment you left on a webpage wasn't in
> keeping with the bank/brokerage/store's opinion. (Or in
> the store's case, an invoice appears with a Payment Due
> notice or billed directly to your credit card on file).

The way things are going, this could become a very real thing in the
not-to-distant future:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fbg198k2vola24i/BankPolice.png?dl=0

On 2022-10-12 1:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2022 at 7:05:22 AM PDT, "Nyssa" <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net> wrote:
>
>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>
>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>> A little less than a week before the midterm elections in
>>>> November, a new PayPal account update will take effect
>>>> that has sent the internet into an uproar-- and also drawn
>>>> condemnation from PayPal's former president David Marcus.
>>>>
>>>> PayPal is updating its acceptable use policy, with the
>>>> update taking effect on November 3. You might say to
>>>> yourself, well, I don't use my account with the financial
>>>> services company for anything improper or illegal, so what
>>>> do I have to worry about? Here's why that might not
>>>> necessarily be true:
>>>>
>>>> PayPal says it's expanding its existing list of prohibited
>>>> activities to include the "sending, posting, or
>>>> publication of messages, content, or materials that meet
>>>> certain criteria". The full details are explained in their
>>>> full policy document, but PayPal is basically set to start
>>>> levying a fine when users are found to have shared
>>>> "misinformation" or promoted content that’s deemed to be
>>>> "discriminatory" or "promoting hate".
>>>>
>>>> And you don't even have to be doing this 'bad stuff'
>>>> through your PayPal account. If they become aware of you
>>>> acting contrary to the Agenda *anywhere*, they reserve the
>>>> right to fine you. So, for example, if they catch you
>>>> posting something on Twitter that contradicts, criticizes,
>>>> or ridicules 'progressive' ideology, or it becomes public
>>>> knowledge that you attended a Trump event, or that you
>>>> donated to a pro-gun cause, and they know you have a
>>>> PayPal account, say goodbye to 2500 quatloos. And that's
>>>> 2500 for each violation, so if they catch you doing all
>>>> three of those things, you're out 7500 smackeroos.
>>>>
>>>> Former PayPal president David Marcus, for his part,
>>>> described this new policy as "insanity". A tweet from him
>>>> on Saturday, October 8, reads in part: "A private company
>>>> now gets to decide to take your money if you say something
>>>> they disagree with."
>>>>
>>>> Venture capitalist David Sacks chimed in, in response to
>>>> Marcus: "Get your money out of PayPal right now."
>>>>
>>>> Elon Musk, an erstwhile member of the OG "PayPal Mafia",
>>>> also added his approval to Marcus' tweet, writing simply:
>>>> "Agreed."
>>>>
>>>> As word of this PayPal change began to spread over the
>>>> weekend, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr described what's
>>>> happening here as "Orwellian".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> UPDATE: After this article was published, PayPal released
>>>> a statement to media outlets insisting that the company
>>>> will not, in fact, fine users for the dissemination of
>>>> misinformation: "An AUP notice recently went out in error
>>>> that included incorrect information. PayPal is not fining
>>>> people for misinformation and this language was never
>>>> intended to be inserted in our policy. Our teams are
>>>> working to correct our policy pages. We're sorry for the
>>>> confusion this has caused."
>>>>
>>>> BUT: As of the time of this writing on October 11, the
>>>> language noted in the post above is nevertheless still
>>>> included in PayPal's user agreement here:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-
>> full?locale.x=en_US#restricted-activities
>>>>
>>>> The apology has also struck many people as odd, because
>>>> you'd think that language like this wouldn't accidentally
>>>> materialize-- in precisely constructed corporate-speak--
>>>> on a policy page "in error" or randomly. Especially when
>>>> PayPal has already more or less gone down this road
>>>> before, deplatforming account-holders for reasons similar
>>>> to what this new policy language spells out.
>>>>
>>>> This looks like a purposely intended attempt to control
>>>> the thoughts, speech, and actions of PayPal customers
>>>> which blew up in the company's collective face and this
>>>> claim of it being an error is mere spin and damage
>>>> control.
>>>
>>> Sound like the very definition of "error" to me, that they
>>> thought they could police their customers' thoughts. And
>>> they would have gotten away with it, too, if not for those
>>> meddling kids.
>>
>> I read about this a few days ago in another newsgroup, and
>> it got me to thinking.
>>
>> Could you imagine a similar thing happening with, say,
>> a bank, brokerage house, or even a retail store?
>>
>> Suddenly your bank/brokerage balance is docked $X with a
>> notation that a comment you left on a webpage wasn't in
>> keeping with the bank/brokerage/store's opinion. (Or in
>> the store's case, an invoice appears with a Payment Due
>> notice or billed directly to your credit card on file).
>
> The way things are going, this could become a very real thing in the
> not-to-distant future:
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/fbg198k2vola24i/BankPolice.png?dl=0
>
>
What do you mean "in the not-too-distant future"? As I understand it,
that's how China works TODAY!

The thing that baffles me the most here is how PayPal came to the
conclusion, even momentarily, that they were entitled to collect a fine
from you over something you said in some other part of your life? As far
as I can see, they *might* have some entitlement to react if you said
something abusive to *THEM* to the point where they might want to drop
you as a customer, but how on earth do they reckon themselves entitled
to a serious chunk of change for some remark made to or about a third
party?

That makes no sense at all that I can see. It would be like me visiting
Portugal, calling some guy there a jackass to his face for trying to
overcharge me on a cab ride that I was paying in cash, and then my bank
declaring that it was fining me $2500 for my words. I don't see any
justification for that whatsoever.

--
Rhino

On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 05:41:31 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:

>> UPDATE: After this article was published, PayPal released a statement to media
>outlets insisting that the company will not, in fact, fine users for the
>dissemination of misinformation: "An AUP notice recently went out in error
>that included incorrect information.

So how can one safely be assured that they will not subsequently say
"Oh we had our fingers crossed when we made that statemet"?

In article <ti710h$1i91o$1@dont-email.me>,
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

> On 2022-10-12 1:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > On Oct 12, 2022 at 7:05:22 AM PDT, "Nyssa" <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net> wrote:

> >> Could you imagine a similar thing happening with, say,
> >> a bank, brokerage house, or even a retail store?
> >>
> >> Suddenly your bank/brokerage balance is docked $X with a
> >> notation that a comment you left on a webpage wasn't in
> >> keeping with the bank/brokerage/store's opinion. (Or in
> >> the store's case, an invoice appears with a Payment Due
> >> notice or billed directly to your credit card on file).
> >
> > The way things are going, this could become a very real thing in the
> > not-to-distant future:
> >
> > https://www.dropbox.com/s/fbg198k2vola24i/BankPolice.png?dl=0
> >
> >
> What do you mean "in the not-too-distant future"? As I understand it,
> that's how China works TODAY!
>
> The thing that baffles me the most here is how PayPal came to the
> conclusion, even momentarily, that they were entitled to collect a fine
> from you over something you said in some other part of your life? As far
> as I can see, they *might* have some entitlement to react if you said
> something abusive to *THEM* to the point where they might want to drop
> you as a customer, but how on earth do they reckon themselves entitled
> to a serious chunk of change for some remark made to or about a third
> party?

Twitter does the same thing (without the fines, of course). They'll suspend or cancel your account for things you do or say elsewhere in your life. People have had their Twitter accounts blocked for YouTube videos they made. Ben Shapiro's account was suspended for a speech he gave at a university. J.K. Rowling was put in Twitter jail for saying a man isn't a woman in a British TV interview. Twitter believes it has the moral authority to police the entire lives of its users.

> BTR1701
>
> UPDATE: After this article was published, PayPal released a statement to media
> outlets insisting that the company will not, in fact, fine users for the
> dissemination of misinformation: "An AUP notice recently went out in error
> that included incorrect information. PayPal is not fining people for
> misinformation and this language was never intended to be inserted in our
> policy. Our teams are working to correct our policy pages. We're sorry for the
> confusion this has caused."
>
> BUT: As of the time of this writing on October 11, the language noted in the
> post above is nevertheless still included in PayPal's user agreement here:
>
> https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full?locale.x=en_US#restricted-activities

I've only used PayPal once, several years back for a purchase off eBay where the seller
would only accept payment via PayPal but I just went to their website and canceled my
still active account (which had no money in it) and saw their groveling bullshit apology.

(Also, do you have a link to the article in the OP?)

Absolutely insane how governments and now corporations feel they can openly censor
and control people and it's only going to get worse, as currently teenage woketards grow
up accepting this kinda shit as normal and proper (until it bites them on the ass).

https://i.postimg.cc/MKwhRYvM/Social-Credit-System.jpg

Hopefully I'll be dead before the shit really hits the fan.

On 10/12/2022 8:14 AM, suzeeq wrote:
> On 10/12/2022 7:39 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> Nyssa <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net> wrote:
>>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>
>>>> BTR1701  <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>> A little less than a week before the midterm elections in
>>>>> November, a new PayPal account update will take effect
>>>>> that has sent the internet into an uproar-- and also drawn
>>>>> condemnation from PayPal's former president David Marcus.
>>>>>
>>>>> PayPal is updating its acceptable use policy, with the
>>>>> update taking effect on November 3. You might say to
>>>>> yourself, well, I don't use my account with the financial
>>>>> services company for anything improper or illegal, so what
>>>>> do I have to worry about? Here's why that might not
>>>>> necessarily be true:
>>>>>
>>>>> PayPal says it's expanding its existing list of prohibited
>>>>> activities to include the "sending, posting, or
>>>>> publication of messages, content, or materials that meet
>>>>> certain criteria". The full details are explained in their
>>>>> full policy document, but PayPal is basically set to start
>>>>> levying a fine when users are found to have shared
>>>>> "misinformation" or promoted content that’s deemed to be
>>>>> "discriminatory" or "promoting hate".
>>>>>
>>>>> And you don't even have to be doing this 'bad stuff'
>>>>> through your PayPal account. If they become aware of you
>>>>> acting contrary to the Agenda *anywhere*, they reserve the
>>>>> right to fine you. So, for example, if they catch you
>>>>> posting something on Twitter that contradicts, criticizes,
>>>>> or ridicules 'progressive' ideology, or it becomes public
>>>>> knowledge that you attended a Trump event, or that you
>>>>> donated to a pro-gun cause, and they know you have a
>>>>> PayPal account, say goodbye to 2500 quatloos. And that's
>>>>> 2500 for each violation, so if they catch you doing all
>>>>> three of those things, you're out 7500 smackeroos.
>>>>>
>>>>> Former PayPal president David Marcus, for his part,
>>>>> described this new policy as "insanity". A tweet from him
>>>>> on Saturday, October 8, reads in part: "A private company
>>>>> now gets to decide to take your money if you say something
>>>>> they disagree with."
>>>>>
>>>>> Venture capitalist David Sacks chimed in, in response to
>>>>> Marcus: "Get your money out of PayPal right now."
>>>>>
>>>>> Elon Musk, an erstwhile member of the OG "PayPal Mafia",
>>>>> also added his approval to Marcus' tweet, writing simply:
>>>>> "Agreed."
>>>>>
>>>>> As word of this PayPal change began to spread over the
>>>>> weekend, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr described what’s
>>>>> happening here as "Orwellian".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> UPDATE: After this article was published, PayPal released
>>>>> a statement to media outlets insisting that the company
>>>>> will not, in fact, fine users for the dissemination of
>>>>> misinformation: "An AUP notice recently went out in error
>>>>> that included incorrect information. PayPal is not fining
>>>>> people for misinformation and this language was never
>>>>> intended to be inserted in our policy. Our teams are
>>>>> working to correct our policy pages. We're sorry for the
>>>>> confusion this has caused."
>>>>>
>>>>> BUT: As of the time of this writing on October 11, the
>>>>> language noted in the post above is nevertheless still
>>>>> included in PayPal's user agreement here:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-
>>> full?locale.x=en_US#restricted-activities
>>>>>
>>>>> The apology has also struck many people as odd, because
>>>>> you'd think that language like this wouldn't accidentally
>>>>> materialize-- in precisely constructed corporate-speak--
>>>>> on a policy page "in error" or randomly. Especially when
>>>>> PayPal has already more or less gone down this road
>>>>> before, deplatforming account-holders for reasons similar
>>>>> to what this new policy language spells out.
>>>>>
>>>>> This looks like a purposely intended attempt to control
>>>>> the thoughts, speech, and actions of PayPal customers
>>>>> which blew up in the company's collective face and this
>>>>> claim of it being an error is mere spin and damage
>>>>> control.
>>>>
>>>> Sound like the very definition of "error" to me, that they
>>>> thought they could police their customers' thoughts. And
>>>> they would have gotten away with it, too, if not for those
>>>> meddling kids.
>>>
>>> I read about this a few days ago in another newsgroup, and
>>> it got me to thinking.
>>>
>>> Could you imagine a similar thing happening with, say,
>>> a bank, brokerage house, or even a retail store?
>>>
>>> Suddenly your bank/brokerage balance is docked $X with a
>>> notation that a comment you left on a webpage wasn't in
>>> keeping with the bank/brokerage/store's opinion. (Or in
>>> the store's case, an invoice appears with a Payment Due
>>> notice or billed directly to your credit card on file).
>>>
>>> Yeah, sure.
>>>
>>> How fast would it be that the word spread and accounts at
>>> that bank/brokerage/store were pulled and moved to another,
>>> less intrusive bank/brokerage/store? Or that the SEC or
>>> FTC jumps in with an investigation after complaints are
>>> filed?
>>>
>>> The whole thing stinks of fish.
>>>
>>> Nyssa, who has a PayPal account with a zero balance and
>>> hasn't used it in years, but doesn't worry since she doubts
>>> the average PayPal employee has ever even heard of Usenet
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I send money through PayPal but I send it directly through and through.
>> I’ve never understood why you would keep money in a PayPal account in the
>> first place.
>
> I suppose if you buy and sell online quite a bit.
>
My landlord requires the rent be payed thru PayPal.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 2022-10-12 3:34 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <ti710h$1i91o$1@dont-email.me>,
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-10-12 1:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Oct 12, 2022 at 7:05:22 AM PDT, "Nyssa" <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net> wrote:
>
>>>> Could you imagine a similar thing happening with, say,
>>>> a bank, brokerage house, or even a retail store?
>>>>
>>>> Suddenly your bank/brokerage balance is docked $X with a
>>>> notation that a comment you left on a webpage wasn't in
>>>> keeping with the bank/brokerage/store's opinion. (Or in
>>>> the store's case, an invoice appears with a Payment Due
>>>> notice or billed directly to your credit card on file).
>>>
>>> The way things are going, this could become a very real thing in the
>>> not-to-distant future:
>>>
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/fbg198k2vola24i/BankPolice.png?dl=0
>>>
>>>
>> What do you mean "in the not-too-distant future"? As I understand it,
>> that's how China works TODAY!
>>
>> The thing that baffles me the most here is how PayPal came to the
>> conclusion, even momentarily, that they were entitled to collect a fine
>> from you over something you said in some other part of your life? As far
>> as I can see, they *might* have some entitlement to react if you said
>> something abusive to *THEM* to the point where they might want to drop
>> you as a customer, but how on earth do they reckon themselves entitled
>> to a serious chunk of change for some remark made to or about a third
>> party?
>
> Twitter does the same thing (without the fines, of course). They'll suspend or cancel your account for things you do or say elsewhere in your life. People have had their Twitter accounts blocked for YouTube videos they made. Ben Shapiro's account was suspended for a speech he gave at a university. J.K. Rowling was put in Twitter jail for saying a man isn't a woman in a British TV interview. Twitter believes it has the moral authority to police the entire lives of its users.

I thought PayPal was taking a giant step beyond anything that anyone
(outside of China) had ever done before but you're right: Twitter beat
them to it, at least in the sense of sanctioning people for things
they'd done outside of Twitter. PayPal's innovation was only to cash in
on the thoughtcrime instead of just wagging the proverbial finger at the
offender.

--
Rhino

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>On 10/12/2022 8:14 AM, suzeeq wrote:
>> On 10/12/2022 7:39 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>> Nyssa <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net> wrote:
>>>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> BTR1701  <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>> A little less than a week before the midterm elections in
>>>>>> November, a new PayPal account update will take effect
>>>>>> that has sent the internet into an uproar-- and also drawn
>>>>>> condemnation from PayPal's former president David Marcus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PayPal is updating its acceptable use policy, with the
>>>>>> update taking effect on November 3. You might say to
>>>>>> yourself, well, I don't use my account with the financial
>>>>>> services company for anything improper or illegal, so what
>>>>>> do I have to worry about? Here's why that might not
>>>>>> necessarily be true:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PayPal says it's expanding its existing list of prohibited
>>>>>> activities to include the "sending, posting, or
>>>>>> publication of messages, content, or materials that meet
>>>>>> certain criteria". The full details are explained in their
>>>>>> full policy document, but PayPal is basically set to start
>>>>>> levying a fine when users are found to have shared
>>>>>> "misinformation" or promoted content that’s deemed to be
>>>>>> "discriminatory" or "promoting hate".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you don't even have to be doing this 'bad stuff'
>>>>>> through your PayPal account. If they become aware of you
>>>>>> acting contrary to the Agenda *anywhere*, they reserve the
>>>>>> right to fine you. So, for example, if they catch you
>>>>>> posting something on Twitter that contradicts, criticizes,
>>>>>> or ridicules 'progressive' ideology, or it becomes public
>>>>>> knowledge that you attended a Trump event, or that you
>>>>>> donated to a pro-gun cause, and they know you have a
>>>>>> PayPal account, say goodbye to 2500 quatloos. And that's
>>>>>> 2500 for each violation, so if they catch you doing all
>>>>>> three of those things, you're out 7500 smackeroos.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Former PayPal president David Marcus, for his part,
>>>>>> described this new policy as "insanity". A tweet from him
>>>>>> on Saturday, October 8, reads in part: "A private company
>>>>>> now gets to decide to take your money if you say something
>>>>>> they disagree with."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Venture capitalist David Sacks chimed in, in response to
>>>>>> Marcus: "Get your money out of PayPal right now."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Elon Musk, an erstwhile member of the OG "PayPal Mafia",
>>>>>> also added his approval to Marcus' tweet, writing simply:
>>>>>> "Agreed."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As word of this PayPal change began to spread over the
>>>>>> weekend, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr described what’s
>>>>>> happening here as "Orwellian".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> UPDATE: After this article was published, PayPal released
>>>>>> a statement to media outlets insisting that the company
>>>>>> will not, in fact, fine users for the dissemination of
>>>>>> misinformation: "An AUP notice recently went out in error
>>>>>> that included incorrect information. PayPal is not fining
>>>>>> people for misinformation and this language was never
>>>>>> intended to be inserted in our policy. Our teams are
>>>>>> working to correct our policy pages. We're sorry for the
>>>>>> confusion this has caused."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BUT: As of the time of this writing on October 11, the
>>>>>> language noted in the post above is nevertheless still
>>>>>> included in PayPal's user agreement here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-
>>>> full?locale.x=en_US#restricted-activities
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The apology has also struck many people as odd, because
>>>>>> you'd think that language like this wouldn't accidentally
>>>>>> materialize-- in precisely constructed corporate-speak--
>>>>>> on a policy page "in error" or randomly. Especially when
>>>>>> PayPal has already more or less gone down this road
>>>>>> before, deplatforming account-holders for reasons similar
>>>>>> to what this new policy language spells out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This looks like a purposely intended attempt to control
>>>>>> the thoughts, speech, and actions of PayPal customers
>>>>>> which blew up in the company's collective face and this
>>>>>> claim of it being an error is mere spin and damage
>>>>>> control.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sound like the very definition of "error" to me, that they
>>>>> thought they could police their customers' thoughts. And
>>>>> they would have gotten away with it, too, if not for those
>>>>> meddling kids.
>>>>
>>>> I read about this a few days ago in another newsgroup, and
>>>> it got me to thinking.
>>>>
>>>> Could you imagine a similar thing happening with, say,
>>>> a bank, brokerage house, or even a retail store?
>>>>
>>>> Suddenly your bank/brokerage balance is docked $X with a
>>>> notation that a comment you left on a webpage wasn't in
>>>> keeping with the bank/brokerage/store's opinion. (Or in
>>>> the store's case, an invoice appears with a Payment Due
>>>> notice or billed directly to your credit card on file).
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, sure.
>>>>
>>>> How fast would it be that the word spread and accounts at
>>>> that bank/brokerage/store were pulled and moved to another,
>>>> less intrusive bank/brokerage/store? Or that the SEC or
>>>> FTC jumps in with an investigation after complaints are
>>>> filed?
>>>>
>>>> The whole thing stinks of fish.
>>>>
>>>> Nyssa, who has a PayPal account with a zero balance and
>>>> hasn't used it in years, but doesn't worry since she doubts
>>>> the average PayPal employee has ever even heard of Usenet
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I send money through PayPal but I send it directly through and through.
>>> I’ve never understood why you would keep money in a PayPal account in the
>>> first place.
>>
>> I suppose if you buy and sell online quite a bit.
>>
>My landlord requires the rent be payed thru PayPal.

Pay in nickels next time. Or singles. He cannot refuse currency.

> Dimensional Traveler
> > suzeeq
> >
> > I suppose if you buy and sell online quite a bit.
>
> My landlord requires the rent be payed thru PayPal.

Wouldn't PayPal's bullshit free speech "fines" violate
some kinda equal housing regulations, putting both
PayPal and the landlord in trouble?

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2022 at 7:05:22 AM PDT, "Nyssa" <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net> wrote:
>
>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>
>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>> A little less than a week before the midterm elections in
>>>> November, a new PayPal account update will take effect
>>>> that has sent the internet into an uproar-- and also drawn
>>>> condemnation from PayPal's former president David Marcus.
>>>>
>>>> PayPal is updating its acceptable use policy, with the
>>>> update taking effect on November 3. You might say to
>>>> yourself, well, I don't use my account with the financial
>>>> services company for anything improper or illegal, so what
>>>> do I have to worry about? Here's why that might not
>>>> necessarily be true:
>>>>
>>>> PayPal says it's expanding its existing list of prohibited
>>>> activities to include the "sending, posting, or
>>>> publication of messages, content, or materials that meet
>>>> certain criteria". The full details are explained in their
>>>> full policy document, but PayPal is basically set to start
>>>> levying a fine when users are found to have shared
>>>> "misinformation" or promoted content that’s deemed to be
>>>> "discriminatory" or "promoting hate".
>>>>
>>>> And you don't even have to be doing this 'bad stuff'
>>>> through your PayPal account. If they become aware of you
>>>> acting contrary to the Agenda *anywhere*, they reserve the
>>>> right to fine you. So, for example, if they catch you
>>>> posting something on Twitter that contradicts, criticizes,
>>>> or ridicules 'progressive' ideology, or it becomes public
>>>> knowledge that you attended a Trump event, or that you
>>>> donated to a pro-gun cause, and they know you have a
>>>> PayPal account, say goodbye to 2500 quatloos. And that's
>>>> 2500 for each violation, so if they catch you doing all
>>>> three of those things, you're out 7500 smackeroos.
>>>>
>>>> Former PayPal president David Marcus, for his part,
>>>> described this new policy as "insanity". A tweet from him
>>>> on Saturday, October 8, reads in part: "A private company
>>>> now gets to decide to take your money if you say something
>>>> they disagree with."
>>>>
>>>> Venture capitalist David Sacks chimed in, in response to
>>>> Marcus: "Get your money out of PayPal right now."
>>>>
>>>> Elon Musk, an erstwhile member of the OG "PayPal Mafia",
>>>> also added his approval to Marcus' tweet, writing simply:
>>>> "Agreed."
>>>>
>>>> As word of this PayPal change began to spread over the
>>>> weekend, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr described what's
>>>> happening here as "Orwellian".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> UPDATE: After this article was published, PayPal released
>>>> a statement to media outlets insisting that the company
>>>> will not, in fact, fine users for the dissemination of
>>>> misinformation: "An AUP notice recently went out in error
>>>> that included incorrect information. PayPal is not fining
>>>> people for misinformation and this language was never
>>>> intended to be inserted in our policy. Our teams are
>>>> working to correct our policy pages. We're sorry for the
>>>> confusion this has caused."
>>>>
>>>> BUT: As of the time of this writing on October 11, the
>>>> language noted in the post above is nevertheless still
>>>> included in PayPal's user agreement here:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-
>> full?locale.x=en_US#restricted-activities
>>>>
>>>> The apology has also struck many people as odd, because
>>>> you'd think that language like this wouldn't accidentally
>>>> materialize-- in precisely constructed corporate-speak--
>>>> on a policy page "in error" or randomly. Especially when
>>>> PayPal has already more or less gone down this road
>>>> before, deplatforming account-holders for reasons similar
>>>> to what this new policy language spells out.
>>>>
>>>> This looks like a purposely intended attempt to control
>>>> the thoughts, speech, and actions of PayPal customers
>>>> which blew up in the company's collective face and this
>>>> claim of it being an error is mere spin and damage
>>>> control.
>>>
>>> Sound like the very definition of "error" to me, that they
>>> thought they could police their customers' thoughts. And
>>> they would have gotten away with it, too, if not for those
>>> meddling kids.
>>
>> I read about this a few days ago in another newsgroup, and
>> it got me to thinking.
>>
>> Could you imagine a similar thing happening with, say,
>> a bank, brokerage house, or even a retail store?
>>
>> Suddenly your bank/brokerage balance is docked $X with a
>> notation that a comment you left on a webpage wasn't in
>> keeping with the bank/brokerage/store's opinion. (Or in
>> the store's case, an invoice appears with a Payment Due
>> notice or billed directly to your credit card on file).
>
> The way things are going, this could become a very real thing in the
not-to-distant future:
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/fbg198k2vola24i/BankPolice.png?dl=0
>

What if you use some bank that’s nothing but hate, like Bank of America?

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
> On 2022-10-12 1:43 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> On Oct 12, 2022 at 7:05:22 AM PDT, "Nyssa" <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>
>>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>> A little less than a week before the midterm elections in
>>>>> November, a new PayPal account update will take effect
>>>>> that has sent the internet into an uproar-- and also drawn
>>>>> condemnation from PayPal's former president David Marcus.
>>>>>
>>>>> PayPal is updating its acceptable use policy, with the
>>>>> update taking effect on November 3. You might say to
>>>>> yourself, well, I don't use my account with the financial
>>>>> services company for anything improper or illegal, so what
>>>>> do I have to worry about? Here's why that might not
>>>>> necessarily be true:
>>>>>
>>>>> PayPal says it's expanding its existing list of prohibited
>>>>> activities to include the "sending, posting, or
>>>>> publication of messages, content, or materials that meet
>>>>> certain criteria". The full details are explained in their
>>>>> full policy document, but PayPal is basically set to start
>>>>> levying a fine when users are found to have shared
>>>>> "misinformation" or promoted content that’s deemed to be
>>>>> "discriminatory" or "promoting hate".
>>>>>
>>>>> And you don't even have to be doing this 'bad stuff'
>>>>> through your PayPal account. If they become aware of you
>>>>> acting contrary to the Agenda *anywhere*, they reserve the
>>>>> right to fine you. So, for example, if they catch you
>>>>> posting something on Twitter that contradicts, criticizes,
>>>>> or ridicules 'progressive' ideology, or it becomes public
>>>>> knowledge that you attended a Trump event, or that you
>>>>> donated to a pro-gun cause, and they know you have a
>>>>> PayPal account, say goodbye to 2500 quatloos. And that's
>>>>> 2500 for each violation, so if they catch you doing all
>>>>> three of those things, you're out 7500 smackeroos.
>>>>>
>>>>> Former PayPal president David Marcus, for his part,
>>>>> described this new policy as "insanity". A tweet from him
>>>>> on Saturday, October 8, reads in part: "A private company
>>>>> now gets to decide to take your money if you say something
>>>>> they disagree with."
>>>>>
>>>>> Venture capitalist David Sacks chimed in, in response to
>>>>> Marcus: "Get your money out of PayPal right now."
>>>>>
>>>>> Elon Musk, an erstwhile member of the OG "PayPal Mafia",
>>>>> also added his approval to Marcus' tweet, writing simply:
>>>>> "Agreed."
>>>>>
>>>>> As word of this PayPal change began to spread over the
>>>>> weekend, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr described what's
>>>>> happening here as "Orwellian".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> UPDATE: After this article was published, PayPal released
>>>>> a statement to media outlets insisting that the company
>>>>> will not, in fact, fine users for the dissemination of
>>>>> misinformation: "An AUP notice recently went out in error
>>>>> that included incorrect information. PayPal is not fining
>>>>> people for misinformation and this language was never
>>>>> intended to be inserted in our policy. Our teams are
>>>>> working to correct our policy pages. We're sorry for the
>>>>> confusion this has caused."
>>>>>
>>>>> BUT: As of the time of this writing on October 11, the
>>>>> language noted in the post above is nevertheless still
>>>>> included in PayPal's user agreement here:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-
>>> full?locale.x=en_US#restricted-activities
>>>>>
>>>>> The apology has also struck many people as odd, because
>>>>> you'd think that language like this wouldn't accidentally
>>>>> materialize-- in precisely constructed corporate-speak--
>>>>> on a policy page "in error" or randomly. Especially when
>>>>> PayPal has already more or less gone down this road
>>>>> before, deplatforming account-holders for reasons similar
>>>>> to what this new policy language spells out.
>>>>>
>>>>> This looks like a purposely intended attempt to control
>>>>> the thoughts, speech, and actions of PayPal customers
>>>>> which blew up in the company's collective face and this
>>>>> claim of it being an error is mere spin and damage
>>>>> control.
>>>>
>>>> Sound like the very definition of "error" to me, that they
>>>> thought they could police their customers' thoughts. And
>>>> they would have gotten away with it, too, if not for those
>>>> meddling kids.
>>>
>>> I read about this a few days ago in another newsgroup, and
>>> it got me to thinking.
>>>
>>> Could you imagine a similar thing happening with, say,
>>> a bank, brokerage house, or even a retail store?
>>>
>>> Suddenly your bank/brokerage balance is docked $X with a
>>> notation that a comment you left on a webpage wasn't in
>>> keeping with the bank/brokerage/store's opinion. (Or in
>>> the store's case, an invoice appears with a Payment Due
>>> notice or billed directly to your credit card on file).
>>
>> The way things are going, this could become a very real thing in the
>> not-to-distant future:
>>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/fbg198k2vola24i/BankPolice.png?dl=0
>>
>>
> What do you mean "in the not-too-distant future"?

Next Sunday A.D.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
> On 10/12/2022 8:14 AM, suzeeq wrote:
>> On 10/12/2022 7:39 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>> Nyssa <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net> wrote:
>>>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> BTR1701  <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>> A little less than a week before the midterm elections in
>>>>>> November, a new PayPal account update will take effect
>>>>>> that has sent the internet into an uproar-- and also drawn
>>>>>> condemnation from PayPal's former president David Marcus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PayPal is updating its acceptable use policy, with the
>>>>>> update taking effect on November 3. You might say to
>>>>>> yourself, well, I don't use my account with the financial
>>>>>> services company for anything improper or illegal, so what
>>>>>> do I have to worry about? Here's why that might not
>>>>>> necessarily be true:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PayPal says it's expanding its existing list of prohibited
>>>>>> activities to include the "sending, posting, or
>>>>>> publication of messages, content, or materials that meet
>>>>>> certain criteria". The full details are explained in their
>>>>>> full policy document, but PayPal is basically set to start
>>>>>> levying a fine when users are found to have shared
>>>>>> "misinformation" or promoted content that’s deemed to be
>>>>>> "discriminatory" or "promoting hate".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you don't even have to be doing this 'bad stuff'
>>>>>> through your PayPal account. If they become aware of you
>>>>>> acting contrary to the Agenda *anywhere*, they reserve the
>>>>>> right to fine you. So, for example, if they catch you
>>>>>> posting something on Twitter that contradicts, criticizes,
>>>>>> or ridicules 'progressive' ideology, or it becomes public
>>>>>> knowledge that you attended a Trump event, or that you
>>>>>> donated to a pro-gun cause, and they know you have a
>>>>>> PayPal account, say goodbye to 2500 quatloos. And that's
>>>>>> 2500 for each violation, so if they catch you doing all
>>>>>> three of those things, you're out 7500 smackeroos.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Former PayPal president David Marcus, for his part,
>>>>>> described this new policy as "insanity". A tweet from him
>>>>>> on Saturday, October 8, reads in part: "A private company
>>>>>> now gets to decide to take your money if you say something
>>>>>> they disagree with."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Venture capitalist David Sacks chimed in, in response to
>>>>>> Marcus: "Get your money out of PayPal right now."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Elon Musk, an erstwhile member of the OG "PayPal Mafia",
>>>>>> also added his approval to Marcus' tweet, writing simply:
>>>>>> "Agreed."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As word of this PayPal change began to spread over the
>>>>>> weekend, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr described what’s
>>>>>> happening here as "Orwellian".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> UPDATE: After this article was published, PayPal released
>>>>>> a statement to media outlets insisting that the company
>>>>>> will not, in fact, fine users for the dissemination of
>>>>>> misinformation: "An AUP notice recently went out in error
>>>>>> that included incorrect information. PayPal is not fining
>>>>>> people for misinformation and this language was never
>>>>>> intended to be inserted in our policy. Our teams are
>>>>>> working to correct our policy pages. We're sorry for the
>>>>>> confusion this has caused."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BUT: As of the time of this writing on October 11, the
>>>>>> language noted in the post above is nevertheless still
>>>>>> included in PayPal's user agreement here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-
>>>> full?locale.x=en_US#restricted-activities
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The apology has also struck many people as odd, because
>>>>>> you'd think that language like this wouldn't accidentally
>>>>>> materialize-- in precisely constructed corporate-speak--
>>>>>> on a policy page "in error" or randomly. Especially when
>>>>>> PayPal has already more or less gone down this road
>>>>>> before, deplatforming account-holders for reasons similar
>>>>>> to what this new policy language spells out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This looks like a purposely intended attempt to control
>>>>>> the thoughts, speech, and actions of PayPal customers
>>>>>> which blew up in the company's collective face and this
>>>>>> claim of it being an error is mere spin and damage
>>>>>> control.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sound like the very definition of "error" to me, that they
>>>>> thought they could police their customers' thoughts. And
>>>>> they would have gotten away with it, too, if not for those
>>>>> meddling kids.
>>>>
>>>> I read about this a few days ago in another newsgroup, and
>>>> it got me to thinking.
>>>>
>>>> Could you imagine a similar thing happening with, say,
>>>> a bank, brokerage house, or even a retail store?
>>>>
>>>> Suddenly your bank/brokerage balance is docked $X with a
>>>> notation that a comment you left on a webpage wasn't in
>>>> keeping with the bank/brokerage/store's opinion. (Or in
>>>> the store's case, an invoice appears with a Payment Due
>>>> notice or billed directly to your credit card on file).
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, sure.
>>>>
>>>> How fast would it be that the word spread and accounts at
>>>> that bank/brokerage/store were pulled and moved to another,
>>>> less intrusive bank/brokerage/store? Or that the SEC or
>>>> FTC jumps in with an investigation after complaints are
>>>> filed?
>>>>
>>>> The whole thing stinks of fish.
>>>>
>>>> Nyssa, who has a PayPal account with a zero balance and
>>>> hasn't used it in years, but doesn't worry since she doubts
>>>> the average PayPal employee has ever even heard of Usenet
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I send money through PayPal but I send it directly through and through.
>>> I’ve never understood why you would keep money in a PayPal account in the
>>> first place.
>>
>> I suppose if you buy and sell online quite a bit.
>>
> My landlord requires the rent be payed thru PayPal.
>

I had to pay my office movers using PayPal.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 2022-10-12 4:40 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 10/12/2022 8:14 AM, suzeeq wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2022 7:39 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>> Nyssa <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net> wrote:
>>>>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> BTR1701  <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> A little less than a week before the midterm elections in
>>>>>>> November, a new PayPal account update will take effect
>>>>>>> that has sent the internet into an uproar-- and also drawn
>>>>>>> condemnation from PayPal's former president David Marcus.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PayPal is updating its acceptable use policy, with the
>>>>>>> update taking effect on November 3. You might say to
>>>>>>> yourself, well, I don't use my account with the financial
>>>>>>> services company for anything improper or illegal, so what
>>>>>>> do I have to worry about? Here's why that might not
>>>>>>> necessarily be true:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PayPal says it's expanding its existing list of prohibited
>>>>>>> activities to include the "sending, posting, or
>>>>>>> publication of messages, content, or materials that meet
>>>>>>> certain criteria". The full details are explained in their
>>>>>>> full policy document, but PayPal is basically set to start
>>>>>>> levying a fine when users are found to have shared
>>>>>>> "misinformation" or promoted content that’s deemed to be
>>>>>>> "discriminatory" or "promoting hate".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you don't even have to be doing this 'bad stuff'
>>>>>>> through your PayPal account. If they become aware of you
>>>>>>> acting contrary to the Agenda *anywhere*, they reserve the
>>>>>>> right to fine you. So, for example, if they catch you
>>>>>>> posting something on Twitter that contradicts, criticizes,
>>>>>>> or ridicules 'progressive' ideology, or it becomes public
>>>>>>> knowledge that you attended a Trump event, or that you
>>>>>>> donated to a pro-gun cause, and they know you have a
>>>>>>> PayPal account, say goodbye to 2500 quatloos. And that's
>>>>>>> 2500 for each violation, so if they catch you doing all
>>>>>>> three of those things, you're out 7500 smackeroos.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Former PayPal president David Marcus, for his part,
>>>>>>> described this new policy as "insanity". A tweet from him
>>>>>>> on Saturday, October 8, reads in part: "A private company
>>>>>>> now gets to decide to take your money if you say something
>>>>>>> they disagree with."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Venture capitalist David Sacks chimed in, in response to
>>>>>>> Marcus: "Get your money out of PayPal right now."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Elon Musk, an erstwhile member of the OG "PayPal Mafia",
>>>>>>> also added his approval to Marcus' tweet, writing simply:
>>>>>>> "Agreed."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As word of this PayPal change began to spread over the
>>>>>>> weekend, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr described what’s
>>>>>>> happening here as "Orwellian".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> UPDATE: After this article was published, PayPal released
>>>>>>> a statement to media outlets insisting that the company
>>>>>>> will not, in fact, fine users for the dissemination of
>>>>>>> misinformation: "An AUP notice recently went out in error
>>>>>>> that included incorrect information. PayPal is not fining
>>>>>>> people for misinformation and this language was never
>>>>>>> intended to be inserted in our policy. Our teams are
>>>>>>> working to correct our policy pages. We're sorry for the
>>>>>>> confusion this has caused."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BUT: As of the time of this writing on October 11, the
>>>>>>> language noted in the post above is nevertheless still
>>>>>>> included in PayPal's user agreement here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-
>>>>> full?locale.x=en_US#restricted-activities
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The apology has also struck many people as odd, because
>>>>>>> you'd think that language like this wouldn't accidentally
>>>>>>> materialize-- in precisely constructed corporate-speak--
>>>>>>> on a policy page "in error" or randomly. Especially when
>>>>>>> PayPal has already more or less gone down this road
>>>>>>> before, deplatforming account-holders for reasons similar
>>>>>>> to what this new policy language spells out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This looks like a purposely intended attempt to control
>>>>>>> the thoughts, speech, and actions of PayPal customers
>>>>>>> which blew up in the company's collective face and this
>>>>>>> claim of it being an error is mere spin and damage
>>>>>>> control.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sound like the very definition of "error" to me, that they
>>>>>> thought they could police their customers' thoughts. And
>>>>>> they would have gotten away with it, too, if not for those
>>>>>> meddling kids.
>>>>>
>>>>> I read about this a few days ago in another newsgroup, and
>>>>> it got me to thinking.
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you imagine a similar thing happening with, say,
>>>>> a bank, brokerage house, or even a retail store?
>>>>>
>>>>> Suddenly your bank/brokerage balance is docked $X with a
>>>>> notation that a comment you left on a webpage wasn't in
>>>>> keeping with the bank/brokerage/store's opinion. (Or in
>>>>> the store's case, an invoice appears with a Payment Due
>>>>> notice or billed directly to your credit card on file).
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, sure.
>>>>>
>>>>> How fast would it be that the word spread and accounts at
>>>>> that bank/brokerage/store were pulled and moved to another,
>>>>> less intrusive bank/brokerage/store? Or that the SEC or
>>>>> FTC jumps in with an investigation after complaints are
>>>>> filed?
>>>>>
>>>>> The whole thing stinks of fish.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nyssa, who has a PayPal account with a zero balance and
>>>>> hasn't used it in years, but doesn't worry since she doubts
>>>>> the average PayPal employee has ever even heard of Usenet
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I send money through PayPal but I send it directly through and through.
>>>> I’ve never understood why you would keep money in a PayPal account in the
>>>> first place.
>>>
>>> I suppose if you buy and sell online quite a bit.
>>>
>> My landlord requires the rent be payed thru PayPal.
>
> Pay in nickels next time. Or singles. He cannot refuse currency.

I once tried to hire Nerds on Site, a computer repair facility, to fix
my computer but the ONLY form of payment they would accept was a credit
card which I didn't have or want. I offered cash, certified cheque, even
gold (which I only suggested hypothetically since I had no intention of
getting some) but they said no to everything but the credit card. I
don't know if that was legal but I chose not to get a lawyer to try to
force the issue; instead I got a friend from my book club who was better
at hardware issues than I am to fix it for me in exchange for dinner at
Pizza Hut. My friend did a great job and Nerds on Site lost a customer.

On 10/12/2022 1:40 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 10/12/2022 8:14 AM, suzeeq wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2022 7:39 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>> Nyssa <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net> wrote:
>>>>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> BTR1701  <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> A little less than a week before the midterm elections in
>>>>>>> November, a new PayPal account update will take effect
>>>>>>> that has sent the internet into an uproar-- and also drawn
>>>>>>> condemnation from PayPal's former president David Marcus.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PayPal is updating its acceptable use policy, with the
>>>>>>> update taking effect on November 3. You might say to
>>>>>>> yourself, well, I don't use my account with the financial
>>>>>>> services company for anything improper or illegal, so what
>>>>>>> do I have to worry about? Here's why that might not
>>>>>>> necessarily be true:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PayPal says it's expanding its existing list of prohibited
>>>>>>> activities to include the "sending, posting, or
>>>>>>> publication of messages, content, or materials that meet
>>>>>>> certain criteria". The full details are explained in their
>>>>>>> full policy document, but PayPal is basically set to start
>>>>>>> levying a fine when users are found to have shared
>>>>>>> "misinformation" or promoted content that’s deemed to be
>>>>>>> "discriminatory" or "promoting hate".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you don't even have to be doing this 'bad stuff'
>>>>>>> through your PayPal account. If they become aware of you
>>>>>>> acting contrary to the Agenda *anywhere*, they reserve the
>>>>>>> right to fine you. So, for example, if they catch you
>>>>>>> posting something on Twitter that contradicts, criticizes,
>>>>>>> or ridicules 'progressive' ideology, or it becomes public
>>>>>>> knowledge that you attended a Trump event, or that you
>>>>>>> donated to a pro-gun cause, and they know you have a
>>>>>>> PayPal account, say goodbye to 2500 quatloos. And that's
>>>>>>> 2500 for each violation, so if they catch you doing all
>>>>>>> three of those things, you're out 7500 smackeroos.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Former PayPal president David Marcus, for his part,
>>>>>>> described this new policy as "insanity". A tweet from him
>>>>>>> on Saturday, October 8, reads in part: "A private company
>>>>>>> now gets to decide to take your money if you say something
>>>>>>> they disagree with."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Venture capitalist David Sacks chimed in, in response to
>>>>>>> Marcus: "Get your money out of PayPal right now."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Elon Musk, an erstwhile member of the OG "PayPal Mafia",
>>>>>>> also added his approval to Marcus' tweet, writing simply:
>>>>>>> "Agreed."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As word of this PayPal change began to spread over the
>>>>>>> weekend, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr described what’s
>>>>>>> happening here as "Orwellian".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> UPDATE: After this article was published, PayPal released
>>>>>>> a statement to media outlets insisting that the company
>>>>>>> will not, in fact, fine users for the dissemination of
>>>>>>> misinformation: "An AUP notice recently went out in error
>>>>>>> that included incorrect information. PayPal is not fining
>>>>>>> people for misinformation and this language was never
>>>>>>> intended to be inserted in our policy. Our teams are
>>>>>>> working to correct our policy pages. We're sorry for the
>>>>>>> confusion this has caused."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BUT: As of the time of this writing on October 11, the
>>>>>>> language noted in the post above is nevertheless still
>>>>>>> included in PayPal's user agreement here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-
>>>>> full?locale.x=en_US#restricted-activities
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The apology has also struck many people as odd, because
>>>>>>> you'd think that language like this wouldn't accidentally
>>>>>>> materialize-- in precisely constructed corporate-speak--
>>>>>>> on a policy page "in error" or randomly. Especially when
>>>>>>> PayPal has already more or less gone down this road
>>>>>>> before, deplatforming account-holders for reasons similar
>>>>>>> to what this new policy language spells out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This looks like a purposely intended attempt to control
>>>>>>> the thoughts, speech, and actions of PayPal customers
>>>>>>> which blew up in the company's collective face and this
>>>>>>> claim of it being an error is mere spin and damage
>>>>>>> control.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sound like the very definition of "error" to me, that they
>>>>>> thought they could police their customers' thoughts. And
>>>>>> they would have gotten away with it, too, if not for those
>>>>>> meddling kids.
>>>>>
>>>>> I read about this a few days ago in another newsgroup, and
>>>>> it got me to thinking.
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you imagine a similar thing happening with, say,
>>>>> a bank, brokerage house, or even a retail store?
>>>>>
>>>>> Suddenly your bank/brokerage balance is docked $X with a
>>>>> notation that a comment you left on a webpage wasn't in
>>>>> keeping with the bank/brokerage/store's opinion. (Or in
>>>>> the store's case, an invoice appears with a Payment Due
>>>>> notice or billed directly to your credit card on file).
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, sure.
>>>>>
>>>>> How fast would it be that the word spread and accounts at
>>>>> that bank/brokerage/store were pulled and moved to another,
>>>>> less intrusive bank/brokerage/store? Or that the SEC or
>>>>> FTC jumps in with an investigation after complaints are
>>>>> filed?
>>>>>
>>>>> The whole thing stinks of fish.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nyssa, who has a PayPal account with a zero balance and
>>>>> hasn't used it in years, but doesn't worry since she doubts
>>>>> the average PayPal employee has ever even heard of Usenet
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I send money through PayPal but I send it directly through and through.
>>>> I’ve never understood why you would keep money in a PayPal account in the
>>>> first place.
>>>
>>> I suppose if you buy and sell online quite a bit.
>>>
>> My landlord requires the rent be payed thru PayPal.
>
> Pay in nickels next time. Or singles. He cannot refuse currency.
>
What if the landlord is in a location that you can't just drop by to pay
the rent? Like out of state...

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>On 2022-10-12 4:40 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>>>>. . .

>>>My landlord requires the rent be payed thru PayPal.

>>Pay in nickels next time. Or singles. He cannot refuse currency.

>I once tried to hire Nerds on Site, a computer repair facility, to fix
>my computer but the ONLY form of payment they would accept was a credit
>card which I didn't have or want.

This situation isn't covered by federal law. Currency is acceptable for
all debt, public or private.

Someone can refuse to do business with you if you will not pay via their
preferred method of payment. But if you are making a payment under
contract or paying a bill, the creditor cannot refuse to accept currency.
I don't know if they can refuse to accept coins.

I have no idea if Canada has a similar law.

>. . .

In article <ti78on$1iqs2$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

> >My landlord requires the rent be payed thru PayPal.
>
> Pay in nickels next time. Or singles. He cannot refuse currency.

Sure he can. There's no legal requirement for a creditor to accept cash.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12772.htm

Although many states are outlawing cash-free businesses because they
"discriminate against the poor and the 'unbanked'". Amazon had to close
down or modify a lot of its cashless retail stores in states like
Pennsylvania that decreed it to be racist to have a store where you
can't pay in cash.

And during the height of the Wuhan Flu, they were scads of businesses
around here with "no cash" policies because they were afraid the money
was infected.

My personal zenith of ridiculousness with such things was at the end of
a meal at California Pizza Kitchen. The waiter looked at me like I was
nuts when he brought me the bill and told me to 'just scan the QR code
with your phone to pay' and I told him I didn't have a phone with me and
handed him my credit card. The waiter had to call over the manager who
said, "Sir, we only do contactless pay here." I said he should make that
clear to people *before* they sit down and have a meal because I didn't
know that and the only two methods of payment I had were cash and a
credit card. He could either accept one of them or put the meal on the
house. The guy stood there for a moment looking confused and
uncomfortable, then said, "Well, we assume that these days everyone
carries a smartphone. Are you sure you don't have a phone to use?" As if
I'd somehow missed it or something and if I only checked my pockets a
second time, one would magically turn up. In the end, he accepted the
credit card but only after gloving up and using-- I shit you not-- a set
of tongs to take my card from me and give it back. Like it was teeming
with Ebola or something.

That hysteria was so wildly out of control it'd have been funny if it
hadn't destroyed so many lives.