Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • Freed Up
    • The Soho Forum Debates
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Print Subscription
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Misinformation

PayPal Says It Won't Fine Users $2,500 for Misinformation, but It Will Fine Them for 'Intolerance'

"Sounds like a good reason to think twice about using PayPal," writes Eugene Volokh.

Robby Soave | 10.10.2022 2:21 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Using PayPal | Pressureua | Dreamstime.com
PayPal will not punish users for misinformation. (Pressureua | Dreamstime.com)

PayPal is a company that facilitates financial transactions. Peter Thiel and Elon Musk, billionaire entrepreneurs who have both talked about the importance of free speech and civil liberties, have been involved in the company at various stages.

Last week, PayPal rolled out an updated user agreement.

That agreement prohibits "the sending, posting, or publication of any messages, content, or materials" that "present a risk to user safety or wellbeing" or contain "misinformation." The policy notes that what counts as misinformation is at PayPal's "sole discretion." Violate the policy, and PayPal can deduct $2,500 from the offending user's account.

That's $2,500 per infraction. Someone who spreads quite a bit of so-called misinformation could stand to lose a great deal of money.

PayPal has now backtracked.

"An AUP notice recently went out in error that included incorrect information," a PayPal spokesperson said. "PayPal is not fining people for misinformation and this language was never intended to be inserted in our policy."

That's a welcome clarification, because the policy as written was deeply misguided.

Efforts to police misinformation are prone to significant error and overreach. Governments, media organizations, and tech platforms have all made serious attempts to limit the spread of misinformation by cracking down on speech they thought was wrong or dangerous—but time and time again, these measures have resulted in censorship of legitimate discourse.

Facebook, for instance, took great pains to prevent users from theorizing that COVID-19 emerged from a lab. Twitter faced pressure from the Biden administration to purge accounts that criticized the mainstream consensus on vaccines, masks, and other subjects. YouTube's policies prohibited content creators from spreading so-called COVID-19 misinformation, including statements like "masks don't work" or "COVID-19 is no more dangerous than the flu." Some of those statements have more validity than others, but they're no longer considered outside the bounds of acceptable conversation. What the gatekeepers termed "misinformation" is now just information.

The government's so-called misinformation experts have performed no better than media organizations or social media platforms. Remember Nina Jankowicz, who was chosen as director of the Department of Homeland Security's Disinformation Governance Board? Though she had wrongly flagged the New York Post Hunter Biden laptop story as fake Russian nefariousness, the department picked her to advise elite law enforcement and national intelligence on misinformation trends.

It would be completely reasonable for PayPal users to fear that misguided misinformation policing might end up costing them money, and the company is well-advised to reverse course.

This incident inspired Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at UCLA and writer for The Volokh Conspiracy, to take a closer look at the policies PayPal already has in place. What he found alarmed him: PayPal prohibits "activities that…relate to…the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory or the financial exploitation of a crime."

Violating that policy can also result in a $2,500 fine. Volokh warns that sharply criticizing a religion or government officials could be construed as the promotion of hate—and could theoretically violate that policy.

"Sounds like a good reason to think twice about using PayPal," he writes. "I've just withdrawn the $1000+ I have in my PayPal account, and I'm starting the process of disentangling myself from the service to the extent possible."

PayPal is free to put in place whatever policies it thinks are best, but the company shouldn't be surprised if people don't trust it to correctly define terms like misinformation, hate, or intolerance—and, thus, take their business elsewhere.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: On Affirmative Action, Clarence Thomas Took a Page From Malcolm X

Robby Soave is a senior editor at Reason.

MisinformationFinanceSocial MediaMoneyInternetBanking
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (177)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

    PayPal is free to put in place whatever policies it thinks are best, but the company shouldn't be surprised if people don't trust it to correctly define terms like misinformation, hate, or intolerance—and, thus, take their business elsewhere.

    But are they, really? This seems like a private entity trying to issue fines, usurping a government power, by use of their sole discretion. It's got to be a massive contractual breach if they just start slapping fines on people who want to use Paypal to donate to Alex Jones or Tucker Carlson.

    1. Social Justice is neither   3 years ago

      Not only that but isn't this type of reasoning exactly what we barred when we stopped lunch counters in the South from refusing service to blacks? Seems the pro-slavery contingent has found themselves a loophole.

      1. mad.casual   3 years ago

        1/5/3rd = Paypal

        1. evavipe   3 years ago (edited)

          Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I'm now creating over $35400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of (aos-05) greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs

          Just open the link——————–>>> https://smart.online100.workers.dev/

          1. AaliyahNelson   3 years ago

            I just worked part-time from my apartment for 5 weeks, but I made $30,030. I lost my former business and was soon worn out. Thank goodness, [res-23] I found this employment online and I was able to start working from home right away. This top career is achievable by everyone, and it will improve their online revenue by:.
            .
            EXTRA DETAILS HERE:>>> https://workopportunity23.blogspot.com

      2. Brett Bellmore   3 years ago

        Yeah, basically it's Jim Crow for right-wingers instead of blacks.

        Actually, what's really going on is that left-wingers in the private sector are gradually rolling out a Chinese style social credit system.

        1. Ted   3 years ago

          Time to get rid of the left. How much misery is their existence worth to us?

      3. Serpentine   3 years ago (edited)

        "The left ruins everything it touches."

    2. JesseAz   3 years ago

      No other industry could attempt to add a contract clause giving them sole discretion to your money with arbitrary decisions.

      1. MatthewSlyfield   3 years ago

        cough--government--cough

        1. BigT   3 years ago

          “Industry” produces something.

          I suppose government produces misery.

          1. Uilleam   3 years ago

            Endlessly.

    3. Sometimes a Great Notion   3 years ago (edited)

      Issuing a fine could by a company is legal; a subcontractor can be fined for not meeting the construction schedule as long as that schedule [edit] is detailed [end]. The at their sole discretion, nebulous nature of it should not be allowed by the courts and should result in damages against PayPal if they did ever steal money from someone.

      1. Brandybuck   3 years ago

        If it's in a contract, sure. But an end user license agreement is not a contract. No signature no contract. Merely using a service does not rise to the level of assent.

        This is why we needed to have pushed back against EULAs and other bogus "agreements" forty years ago when they started to appear.

        1. Rossami   3 years ago

          A signature is not and never has been a mandatory component of a contract.

          At the risk of being pedantic, a legal contract must have
          - a lawful purpose
          - mutual agreement
          - consideration
          - competent parties
          - genuine assent
          Shrinkwrap and clickwrap EULAs clearly have a lawful purpose and consideration. And in most cases, they are between competent parties. Your avenues of attack are whether the agreement was truly mutual and the assent genuine - and those are valid complaints. The problem is that physical signatures don't actually get you very far on those two factors.

          1. BestUsedCarSales   3 years ago

            That's not pedantic. I appreciate that. Do you have a link that lays out the must-haves of a legal contract in the US? Is that set by a federal law or does it vary state-to-state?

            1. Rossami   3 years ago

              The exact wording varies by state but I think most follow the basic concepts above. That was from a google hit describing Ohio law, if I remember correctly.

              1. This Is The Zodiac Speaking   3 years ago

                Yeah, there may be some slight variations on wording but the elements for for each state can be found online but this post above essentially covers it

              2. Ted AKA Teddy Salad, CIA/US Ballet Force   3 years ago

                And if there are any ambiguity in the contract terms, the benefit of the doubt goes against the party who drafted the agreement.

        2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

          "But an end user license agreement is not a contract."

          An end user license agreement is most definitely a contract. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement#Enforceability_of_EULAs_in_the_United_States

          "No signature no contract."

          Even you know that isn't true.

          1. Cold War Boomerwaffen   3 years ago

            Except where it isn’t. These companies lose all the time in court over these because courts know no one reads them and they change all the time. Only those provisions that are legal are ever upheld. For example you can’t say you’re going to fine someone for misinformation, never define misinformation and then use as your excuse for getting clobbered for trying to do that that your own Agreement was in fact, wait for it: misinformation. The same thing is true about their other one: intolerance. Good luck not getting ordered to pay users billions if you fine them for intolerance. Again they’ve just listed some vague language. Which not only makes it unenforceable, but actually gives any plaintiffs all they need to win a massive settlement against PayPal. Because for example “Gays Against Groomers” was kicked off the platform, but tons of groomer and pedophile accounts were kept live. I hadn’t heard they’d been fined but they can kick them off. I’m just making the point that if they take your money and they’re a regulated payment platform they can’t be inconsistent arbitrary or capricious. Because they’re definitely showing themselves to be intolerant the very thing they’re dining someone for. Finally none of those fining provisions are remotely legal, you can’t violate someone’s constitutional rights just because you’re a business. They are also publicly traded. I get that businesses violate the first amendment all the time but courts don’t enforce that. Generally because if you get banned from Starcucks fir wearing a MAGA hat you can go to another coffee bar. However arbitrarily stealing someone’s cash is not an enforceable provision and frankly as a retired senior banking executive, it’s highly illegal. I could probably walk into court myself and win such a lawsuit against them and I’m not even a lawyer. That’s how indefensible their position is. State Federal, regulations and laws make it illegal in its face.

            1. Libertariantranslator   3 years ago

              Doff diff mean Appfle DIDN'T haff dff rifft to sew my mouff to Kyle'ff butt?

        3. JesseAz   3 years ago

          The courts disagree with you.

        4. Uilleam   3 years ago

          You're a dumbass.

        5. Libertariantranslator   3 years ago

          These things go back farther, to when the 16th Amendment added Communist Manifesto Plank 2 to the Constitution. You are required to file a return, which is your confession declaring under and over oaths that you are a guilty debtor. THAT is what, like a EULA, the IRS and Treasury use to confiscate your assets and stuff you in prison. Like Apple agents told Kyle in "The Human CentiPad," "You ASKED us to track your every move!"

      2. XM   3 years ago

        "Issuing a fine could by a company is legal; a subcontractor can be fined for not meeting the construction schedule as long as that schedule [edit] is detailed [end]."

        Paypal users are customers, not employees. What Paypal is doing is little different from a sandwich shop "fining" a customer for taking off his shirt after ordering.

        And customers and employees cannot sign away their rights. I have money at Paypal. That's MY money. Paypal can suspend my account or force me to withdraw it, but it can't effectively take money away from my account for conduct unrelated to their business.

        And before the inevitable disingenuous comparison to abortion is made - no, my money isn't an equivalent of a fetus, and Paypal isn't telling me what to do with my body. They're allowed to "force" me to protect my money with a password, set withdrawal and deposit limit, etc. But you could argue that they're essentially making me terminate my pregnancy due to (again) conduct unrelated to pregnancy.

    4. ElvisIsReal   3 years ago

      Yes. This isn't even close to legal.

      1. HorseConch   3 years ago

        The fact that anyone would defend it is pretty unbelievable. They aren't penalizing you a percentage for using their service wrong, they're stealing your money because they don't like you. If they were to charge double processing fees for something they don't like, that would be awful and grounds for getting rid of your account. Stealing your money because you might say mean things is an entirely different level of awful.

        1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

          Yeah, it's outright theft for political reasons, and just the sort of thing that the right would exploit, if it had any balls, to bring up Paypal and all its associates on RICO charges.

          1. Ersatz   3 years ago

            you mean 'pounce'

    5. Cold War Boomerwaffen   3 years ago

      They don’t have that power. Those types of user agreements that violate the bill of rights and constitution never stand up in court. They can kick you off their platform but that’s all they can legally do. Plus for example they’ve banned “gays against groomers”. But left pedophiles stay. They’d never win in court because it’s so obviously inequitably and capriciously applied. The reason that they’ve been getting away with it up to now is the people they’ve been doing it to haven’t really had the resources to fight back. However this latest move of their ms was so arrogant and stupid that states and regulators are starting to look into them. Further they lost 6% on their stock today after already being down 52% YTD. If it drops further they start getting shareholder lawsuits over these policies and have to go through discovery. They’re piggishly stupid so I suspect that they’ll continue to just boorishly overreach. Good times good times…

    6. Cooper   3 years ago

      All this talk about how this was a mistake & PayPal won't actually fine anyone... but their Acceptable Use Policy and User Agreement still have not changed. The $2,500 fine in the AUP is still there, still linked to UA as "Provide false, inaccurate or misleading information." If PP wants anyone to take them seriously, they need to amend these ASAP. In the meantime, I'm shutting down both my PP and Venmo (owned by PP). It's just not worth it

    7. John C. Randolph   3 years ago

      It's theft. Paypal is already infamous for stealing their customers' money on the flimsiest of pretexts.

      -jcr

    8. Serpentine   3 years ago

      Evolutionary biologist Colin Wright already got squeezed off of Pay Pal for gee, talking about human biological reality. He just isn't wokey-dokey enough.

      So glad I never used PayPal, Facebook, or any such thing.

  2. rbike   3 years ago

    I don't like PayPal. Not really been my pal.

    1. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

      I'm not your pal, buddy.

      1. SQRLSY One   3 years ago

        Y'all ever been on the Erie Canal? Try it, you'll like it! It's like a Cheery Canal; not at all an Anal Canal! Cheerio, pal!

        You can always tell your neighbor, You can always tell your pal,
        If he’s ever navigated on the Erie Canal.

    2. Moonrocks   3 years ago

      PayPal? More like PayPiggy, am I right?

      1. BigT   3 years ago

        PayParasite

        1. Utkonos   3 years ago

          I vote for PayBack. You must admit, they ARE being complete BITCHES…

  3. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   3 years ago

    Where can I (and I am a user) post messages or information visible to others?

    Maybe there is a comment box on a "friends and family" payment? Otherwise it works like a Visa card.

    Paypal screwed up on this.

  4. Jerryskids   3 years ago

    PayPal doing God's work. Assuming, as a good socialist does, the State is God. And you know the rules: Thou shalt have no other God before Me.

    1. SQRLSY One   3 years ago

      Agreed! Let me now lead us all in a Song of Praise!

      Scienfoology Song… GAWD = Government Almighty’s Wrath Delivers

      Government loves me, This I know,
      For the Government tells me so,
      Little ones to GAWD belong,
      We are weak, but GAWD is strong!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      My Nannies tell me so!

      GAWD does love me, yes indeed,
      Keeps me safe, and gives me feed,
      Shelters me from bad drugs and weed,
      And gives me all that I might need!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      My Nannies tell me so!

      DEA, CIA, KGB,
      Our protectors, they will be,
      FBI, TSA, and FDA,
      With us, astride us, in every way!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
      My Nannies tell me so!

  5. Minadin   3 years ago

    "Efforts to police misinformation are prone to significant error and overreach." In exactly one direction only, every time. Odd.

  6. Naime Bond   3 years ago

    No they are not entitled to enter into binding contracts or agreements that are so vague, and open to interpretation, that no reasonable person could understand and then find themselves suddenly being fined $2,500.

    1. LLizard   3 years ago (edited)

      One of the elements of a contract is a “meeting of the minds” – each party must understand what they are agreeing to. These terms – hate, violence, intolerance, disinformation – are increasingly subjective, and no longer have a common consensus of their definitions. It’s impossible to know WHAT you are agreeing to, if the other party gets to constantly re-define the meaning of the words in the contract. What if I used PayPal to accept payment for t-shirts that said “January 6 Was Not An Insurrection”? Would they deem that “the financial exploitation of a crime”, and ding me $2500 per shirt sold? If they're hiring recent graduates, a shirt that said "Men Don't Give Birth" would be considered hate, violence, intolerance AND disinformation!

  7. mad.casual   3 years ago

    How are black people going to afford $2500 per racist joke?

    1. Quo Usque Tandem   3 years ago

      They didn't say there wouldn't be exemptions. And remember, violations are solely determined by PayPal.

      1. mad.casual   3 years ago

        Jokes on them. Even if they fine white people near exclusively and they pay near exclusively, the policy will still hit poor people harder.

      2. Cold War Boomerwaffen   3 years ago

        Totally illegal too. They’re really vague too. Simply banning someone would be legal, unless they did it because someone was a protected class. For example they couldn’t ban someone for being white, or a Christian. What they’re doing here is saying; “Well I know we didn’t define where you couldn’t say this. But we saw you wearing a MAGA hat on Facebook. So we’re gonna fine you.” They can’t do that on or off their platform.

  8. Nemo Aequalis   3 years ago

    We seem to have an abundance of corporations that want to be the government.

    I think we should grant their wish. Nationalize them.

    1. Mickey Rat   3 years ago

      Except we do not really allow the government to do what PayPal is trying to do. There are at least rules against it.

      1. ElvisIsReal   3 years ago

        Exactly. There's no way in the world government would get away with this, but throw a façade of 'private company' around it and suddenly it's legal? Fuck no. ESPECIALLY when we know that these companies are in bed with government to begin with!

  9. Longtobefree   3 years ago

    "An AUP notice recently went out in error that included incorrect information,"

    And I am sure PayPal fined itself $2,500 for each person who received that misinformation, right?
    Like they donated the money of the National Rifle Association, or maybe the Republican National Committee?

    Anyone who accepts any agreement that allows the other party to take money just for the hell of it (that is what "sole discretion" means) deserves what happens to them.

  10. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

    Reason:

    PayPal is free to put in place whatever policies it thinks are best, but the company shouldn't be surprised if people don't trust it to correctly define terms like misinformation, hate, or intolerance—and, thus, take their business elsewhere.

    Spiked:

    PayPal’s fantasy of fining people for sinful speech speaks to how arrogant the Silicon Valley elites have become. Emboldened by a political class that pleads with them to be more controlling, and by woke activists cheering on their every act of censorship, these online bosses are becoming more bloated, more cocky and more dangerous. It’s time to clip their wings. They must not be allowed to undermine our speech rights, our democratic rights and our legal rights. PayPal, you’ve gone way too far.

    1. BestUsedCarSales   3 years ago

      And as said above, I am actually not certain they legally can put a policy like this in place.

      1. Moonrocks   3 years ago

        In any other context, no it would not be legal. But the current precedent is that section 230 makes vague contract terms, subject to arbitrary enforcement and unilateral changes, are all perfectly fine.

        1. ElvisIsReal   3 years ago

          That's the narrative, though I'm not sure it's actually the reality. And I don't think any of these companies want to go through the courts to figure it out. Sort of like how government drops the case rather than reveal how they got certain information:

          https://www.wired.com/2017/03/feds-rather-drop-child-porn-case-give-exploit/

          THE DEPARTMENT OF Justice filed a motion in Washington State federal court on Friday to dismiss its indictment against a child porn site. It wasn't for lack of evidence; it was because the FBI didn't want to disclose details of a hacking tool to the defense as part of discovery. Evidence in United States v. Jay Michaud hinged at least in part on information federal investigators had gathered by exploiting a vulnerability in the Tor anonymity network.

          "Because the government remains unwilling to disclose certain discovery related to the FBI’s deployment of a 'Network Investigative Technique' ('NIT') as part of its investigation into the Playpen child pornography site, the government has no choice but to seek dismissal of the indictment," federal prosecutor Annette Hayes wrote in the court filing on Friday. She noted that the DoJ's work to resist disclosing the NIT was part of "an effort to balance the many competing interests that are at play when sensitive law enforcement technology becomes the subject of a request for criminal discovery."

          1. InsaneTrollLogic   3 years ago

            And in news at 11, Buttplug gets lucky.

        2. SQRLSY One   3 years ago

          "But the current precedent is that section 230 makes vague contract terms..."

          In what way(s)? Please be specific!

          https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml

          Is the 1st Amendment also too vague for you? "My web site belongs to me!" Is THAT too vague also?

          1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

            You oughta read section 231

            1. mpercy   3 years ago

              230, 231...whatever it takes.

        3. Overt   3 years ago

          Section 230 has absolutely nothing to do with this case.

          1. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

            Really? Isn't this a form of moderating? Which is protected by 230? I'm sure that's what the courts will decide, because no matter what these companies do, somehow it's always legal under 230.

            1. Overt   3 years ago

              No. This is more likely being pursued under powers granted by the federal government to financial institutions (in the PATRIOT ACT) giving them powers to block the funding of "Terrorist" organizations.

              PayPal and other financial transactors have been doing this for over a decade under the cover of prosecuting "Extremists" (where extremism is defines as getting on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of non-liberals- er, political extremists). It is not considered moderating content. Section 230 has nothing to do with it.

              1. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

                Given how much they've stretched out 230, do you want to bet on it?

                1. SQRLSY One   3 years ago

                  Rabid enemies (and enemas) of Section 230 (and the 1st Amendment) will be happy to explain to us that Section 230 (and the 1st Amendment) will be used to justify genocide, torturing puppies to death with lit cigarettes, and drinking the blood of the sacrificed Christian babies. More news at 11:00!!! Same batty time, same batty station!!!

              2. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

                Reason calls 230 the 1A of the internet, it's more appropriate to call it the commerce clause because it's original meaning has been so stretched to be meaningless.

                1. SQRLSY One   3 years ago

                  "Commerce clauses" are BAAAAAD 'cause right-wing wrong-nut Marxists SAY so!!! All is for the Collective Hive!!! "Commerce clauses" encourage EVIL "capitalism"!!!! Obey NOW, peons of the collective!!! ALL of your web sites belong to MEEEE!!!!

          2. Moonrocks   3 years ago

            It doesn't matter what section 230 says, what matters is how it's been enforced, and the precedent thus far has been that section 230 nullifies all contract law for anything related to electronic communications. Maybe this will spark the case that reverses that, but it hasn't yet.

            1. JesseAz   3 years ago

              This is the correct answer. Meagan Murphy had 230 stretched out to cover EULA and contracts even with changes made after the actions she was kicked off for.

              230 has been turned into a take all clause for the internet and its companies.

              1. SQRLSY One   3 years ago

                230 has been turned into a take all clause for stealing THE VERY LAST neurons (and resemblances of reason or logic) from the so-called "brains" of Der JesseBahnFuhrer!!! ALL HAIL Der JesseBahnFuhrer!!! NOW, peons! Bow LOW, scum-dawgs!!!!

            2. Ted   3 years ago

              The on,y way to save the country is to remove the left from America. I see no other solutions being offered.

  11. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

    The part I like the best about this story is that Paypal is now lying about its intentions. "It was all just a big misunderstanding."

    Like so much 27yr old caught in a hotel room with a 13 yr old.

    1. mad.casual   3 years ago

      A 2" diameter rod in a 1.5" diameter hole *is* a tolerance problem.

      1. SQRLSY One   3 years ago

        That's what she said!

        1. InsaneTrollLogic   3 years ago

          You wish.

      2. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

        Tiny white girls crave BBC? I think I've seen that one.

        1. Ted   3 years ago

          Or the reverse. ‘White sticks for black chicks’ is a thing.

  12. Brandybuck   3 years ago

    Wait, isn't that Trumpista-in-Chief Peter Thiel's company? I guess it's only eebil when the other side does it.

    1. Morbo   3 years ago

      That might have been a better burn if Peter Thiel hadn't sold PayPal to eBay in 2002.

      1. JimboJr   3 years ago

        As Brandybuck illustrates, time and time again, TDS still rampant among the populace...still not fatal.

        1. Uilleam   3 years ago

          "...still not fatal."

          Hope springs eternal.

      2. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

        Or if Thiel and his glowie buddy Breyer hadn't been the ones who helped turn Facebook into a massive data-mining operation for the CIA and NSA.

        What Brandy doesn't realize is that Thiel is one of the elite's actual Made Men, which is why they allowed him to stomp Gawker in to the ground via the Hogan trial and got the judgement they did.

        1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

          For fuck's sake, this is a guy who named his company Palantir, after the stone that Saruman uses to talk to Sauron.

          1. mpercy   3 years ago

            That was *one* of the palantir, there were several (at least 8).

            1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

              You really think that name was chosen for benign reasons?

    2. SQRLSY One   3 years ago

      The eebils AND the weebils are eebil AND they wobble, like the Wobblies that they are, butt they do NOT fall down! Not now, not EVAH!!!

    3. Mother's Lament   3 years ago (edited)

      He founded it back in 1996 with with Elon Musk and Max Levchin, and served as the company’s CEO until it was sold to eBay for $1.5 billion way back in 2002.

      He hasn’t had anything to do with it for 20 years.

      According to CNN Business, the top owners of PayPal are Vanguard and BlackRock.

      I find it hard to believe you don’t know this. Did Sarcasmic steal your nick or something?

      1. SQRLSY One   3 years ago

        "Did Sarcasmic steal your nick or something?"

        Good Christian Expert Theologians like Marxist Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer NEVER steal IDs, RIGHT, right-wing wrong-nut?

        Hey Mamma the Highly Esteemed, Expert Christian Theologian!
        https://reason.com/2021/03/24/for-the-first-time-a-majority-of-republicans-support-same-sex-marriage/#comment-8822506
        Have you figured out yet, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Many of us are waiting with bated breath!
        Also, how is Your Followership building up? I mean, for Your “Expert Theologians for Worshipful Methods of Identity Theft”? Where do we subscribe to Your Newsletter?

        Hear, hear, HEAR ye the self-righteous preachings of MammaryBahnFuhrer! (Imported below). She knows JUST the right “Popular-with-the-Cool-Kids-in-Her-Own-Mind” theology to espouse, along with wearing JUST the right purse, hairstyle, whorestyle, and other accessories! Meanwhile, in the EXACT same source, She engaged in identity theft! Her heart, in truth, is a ravening black hole of hypocrisy, greedy self-righteousness, and other evils!

        Now, the preachings of The Great Mammary. Note that She picks the verses that say that the right BELIEFS and whorestyles get you “in” with the “in” crowd, and then you’re free to engage in ID theft and other evils, at will!

        Mammary-style whorestyles - preachings below:

        It amazes me how Americans living in a purportedly Christian culture don't even understand the basic tenets of its theology.
        Pretty much the whole point of Christianity is that everyone has sinned and is worthy of damnation so God became a human and took our punishment for us. And the libertarian angle is, that you still have a choice to accept or reject the gift already given.
        Ephesians 2:8-9 ESV: For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
        Romans 6:23 ESV: For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
        John 3:16-17 ESV: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

        We can pick and chose our Bible verses to justify ANY evils we WANT TO justify! And YOU equate "fashionable theology to justify ANY evil shit that I want to do" with Your fashionable hairstyle and whorestyle! Got the right fashionable BELIEFS, and so then The Queen can do WHATEVER she wants! Your BELIEFS will protect You from the consequences of Your evil actions? Do You not GET this, Oh Fashionable Queen of the Internet Cesspools?

        "By their fruits, you will know them", is something that Jesus said. DEEDS, not "Magic Beliefs"!
        So Great Theologian... How about Your DEEDS? Like identity theft? Was it YOU who stole "Buttplug the First"'s ID, to post child porn under his ID? How can we know either way, for SURE (how can we believe any denials that You might make), when you steal IDs, and implicitly in doing so, deliberately LIE, for malicious purposes? Stealing another person's ID is something that I would NEVER do!
        So tell me again about Your Superior Theology?

        PS, You (Oh Queen) are apparently saying that it's OK to act HOWEVER YOU WANT, and get a "free pass" with Your Magic Beliefs, fashionable hairstyle and whorestyle, etc. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!!! Your Magic Beliefs DO NOT protect You from the consequences of Your evil choices!!! If You drink a gallon of whiskey every day, is God going to forgive You because You have Magic Beliefs? AND give You Your healthy liver back? Have You SHOWN this to be true? Or do You know ANYONE who has demonstrated this?
        If You spit in the faces of ALL of Your friends, will You have any friends left? You're not married, are You? Is this perhaps the pay-back that You have earned by being a Perfectly Superior One, in the face of EVERYONE that You meet? Can you NOT see my basic point, that Your Magic Beliefs are ZERO protection from "karma", or, "what comes around, goes around"?

        1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

          Must have been over the target, one hundred lines of copypasta gibberish.

          Remember folks, instead of tiring out your scrolling finger, just hit the spamflag. It hides his shitpost and you won't get into trouble. Reason never deletes flagged spam.

          1. SQRLSY One   3 years ago

            Mamma the Highly Esteemed, Expert Christian Theologian, will go right on believing that Her Perfect Magic Religious Beliefs will PROTECT Her from the results of Her Own Perfectly Evil Actions!

            More news at 11:00!!!!

          2. This Is The Zodiac Speaking   3 years ago

            I love the grey boxing this bitch

    4. JesseAz   3 years ago

      The continued ignorance of leftitarians here is breathtaking to watch.

      Good attempt at blaming those you consider on the right.

      1. SQRLSY One   3 years ago

        The right is never wrong!!! Thus spake JesseBahnFuhrer! All Hail!!!

    5. Ted   3 years ago

      Yeah, Trump’s the problem here, right douchebag?

  13. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

    And no, PayPal did not act alone here. They are getting pressure from media and other outlets to take action. This didn't just happen in a vacuum. Here's a CNET article taking payment processor to task for allowing people to profit from misinformation:

    Along with social media companies, Rothschild also points to payment platforms as having a role in spreading misinformation.

    The larger influencers of conspiracy theories profit from the misinformation they peddle. Patreon, PayPal and other services that let people pay money to creators have instituted policies that attempt to prevent funds from going to people producing misinformation, but people continue to find ways around those policies or look to more lenient platforms such as Subscribestar.
    [...]Even though academic experts, government entities and tech companies are all aware of how bad the misinformation problem is, and will be, it will still be an uphill battle to stop it from spreading.

    First published on Jan. 3, 2022 at 4:00 a.m. PT.

    Journalists, the gatekeepers of the first amendment.

    Fuck them, and everyone who looks like them.

    1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

      Your usual culprit, Media Matters has been on the case:

      PayPal and GoFundMe are hosting crowdfunding campaigns for organizations that spread harmful COVID-19 misinformation

      Both platforms have policies against campaigns that are misleading or involve products that can cause consumer harm

      WRITTEN BY CAMDEN CARTER

      PUBLISHED 10/07/21 1:02 PM EDT

      Amid an ongoing pandemic that has already claimed over 700,000 American lives, PayPal, GoFundMe, and other payment platforms are hosting donation pages and crowdfunding campaigns for organizations spreading misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines.

      Groups known for spreading medical misinformation, including Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), America’s Frontline Doctors, Children’s Health Defense, Urban Global Health Alliance, and the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd., all have campaigns or donation pages set up through the aforementioned platforms. Even though these fundraising efforts appear to violate the platforms’ policies, these groups have managed to raise tens of thousands of dollars to help fund their misinformation projects.

      Some of these organizations have been spreading misleading claims about vaccines for years, while others have been founded recently with the purpose of pushing the use of drugs like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, which have not been proved effective for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. In fact, the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have warned against using either drug for this purpose, stating that the misuse of these medications can cause serious harm.

      1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago (edited)

        Notably, PayPal also does not allow users to “provide false, inaccurate or misleading information,” and the platform has recently partnered with the Anti-Defamation League to “fight extremism and protect marginalized communities.” This partnership indicates that PayPal is aiming to minimize the harm caused by extremists using their services, but its inaction around groups using the platform to spread COVID-19 misinformation presents a danger to the very people its mission claims to help.

        Trust me, this policy was a long-time in the making, and has been nudged along by your usual actors (such as Media Matters) and other Google-funded groups who have been desperately trying to control the media narrative for over a decade now.

      2. InsaneTrollLogic   3 years ago

        Speaking of the kings of misinformation, that would be Media Matters. They are far more guilty of misinformation campaigns than damn near any other group I can name.

        1. BigT   3 years ago

          Even the NYT?

          They have a 9 decade record, at least. MM are newcomers.

          1. InsaneTrollLogic   3 years ago

            True dat, the NYT has a long record, but MM is trying to make up for it in volume.

    2. Zeb   3 years ago

      At this point, anytime you see anyone use the term "misinformation", immediately ask what information they are trying to suppress. I think that's all the word really means at this point.

      If you aren't allowed to be wrong, you aren't allowed to debate (or do science, or actually learn anything ever).

    3. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

      do some Journalisming, Reason:

      RELEASE: Auchincloss Leads Democrats in Letter to Stop Vaccine Disinformation Profits

      Auchincloss Leads Democrats in Letter to Stop Vaccine Disinformation Profits

      Letter urges PayPal to ban users who disseminate vaccine disinformation

      WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today, Congressman Jake Auchincloss (D, MA-04) led other Democratic members in a letter to PayPal urging the corporation to ban the use of its online payment system on websites that perpetuate COVID-19 vaccine and treatment disinformation. Specifically, the letter calls on PayPal to deactivate the accounts of the “Disinformation Dozen.”

      We write to express concern about PayPal’s role in the spread of COVID-19 disinformation. As you know, more than 800,000 Americans have died from COVID-19. The majority of these deaths have come after the approval of safe, free, and effective vaccines. Throughout this pandemic, it is our opinion that your company has played a role in financing vaccine disinformation spreaders. We believe PayPal should consider banning the use of its online payments system on websites that perpetuate dangerous lies about COVID-19 treatment and immunization.

      You have a rando commenter who's capable of connecting the dots here.

      1. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

        … after the approval of safe, free, and effective vaccines.

        There’s your misinformation, right there.

        1. ElvisIsReal   3 years ago

          Approved misinformation isn't!

      2. Overt   3 years ago

        And once again, behind a servile act of performative, corporate, SJW thuggery, there is a government letter.

        1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

          If a bunch of former Obama administration hacks, Beto O'Rourke stumpers and March for Your Lives activists can draw a complex spiderweb chart of interconnected alt-righty youtuber randos produced by an oddly named organization called "Data & Society" and that gets taken deadly seriously by every legacy media outlet in the land, then I can do it too.

          1. Overt   3 years ago

            For the record, I was not criticizing you. I was reinforcing the message. This is a lovely racket they have.

            Government: Don't sue us, we aren't censoring YOU. We are just telling companies that there will be a crack down of epic distortions if they don't deal with people profiting off of [insert scare word here - terrorism/customer fraud/misinformation/extremism]

            Company: Don't sue US, we didn't single you out. We have been asked by the government to stop MISINFORTERROREXTREMIFRAUD, and by gum, we are going to do it. It isn't arbitrary, we are relying on these EXPERT NGOs to tell us who is bad-thinkin.

            NGO: Don't sue us! We didn't censor you. We just highlighted some posts you made as contrary to good values. Oh, you were wrongly accused? Oh, fill out our forms in triplicate and we will review you. Pity about your business.

            The entire goal is to give everyone plausible deniability as they insert as much friction as is practical against those who must be stopped.

      3. Utkonos   3 years ago

        BTW, who exactly ARE The Disinformation Dozen? I haven’t seen that one yet.
        (I assume it’s safe to rule out Lee Marvin and Charles Bronson m?)

      4. jbrennan 2   3 years ago (edited)
    4. ElvisIsReal   3 years ago (edited)

      🙁

    5. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

      Rothschild, huh? Way to do your best to not live up to that Illuminati stereotype there, Mike.

  14. Zeb   3 years ago

    What about being intolerant of intolerance?

    Somehow I doubt this will be a content neutral policy applied equally to people annoyed by trans activism and those who want to punch those they perceive as Nazis.

    1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

      Herbert Marcuse, noted Marxist and godfather to Angela Davis called it "repressive tolerance" which is basically the world in which we live today.

      1. InsaneTrollLogic   3 years ago

        There's an oymoronic term, "repressive tolerance". If it's repressive, it's not tolerance.

        1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

          Marcuse's Repressive Tolerance.

          1. BigT   3 years ago

            The chef’s salad of word salads.

            1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

              You really owe it to yourself to read that in full. It's one of the cornerstones of modern left-wing thinking.

            2. Beezard   3 years ago

              Unfortunately, it’s not word salad. It means stuff. Bad stuff that people are actually enacting.

        2. Utkonos   3 years ago

          Yeah well, Marcuse gonna Marcuse.
          And the world is a shittier place for it.

    2. mad.casual   3 years ago

      Better stated, but less funny, IMO.

    3. JimboJr   3 years ago

      Im assuming they will use the "Mandalorian" playbook:

      - Activist/Ally/Wokester uses Nazi's to make a point that bad people doing nazi-like things is dangerous...met with praise, or at a minimum, silence. Lucrative move, many more roles for said wokester.

      - Unfriendly/Normie/Based-person uses Nazi's to make a point that bad people doing nazi-like things is dangerous...met with outrage, accused of being "anti-Semitic" despite that reasoning being bananas. Costly move, costing the person every future role in hollywood.

      Not that hollywood roles are super important, but this is absolutely the metric they will use. Doesn't even have to be an apples/oranges comparison, if you're a blue check you get to say what you want and if you aren't, you will get targeted even for saying identical things.

      1. Utkonos   3 years ago

        Say what you want about the Readon commentariat, but we know how to handle a real Nazi by just handing him his ass without resorting to repressive measures. Herr Misek has the frownie face to prove it!

  15. Truthteller1   3 years ago

    It would be unconstitutional for a private company to fine a American citizen for exercising free speech.

    1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

      Wrong. This would fall under the umbrella of "moderating in good faith" in service to making sure communications remain decent.

      1. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

        Decent according to whom?

        1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

          Well, I've tried to post two comments on the Communications Decency act with no links or tags, yet both were eaten.

          1. mad.casual   3 years ago

            Did you say the magic words? "1A of the internet"

            1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago (edited)

              In the two eaten comments, why yes I did. Hmm

              First Amendment of the Internet.

      2. Overt   3 years ago

        The thing that is crazy is that this isn't even moderation. This is your bank monitoring what you do OUTSIDE THEIR BUSINESS and confiscating your money if they object to it.

        1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

          Can you think of a more effective form of moderation?

          1. Uilleam   3 years ago

            Aside from full on dictatorship, no. Soft tyranny via proxy is what we have and it's quite effective at not rocking the boat too hard.

        2. BigT   3 years ago

          Don’t they do that at the behest of the Feds all the time?

        3. Ted   3 years ago

          PayPal should be destroyed for this. They’re making war on us. When someone makes war on you, the correct response is their to commit destruction or the acceptance of their unconditional surrender.

  16. Quo Usque Tandem   3 years ago

    Just closed my account; reason given, the updated user agreement.

    I suggest everyone do the same; if you want to get the attention of these assholes, start with their pocket book. Then watch them drop their fucking "sensibilities" like a bad habit.

    1. JimboJr   3 years ago

      Ill admit its rare that I have needed to use paypal for anything, but definitely closing my account out.

  17. Marshal   3 years ago

    It's interesting they refine their definition to be even more obviously ideological than their original and obviously ideologically driven plan. Apparently someone pointed out all the stupid shit leftists believe, or pretend to believe, and since PayPal will refuse to address those instances the policy will undermine their position.

  18. JimboJr   3 years ago

    Visa/Mastercard/Amex putting special labels on gun sales (to the applause of democrats)

    Banks in Canada going after the truckers (to the applause of the left wingers)

    Companies like paypal going after "misinformation" which has been specifically used to target anyone going against the wokies and the democrat govt.

    Thank god we have the democrats to protect us from Fascism, amirite?!

    1. mad.casual   3 years ago

      Schadenfreude that it's you've portrayed it according to the nominal narrative instead of the actual facts, like the cart just decided to move itself in front of the donkey, and it's still fascist as hell.

  19. Rich   3 years ago

    "PayPal is not fining people for misinformation and this language was never intended to be inserted in our policy."

    "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

    Awesome use of the passive voice. *Somebody* certainly intended it.

  20. Dillinger   3 years ago

    dafuq kind of message board is on paypal anyway?

    1. Barnstormer   3 years ago (edited)

      This is what I was wondering about.

      I understand that if I used Paypal to receive donations for a Pro-Trump, anti-Gaia, anti-vax, pro-lab-created, election-denying, pro-fossil-fuel, blog, then they might seek to fuck with my money.

      Otherwise, if I simply shitpost on Reason.com, what business is it of theirs?

      1. Uilleam   3 years ago

        I think that's the point. Policy so broad that they can fine you for covid vax misinformation that you posted to facebook.

        1. Brett Bellmore   3 years ago

          They could fine you for anything you posted to Facebook, if they claimed it was "hateful". Whether or not it was true would have no bearing.

      2. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

        Only if they get wind of it. There are already established cases of creators being deplatformed on Patreon and other services for their activities not related to their patreon endeavor. Example: Creator has Patreon to help fund activities on his channel. He appears on ANOTHER youtuber's channel in a conversation, says something untoward, Patreon is alerted by helpful twitter users that said comment was made, Patreon cancels youtuber's channel and account. This has happened, and I believe Patreon reserves the right to do this.

      3. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

        Shorter: don't be popular enough to catch the gaze of what one media outlet unwittingly described as the Eye of Sauron.

  21. BarkingSpider   3 years ago

    Plenty of other ways to pay. Don't trust them and don't need them. Why do people think they are the be all end all for payments and "security"...thats a fucking joke. A credit card with chargeback capabilities and not on the hook for any fraud over $50 is all thats needed. Go fuck yourself PayPal!

    1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

      We're working on that loophole.

    2. Libertariantranslator   3 years ago

      Well said.

  22. LauraZ 2   3 years ago

    Who uses PayPal to send messages? You hit pay and you’re done… sounds like a rule looking for somewhere to go.
    So stupid

    1. Fats of Fury   3 years ago

      PayPal has been demonetizing blogs that have used it for donations. It's been shutting down the donors accounts too.

      https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/21/paypal-demonetises-the-daily-sceptic/

      EBAY sent out a notice a few months ago that they were setting up their own payment system although they would still process Paypal payments. Ebay made Paypal what it is, this seems like a really stupid move. I doubt they would be doing this without the government strong arming them.

  23. rbike   3 years ago

    How do I close my PayPal account?
    Before you close your PayPal account, remove any money from your PayPal balance.

    If there's a chance that you might want to use PayPal in the future, you can keep your account open.

    If you noticed a payment that you didn’t authorize, please report it right away in the Resolution Center.

    Here's how to close your PayPal account:

    Go to Settings.
    Click Close your account under "Account options."
    Click Close Account.
    On the PayPal app:

    Tap your profile icon.
    Tap Close your account.
    On the PayPal business app:

    Tap the profile icon.
    Tap Account Info.
    Tap Close Your Account.
    Once you close your PayPal account, it can’t be reopened.

    It’s not possible to close an account with a remaining balance, an account limitation, or other unresolved issues.

    1. Quo Usque Tandem   3 years ago

      I also took the step of deleting my information, which included my checking account and a credit card. If they determined that they should fine me, I wouldn't want them having access to those!

  24. TommyInIdaho   3 years ago

    I don’t bank money with PayPal. Charges go to my bank account. I’m damned if I know how the heck I could spread misinformation paying for an online purchase.

    1. Longtobefree   3 years ago

      Perhaps the non-PayPal parts of Skynet talk to the other parts?
      Remember, it is not just "misinformation"; it is any damn thing PayPal decides to not like.
      That is what "sole discretion" means.
      Say you buy from a company that doesn't require masking?
      You pay a doctor who doesn't perform transgender surgery.
      You may browse a page that contains a flag used by The Lost Cause.
      Perhaps you buy a t-shirt from a company that sells to the RNC.

  25. OliviaOnline   3 years ago (edited)

    I am making 80 US dollars per hr. to complete some internet services from home. I did not ever think it would even be achievable , however my confidant mate got $13k only in four weeks, easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail.
    For more detail visit this site.. http://www.Profit97.com

  26. Nemo Aequalis   3 years ago

    There are alternatives.

    https://www.gabpay.com

  27. Sevo   3 years ago

    "..."Sounds like a good reason to think twice about using PayPal," writes Eugene Volokh..."

    Think once; outa here.

  28. Uomo Del Ghiaccio   3 years ago

    If one company or two did something appalling as what PayPal did one could shake if off as the company is misguided. Reality is that there are not one or two, but rather the majority of companies are leaving their core business to force their misguided policies. This is not a few rogue players, but rather appears to be orchestrated.

    If companies within a industry collude to increase profits by fixing prices, if discovered they are charged with a crime. When Parlor was taken down, there was collusion between several companies. Likewise this should be confided as much of a crime as the former example.

    When we hear that the Biden regime has suggested to social media who to de-platform and then attempt to create a ministry of truth this begins to sound dystopian. The notion of Government directing private companies in a relationship is reminiscent of Fascist economics.

    Without freedom to debate ideas only propaganda remains. The direction of the Biden regime is taking the country is troubling. I feel that he is promoting a single party state and criminalizing opposition.

    While I dislike Trump, he was not the treat to freedom that Biden poses. In my opinion neither Trump nor Biden should ever ascended to the presidency, but the options that the Democrats and Republicans offer up are incredibly pathetic.

    For example Trump won because Hillary Clinton is a absolutely and uniquely terrible candidate. Biden won because Trump wore out his welcome. Biden will be a single term president because he is a warmongering tyrant that has questionable mental capacity.

    Harris could very possibly be a worse excuse than Biden is, Both Biden, Trump and Hillary are way too old and out of touch for elected office. Although it may not matter as the warmonger in chief Biden and Putin seem intent to destroy humanity.

  29. Longtobefree   3 years ago

    Coming soon?

    https://babylonbee.com/news/paypal-to-automatically-pull-2500-in-reparations-from-all-white-peoples-accounts

  30. Bladernr1001   3 years ago

    Could they really actually do this from a legal standpoint? I mean you can put it in the TOS but is such a clause legal?

  31. MWAocdoc   3 years ago

    It's not clear to me how PayPal could fine me for spreading misinformation or hate speech if I only use it to pay for things or be paid for things. I have yet to find any way to post hate speech or misinformation on the PayPal app. The article doesn't make it clear either. If I were silly enough to maintain a cash balance on PayPal and give them permission to fine me for something I might post on some other platform, I would deserve whatever I got.

  32. John C. Randolph   3 years ago

    I haven't used PayPal in several years, but my account still existed until a couple of days ago when I heard about this. If any vendor asks me to use PayPal in the future, I'll tell them that I don't support criminal enterprises.

    -jcr

  33. Libertariantranslator   3 years ago

    All through 2020 and 2021 Paypal forced me to change passwords EVERY TIME I accessed the account. Their 5-year stock chart on Yahoo shows a company that exploited the pandemic and is now rejected back to 2018 values. Today they are interfering with my Dropbox payment, perhaps as an exercise in impairment of contracts. With Pals like these, who needs enemies?

  34. NM Dave   3 years ago

    I dropped PayPal long ago because they are a powerful tool for fraudsters. This gives me even less reason to start using them again.

  35. poppavein   3 years ago

    Cancelling Paypal is difficult.
    First I had to go through and cancel all of my automated payments. It still wouldn't let me close the account, so I called in.
    After giving me a run-around, we ran into an issue because the account was started by my ex-wife 15 years ago. Even though it takes money from my account, I was supposed to get my ex-wife to cancel it. Paypal said they would send me an email to tell me how to resolve this. It never came.
    I called my bank and put a hold on any future transactions.
    I suspect there are a lot of unused accounts because it was too difficult to cancel them, but it props up their numbers.

    1. Vernon Depner   3 years ago

      NEVER entangle your finances with those of your spouse. "Till death us do part" is rare.

  36. ktaabhulul   3 years ago

    https://ktaabhulul.com/

    The Saudi Sahih solutions site, publishing the solved books in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ktaabhulul The site of solutions that publishes the solved books and the Saudi curricula by grades...

  37. lizaabrams99   3 years ago

    Well, there are numerous benefits of "Information", for example, it will improve your "Blog"! Thanks for providing such valuable information.
    https://myanimelist.net/profile/Riccardocosta0

  38. lizaabrams99   3 years ago

    i will surely gonna try it and share it with my family :)Thanks a lot for your brief explanation about this amazing "BLOG",
    https://www.informationweek.com/profile.asp?piddl_userid=491126

  39. lizaabrams99   3 years ago

    https://online-sewing-machine.jimdosite.com/

  40. lizaabrams99   3 years ago

    https://newsstand.joomag.com/en/settings/profile

  41. lizaabrams99   3 years ago

    https://www.jovoto.com/community/onlinesewingmachine

  42. lizaabrams99   3 years ago (edited)

    https://ko-fi.com/shawnelvis#paypalModal

  43. lizaabrams99   3 years ago

    https://www.kdpcommunity.com/s/question/0D58V00006xmMg9SAE/is-it-possible-to-market-a-product-like-sewing-machine

  44. lizaabrams99   3 years ago

    https://www.kooapp.com/koo/guest_29N3N5/9ff90a68-4448-45d6-bec5-bc2349444f94

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Rep. Ro Khanna Releases Names of 6 Alleged Epstein Files Associates

Robby Soave | 2.10.2026 7:15 PM

An Immigration Judge Finds No Legal Basis To Deport a Student Arrested for an Op-Ed

Jacob Sullum | 2.10.2026 5:10 PM

The Trump Administration Plans To Repeal EPA Finding That Greenhouse Gas Emissions 'Threaten' Public Health

Ronald Bailey | 2.10.2026 5:00 PM

In 2024, Trump Rejected Numbers Showing a Homicide Drop As a 'Lie.' Now He Is Bragging About Them.

Jacob Sullum | 2.10.2026 4:15 PM

Can Congress Get 'YIMBY Grants' Right?

Christian Britschgi | 2.10.2026 4:00 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS Add Reason to Google

© 2026 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

I WANT FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS!

Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.

Make a donation today! No thanks
r

I WANT TO FUND FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS

Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.

Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
r

SUPPORT HONEST JOURNALISM

So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.

I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK

Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.

My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
r

HELP KEEP MEDIA FREE & FEARLESS

Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREE MINDS

Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.

Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK AGAINST SOCIALIST IDEAS

Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BAD IDEAS WITH FACTS

Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BAD ECONOMIC IDEAS ARE EVERYWHERE. LET’S FIGHT BACK.

Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

JOIN THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM

Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BACK JOURNALISM THAT PUSHES BACK AGAINST SOCIALISM

Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BACK AGAINST BAD ECONOMICS.

Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks