(This post first created on Friday 10/7)
From the Wokistas at PayPal, telling me about the changes to their conditions of business:
You may not use the PayPal service for activities that:
1. violate any law, statute, ordinance or regulation.
2. relate to transactions involving (a) narcotics, steroids, certain controlled substances or other products that present a risk to consumer safety, (b) drug paraphernalia, (c) cigarettes, (d) items that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity, (e) stolen goods including digital and virtual goods, (f) the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory or the financial exploitation of a crime, (g) items that are considered obscene, (h) items that infringe or violate any copyright, trademark, right of publicity or privacy or any other proprietary right under the laws of any jurisdiction, (i) certain sexually oriented materials or services, (j) ammunition, firearms, or certain firearm parts or accessories, or (k) certain weapons or knives regulated under applicable law.
Before anyone gets all upset (on my behalf), let me just say that I have never ever purchased any of the above highlighted items using PayPal.
Nope; I first transfer the PayPal funds into my bank account, and then I go off and buy guns, ammo, MAGA hats, knives/bayonets, and sex toys that have the word “nigger” printed on them.
Just wanted to clear that all up.
Update (10/8): Oh looky here: PayPal has revoked part of their policy, saying:
PayPal has backtracked on a published policy that would have fined users $2,500 for spreading “misinformation,” claiming the update had gone out “in error.” [Yeah, I bet it did. Fuckers. — Kim]
“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,” a spokesperson told National Review in a written statement.
The course reversal comes after the policy changes had started to attract media scrutiny as well as criticism on Twitter. Former PayPal president David Marcus even blasted the company over the implication that it could seize customers’ money for finding their views objectionable.
I wonder if they’d find this “objectionable”:
You pathetic little banker-wannabes are a bunch of lousy, wokist motherfuckers, and I hope states like Texas stop doing business with you altogether, and millions of your account-holders close their accounts rather than be subject to your pissy little regulations.
I’m taking a different tack.
Try and “fine” me by stealing money from my account without my written permission. I fucking dare you.
‘nother Update (10/9):
I just closed my account. Fuck ’em.
Careful with that “closed my account” stuff.
I did the same thing 10 years ago and then later found out PP still had access to my bank account. The bank manager told me that only paypal can dissolve the relationship, not me. I said, “WTF”? So I closed my bank account and had the bank manager provide me with a signed and notarized document proving the account was closed.
10 years ago paypal and ebay tried to tag team my ass out of almost $1000 for an ebay transaction that went awry. Both of them turned into mafia on my ass and harrassed me mercilessly for weeks in email and phone calls all day and night. When I shut down the bank account they slunked back into their criminal lairs. I’ll never deal with either again.
@ghostsniper makes a very good point. Paypal does its’ best to get the paypal account tied into a bank account, so they can “clawback” money whenever they feel like. And I’ve read many blog posts about how people have lost money because Paypal just took it, without recourse (read their terms of use).
and many people are clamoring for electronic currency. what could possibly go wrong?
JQ
The probability that this was made “in error” is virtually zero. To paraphrase someone I know who knows: When a major company updates its Acceptible Use Policy, it is the work of dozens of executives, lawyers, and TPMs, working over many months. It gets reviewed, checked, cross checked, approved, and the approvals reviewed and cross checked, before it’s published.
This was no mistake. Either they thought they could sneak it past everyone (because who really reads this stuff anyway, right?) or they didn’t actually consider all of the implications of the language that was included. While the latter isn’t _completely_ impossible, it would indicate quite clearly that they have a serious issue with the basic competence of a significant number of high-level people. The former, of course, is far more likely, and they’re flat out lying about it being an “error”. Of course, that also calls into question the fundamental competence of a significant number of high-level people but it would be due to idealogical blindness/arrogance rather than simply sucking at their jobs.
Beat me to it.
I was a professional defence engineer, prior to my recent retirement, and I lived or died by the integrity of my document management processes. Corporate policy docs were always signed off by our CEO. Finance would be similar.
To release a public facing document like their AUP would therefore require people with appropriate clearance and clear taasking orders checking it out of their document management system, updating the document, putting it into the review workflow, getting successive signoffs from the receptionist up to at least the VP Customer Relations….yadder yadder yadder. Short story, promulgating a change to a document like this would be literally man years of work in any credible organisation with appropriate business processes.
The idea of it being a “mistake” made me shit myself laughing.
These people are tyrants, and every last one of the cunts involved in pushing out this document should be fired and then shot.