Did PayPal Just Reintroduce Its $2,500 'Misinformation' Fine, Hoping We Wouldn't Notice? (gritdaily.com) 100
"On October 8th, PayPal updated its terms of service agreement to include a clause enabling it to withdraw $2,500 from users' bank accounts simply for posting anything the company deems as misinformation or offensive," reports Grit Daily. "Unsurprisingly, the backlash was instant and massive," causing the company to backtrack on the policy and claim the update was sent out "in error." Now, after the criticism on social media died down, several media outlets are reporting that the company quietly reinstated the questionable misinformation fine -- even though that itself may be a bit of misinformation. From a report: Apparently, they believed that everyone would just accept their claim and immediately forget about the incident. So the clause that was a mistake and was never intended to be included in PayPal's terms of service magically ended up back in there once the criticism died back down. That sounds plausible, right? And as for what constitutes a "violation" of the company's terms of service, the language is so vaguely worded that it could encompass literally anything.
The term "other forms of intolerance" is so broad that it legally gives the company grounds to claim that anyone not fully supporting any particular position is engaging in "intolerance" because the definition of the word is the unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own. So essentially, this clause gives PayPal the perceived right to withdraw $2,500 from users accounts for voicing opinions that PayPal disagrees with. As news of PayPal's most recent revision spreads, I anticipate that the company's PR disaster will grow, and with numerous competing payment platforms available today, this could deliver a devastating and well deserved blow to the company. UPDATE: According to The Deep Dive, citing Twitter user Kelley K, PayPal "never removed the $2,500 fine. It's been there for over a year. All they removed earlier this month was a new section that mentioned misinformation."
She goes on to highlight the following:
1.) [T]he $2,500 fine has been there since September 2021.
2.) PayPal did remove what was originally item number 5 of the Prohibited Activities annex, the portion that contained the questionable "promoting misinformation" clause that the company claims was an "error."
3.) [T]he other portion, item 2.f. which includes "other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory," which some have pointed out may also be dangerous as the language is vague, has always been there since the policy was updated, and not recently added.
PayPal's user agreement can be read here.
The term "other forms of intolerance" is so broad that it legally gives the company grounds to claim that anyone not fully supporting any particular position is engaging in "intolerance" because the definition of the word is the unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own. So essentially, this clause gives PayPal the perceived right to withdraw $2,500 from users accounts for voicing opinions that PayPal disagrees with. As news of PayPal's most recent revision spreads, I anticipate that the company's PR disaster will grow, and with numerous competing payment platforms available today, this could deliver a devastating and well deserved blow to the company. UPDATE: According to The Deep Dive, citing Twitter user Kelley K, PayPal "never removed the $2,500 fine. It's been there for over a year. All they removed earlier this month was a new section that mentioned misinformation."
She goes on to highlight the following:
1.) [T]he $2,500 fine has been there since September 2021.
2.) PayPal did remove what was originally item number 5 of the Prohibited Activities annex, the portion that contained the questionable "promoting misinformation" clause that the company claims was an "error."
3.) [T]he other portion, item 2.f. which includes "other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory," which some have pointed out may also be dangerous as the language is vague, has always been there since the policy was updated, and not recently added.
PayPal's user agreement can be read here.
Coming soon to a bank near you? (Score:2)
Paypal is, after all, just a bank with a frontend.
Re: Coming soon to a bank near you? (Score:5, Interesting)
Already came to ALL businesses near you? (Score:5, Interesting)
But, but, what if you're exploiting women [azcentral.com]?! Or are a Trump-supporter [nypost.com]?
Banks are legally obligated now — by the various Know Your Customer (KYC) laws [investopedia.com] — to actively investigate new customers. And to reinvestigate them periodically — the frequency depending on the nature of the customer's business...
And, on top of these legal (if misguided) requirements, there are — from time to time — extralegal ones too [investortimes.com]...
The US Constitution — and legal traditions — restrict government from limiting our freedoms too much. But, as long as we allow them to "regulate" businesses, they can compel them to do the limiting on their behalf:
That you blame the actual businesses for it, rather than the increasingly-oppressive government apparatus (which is now able to sabotage an actual President [theatlantic.com]), is just a cherry on top for them...
Re: Already came to ALL businesses near you? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm intolerant of the guys who bullied me in school - pretty sure that's a hefty fine, too.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
which is now able to sabotage an actual President
Does the President have any actual Constitutional protection from other members of the Executive Branch?
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong question. President is the head of the Executive Branch — and thus the boss. Department heads and lower employees of the Branch are to advise and follow orders — or resign.
Now, maybe, criminal orders must not be followed, but stupid ones still must be. Not much different from the corporate world, actually.
The quiet sabotage we witnessed is treason — or, at best, borderline treason.
Re:Coming soon to a bank near you? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's all just social credit, America style. And we have our own forms of excommunication, exactly as effective as China or anyone else we criticize.
When I was taught in school about literal excommunication, everyone though, "Oh no, how could humans have been so backwards? Kicking someone out of their community because they didn't BELIEVE something? That's insane! How can you control what people think?" Turns out we do the exact same thing.
Re: Coming soon to a bank near you? (Score:1)
Re: Coming soon to a bank near you? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
paypal is nothing like a bank
Re: (Score:2)
In terms of services offered, maybe. But their backend is very much a bank.
Re:Coming soon to a bank near you? (Score:5, Insightful)
It’s a bank in the same sense that Uber is a taxi service. Doing the exact same job but without any of the regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
Uber's argument is that it is just a payment and coordination platform that connects drivers with passengers. Whether or not you agree with that, they don't own the cars that people are driving. PayPal actually holds account balances itself; it doesn't claim to subcontract out the core service it provides, although some credit/debit card and line of credit things are in partnership with banks.
Re:Coming soon to a bank near you? (Score:5, Interesting)
In Europe, Paypal is a bank. They have a banking license from Luxembourg.
Banks in Europe are not allowed to "fine" people for anything. I just checked and did not find this clause in my (European) PayPal TOU. I did note that the TOUs are customized by country. At least the country-code for my country was in the URL of the document.
So this may be US "special conditions".
Re: (Score:3)
The only difference here in the Netherlands seems to be that the account has to be used for commercial use for the fine for acceptable use policy violations to be applicable. So if you are just selling your parents old copy of Mein Kampf online the fine isn't relevant to you here, if you have a business selling books online and you are selling Mein Kampf you could be fined.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that would make the whole story invalid. Would also explain why I did not find anything in my TOU, I did not look at the one for commercial sellers.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't.
Re: Coming soon to a bank near you? (Score:2)
just a bank with a frontend
Your physical world bank has a goddamn litany of laws and regulations including reporting movements of social cred, I mean money to any number of three letter agencies you can name.
It was never an error... (Score:5, Interesting)
Any financial institution — and Paypal certainly is on par with major banks in this regard — has numerous lawyers review all publicly-released documents. To claim, that a change of this nature — the diff immediately obvious even to a casual reader comparing against the older version — went unnoticed, is to lie.
It was no accident [theepochtimes.com] — their only "error" was to overestimate, how far the proverbial "frog-boiling" has advanced by now...
Re: It was never an error... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I recall a previous kerfluffle over Paypal wanting to have the perks of a bank without having the obligations of a bank...
In other words, nothing (Score:4, Interesting)
This fine has been in place for over a year and no one had a problem with it. It was only when those would would be pushing out misinformation suddenly had a problem with it.
Reminds me of this tidbit [imgur.com] of misinformation going around [nbcnews.com].
NBC News found one example of a school district keeping cat litter on campuses for students to use — but it had nothing to do with accommodating children who identify as animals.
In Colorado, GOP gubernatorial nominee Heidi Ganahl insisted in several recent interviews that students were dressing and identifying as cats, disrupting class, and the state’s schools were tolerating it. Some children, she alleged, would only communicate in barks and hisses. Her campaign declined to answer questions about Ganahl’s claims, but in one interview with a local Fox affiliate, she suggested “there’s a lot of this going on” in Jefferson County.
The Jefferson County school district disputed Ganahl’s claims and said its dress code prohibits costumes at school. The district — where Columbine High School is located — has been stocking classrooms with small amounts of cat litter since 2017, but as part of “go buckets” that contain emergency supplies in case students are locked in a classroom during a shooting. The buckets also contain candy for diabetic students, a map of the school, flashlights, wet wipes and first aid items.
“This thing has gotten out of control with politicians just wanting to have a talking point,” said John McDonald, former director of campus safety at Jefferson County schools, who’s now a school security consultant.
More than likely the same people upset because of the misinformation clause are the same people pushing the crap (yes, pun intended) about cat litter in the classrooms.
Re: (Score:2)
This fine has been in place for over a year and no one had a problem with it.
Since almost no one reads the ToS, I would suppose that almost no one knew of this Orwellian term for over a year. Everyone should have a problem with this, regardless of their views on anything else. Financial institutions should be disinterested finance facilitators, and should never be politically involved except when required by law.
Re: (Score:2)
You have nothing to worry about if the people in charge agree with you... ...or, more properly put, if you agree with them.
Re: (Score:3)
If no one knew about it for over a year, then obviously it hasn't been used in that time.
In other words, PayPal does not appear to be interpreting it in the way that the hysterical fear mongers are claiming they will.
So far.
Re: In other words, nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
I would suppose that almost no one knew of this Orwellian term for over a year.
IDK about calling something misinformation being Orwellian. A major theme of 1984 IS weaponized misinformation.
It's so plainly obvious if you read the book, I mean...
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past."
It ain't talking about time travel.
Re:In other words, nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
This fine has been in place for over a year and no one had a problem with it.
That is misinformation and as your bank you are fined $2,500. I would be very surprised if not one of its customers had a problem with it.
Seriously though, it is not PayPal's or any other business place to fine people spreading misinformation, that's the role of the legal system.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Seriously though, it is not PayPal's or any other business place to fine people spreading misinformation, that's the role of the legal system.
Their site, their rules. Don't like it, don't use it. This is no different than a store not allowing people to post a flyer in the window. Their property, their rules.
And before you come up with any excuse about why that isn't right, remember this [imgur.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Their rules, and my choice. I just closed my account with them permanently.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:In other words, nothing (Score:5, Informative)
Not if you're effectively doing wire transfers. Banks and credit unions who feed into the Fed Wires system have lots and lots of rules they have to follow. And, historically you're wrong. PayPal has had multiple issues with the feds over the way they've done business.
Your examples are of a store not allowing posters and a site disallowing a user.
Neither instance is about fining someone money. Two very different things. Not sure why you didn't see that.
Re: (Score:3)
Neither instance is about fining someone money. Two very different things. Not sure why you didn't see that.
The penalties are irrelevant. It is that in both cases it is the business's decision what they will allow on their property. One just happens to be a monetary penalty while the other is a negative penalty (not allowing your message to get out).
Re: (Score:2)
No need to even make it rape.
I can't steal $2500 out of your wallet just because you came on my property and I don't like one of your beliefs.
Re: (Score:3)
And if every other financial institution adopts a similar ToS? Where will you go then?
Re: (Score:2)
And if every other financial institution adopts a similar ToS? Where will you go then?
That would require the Government to make it impossible for the "anyone else" to create and operate banks. At which point, we go to the guns, obviously.
Re: (Score:1)
Straight into cash, baby. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
With a straight face, he/she says "their property, their rules" while defending a company taking money that doesn't belong to them.
Meanwhile, we have some rules of our own hereabouts. One of them is found under CPC Section 211, commonly referred to as "robbery." Given the amounts in question, the act also qualifies under CPC 457, also known as "grand theft."
This of course leaves aside the scope of the offense and the fact that multiple people were involved, which is also a crime under CPC 182, also known as
Re: (Score:2)
. This is no different than a store not allowing people to post a flyer in the window. Their property, their rules.
If you are managing people's money, then there are a lot of rules you have to follow and don't get to change.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
They great thing is nobody is forcing you to use Paypal. Use Western Union or Zelle or any of the dozen similar services. Do you want government intervention here?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
This fine has been in place for over a year and no one had a problem with it. It was only when those would would be pushing out misinformation suddenly had a problem with it.
I hope you are not permitted to run away from your positions once you realize what you have done. And run away is exactly what you will try to do. I guarantee it.
When you are saying: Well I never supported all of that crazy stuff, it was the others, I tried to warn them that supporting government-corporate power over the lower-classes
No big deal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone should have a "throw-away" bank account along with their primary account. [...] My paypal account is tied to that account also, so they can TRY to fine me, but they won't get far.
That's good advice (and I do that), except in this case. You agreed to Paypal's "fine" in their TOS. From the perspective of your bank (and also the Government), that makes the "fine" a valid charge that you agreed to pay. That means that the bank, and Paypal, can sue you for the fine. Plus fees. Plus legal fees. Plus damages. Finally, they will make a criminal complaint against you for your several crimes (frauds). And the Government will prosecute you, so you can plan on going to prison for your felonies.
They should pull a Uber (Score:4, Insightful)
Airbnb just declared it is not a hotel service, and the people who rent it out claim they are not hotels and poof, hotel rules dont apply to them.
Paypal should simply say "this is not a fine. It is simply a service charge to cover expenses related to correcting misinformation posted by the user."
Poof, it is not a fine! It is not East India Company with its own army, tax collectors and de facto sovereign.
Re: (Score:1)
September 2021 (Score:2)
I love the implication that "Oh, that's fine, that's been in our terms of service for a year and nobody's complained" makes the idea any the less ridiculous. Know why nobody complained? Because nobody reads your terms of service. Terms don't stop being ridiculous just because nobody noticed them for a while.
the Paypal account closure thread (Score:5, Informative)
I'm done. I've had a Paypal account sitting around since the early eBay days. All this time, connected to my bank account and a couple credit cards. It used to be a go-to for online payments back in the day, but I've only used it a handful of times within the past 3 years, mostly because it was convenient to not have to re-enter my shipping info and cc info into a random shopping cart when the Paypal button was right there within the checkout funnel. Sorry Paypal, but I have better form fillers now, and virtual CCs (that are only good for one use) are much easier to come by than they used to be.
Account closed. Do whatever the fuck you want with your policy. I'm no longer affected, so I no longer care.
Login -> Settings Gear Icon -> Data and Privacy -> "Delete your data / close account"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I closed my account after they first announced this as well. I literally use it just for Steam game purchases. That's actually used pretty often, but it's not like I need to use Paypal for that. Not worth a potential fine of $2500. Venmo, or whoever, can be used for those rare 1-off money transfers.
Lots of alternatives. I originally started using it because they offered payment protections. Well, every single bank offers really good payment protections now with standard Visa or Mastercards. Paypal was just
Is this not illegal? (Score:2)
I thought the power to levy was exclusively reserved by the government. How is PayPal not committing felony theft and wire fraud, let alone conspiracy to commit such since they're plainly stating their intent to do this action?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I still dont understand how its legal to change a contract without getting any approval from the person. [...] But for some reason its legal for anyone to change a interest rate, etc without telling you and you are all of a sudden responsible for that change, even if you were never told.
It's legal because in the contract (TOS) that you agreed to (but apparently never read), it has a clause that says they can change the terms whenever they like. And they DO have to tell you. And in fact, they do: they give you a notice. Which also nobody bothers to read. Upon receiving the notice, your option is to cancel the contract, close your accounts, and be done with the company.
And if you don't like it, I'm sure the contract also includes that you can't sue them. Instead, you are invited to Arbitrati
Re: (Score:2)
Its only legal until someone challenges their retroactive including of it without express signatures to that effect before enforcement. Until then its just words on a page. ick... that sounded trumpian.. I feel dirty now.
Contrary to popular belief, that's not how contract law works. A signature is one way to prove agreement, but it is not required in general. And specifically, it is not required in this case.
Merely continuing to use the service after receving the notice constitues your assent to the changes.
Besides various contract black letter and case law, one way that you can be sure this is how it works here is -- guess what -- it's written in the original contract. (It's also reiterated in the contract amendments that
buh bye, "Pal" (Score:2)
I've had a business account with Paypal since they started. I just closed it. There is a checkbox for the reason being Policies and TOS. Also a comment section where i made it clear it was about their "insane" terms, and I invited them to go fuck themselves.
I wonder if they will "fine" me for that.
In Post Truth Times.... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You know that he sold PayPal 2 decades ago, right?
You should be fined $2500 by PayPal for misinformation.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why you mentioned Elon Musk in your $2500 fine statement. The fine was added almost 2 decades after he left the company. Please explain what Elon Musk has to do with the $2500 fine?
Elon Musk also criticized the fine as ridiculous. Your statement makes no sense.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no irony. That's why it does not make sense.
Stupid service (Score:2)
Did it to the Free Speech Union in the UK (Score:2)
https://freespeechunion.org/ [freespeechunion.org]
They cancelled not only the FSU but also the Daily Sceptic and Toby Young personally.
Now reinstated, with as little explanation why they did that as for why they cancelled them in the first place.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Thank god we have snopes! (Score:2)
Well, there information is accurate. (Score:1)
not just misinformation (Score:2)
The straight dope (Score:2)
No one seems to be linking to the actual policy [paypal.com]. The clause in question prohibits "the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory or the financial exploitation of a crime".
Good luck with that one! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They can't withdraw $2500 from an account that has $0 in it!
Your account is linked to your bank account, right? They'll suck that $2500 out of your linked bank account.
Even if that is zero, they can still sue you. You have a legally binding contract.
Re: (Score:2)
John Spartan, you have been fined one credit... (Score:2)
For violation of the verbal morality code. It was a running joke in that movie but it's no joke now. There are a whole lot of people out there who would dearly love to be able to fine you for saying something that rubs them the wrong way because they can't send you to a reeducation camp.
Maybe Elon Musk should buy PayPal back and while he's at it buy Ebay and return it to the pure auction roots.
Paypal can f@ck off. (Score:1)
Hitler kept public servants in line by threatening their finances.
When you allow a PRIVATE company the kind of power previously reserved for Governments, you basically have to prove innocence after being presumed guilty.
It was there all along (Score:1)
Read the agreement. It's only a slight change of wording. It used to something like: you can be fined for posting information that could be misleading. But that $2500 fine has been there for over a year.
You're an idiot if you post something offensive (Score:2)