PayPal busted trying to sneak $2,500 fines into TOS. Again.

[Naru, Chief Defendestrator]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zt8YonMWBN4

So boys... The question this news begs would be: Is this mere disinformation soon to be fact checked by our local glowies again? Or are they actually trying to legislate via terms of service this time?

[☎need4naiim☎]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Pudge:

paypal is still super useful to me. i don't care if they're shady unless they start stealing from me

So, it is absolutely fine as long as they steal from eveyone bar you?

[Spirit]

Diposting pertama kali oleh ☎need4naiim☎:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Pudge:

paypal is still super useful to me. i don't care if they're shady unless they start stealing from me

So, it is absolutely fine as long as they steal from eveyone bar you?

well it will be a public problem if they start stealing from anyone, and then probably everyone abandons it. no reason to fear it

[kbiz]

Diposting pertama kali oleh ☎need4naiim☎:

So, it is absolutely fine as long as they steal from eveyone bar you?

Still waiting to hear how they steal $2500 from you. PayPal is my backup to my credit card. And I haven't had any issues with them.

What am I missing?

[HypersleepyNaputunia]

just depends on how pp decides to define "misinformation"

careful what you type on internet from now on your free speech could cost you if pp decides it doesnt like you

[EASY PETE]

If paypal stole your money couldnt you just go to your bank and do a charge back?

[Naru, Chief Defendestrator]

Diposting pertama kali oleh lightwo:

♥♥♥♥ company with too much power over their customers.

Bought something legal we don't like? Account suspended. Have a "dangerous" (to us) political view? Account suspended. Not our puppet? You're owned. Account suspended.

Edit: Is it about censoring free speech by calling out "misinformation"? I must have heard similar stories before, but ♥♥♥♥ THEM.

Diposting pertama kali oleh kbiz:

Let's say we don't want to watch a 10+ minute video. What are they trying to charge $2500 for?

I also want a short summary.

The terms are extremely vague. Effectively they say anything you do while using PayPal that could lead to legal damages for PayPal is liable to charged with a minimum of $2,500.

Yes. A minimum of $2,500.

Also just don't think about the purpose for section 230's existence or you'll ruin the grift.

[Polverrati]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Naru Butterfly Effector:

Diposting pertama kali oleh lightwo:

♥♥♥♥ company with too much power over their customers.

Bought something legal we don't like? Account suspended. Have a "dangerous" (to us) political view? Account suspended. Not our puppet? You're owned. Account suspended.

Edit: Is it about censoring free speech by calling out "misinformation"? I must have heard similar stories before, but ♥♥♥♥ THEM.


I also want a short summary.

The terms are extremely vague. Effectively they say anything you do while using PayPal that could lead to legal damages for PayPal is liable to charged with a minimum of $2,500.

Yes. A minimum of $2,500.

Also just don't think about the purpose for section 230's existence or you'll ruin the grift.

Something we should note about this before Paypal tries abusing it, as written in the TOS the fine only applies to SELLERS. The moment they fine someone who isn't a seller they've broken their own TOS and outright stolen money, then they are open to legal action. Here's hoping they're dumb enough to try it.

[kbiz]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Naru Butterfly Effector:

The terms are extremely vague. Effectively they say anything you do while using PayPal that could lead to legal damages for PayPal is liable to charged with a minimum of $2,500.

Thank you. So not relevant.

[Thermal Lance]

People still using PayPal in 2022 are positively asking to get screwed. It's been what? 10 years since people started get warned to stop using that crap?

[Naru, Chief Defendestrator]

Diposting pertama kali oleh kbiz:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Naru Butterfly Effector:

The terms are extremely vague. Effectively they say anything you do while using PayPal that could lead to legal damages for PayPal is liable to charged with a minimum of $2,500.

Thank you. So not relevant.

So not relevant ... To SpaceX? Couldn't agree more. 😁👍

[A&A]

I couldn't find any information

But... "You acknowledge and agree that $2,500 Canadian
Dollars per violation of the Acceptable Use Policy is presently a reasonable
minimum estimate of PayPal's actual damages – including, but not limited to,
internal administrative costs incurred by PayPal to monitor and track violations,"

I don't know exactly who they are trying to fool the consumers or the companies, but it is a fact that they have this

[Azza ☠]

I had already explained it here:
https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/12/3392924441158984020/?tscn=1665365131

Nothing has changed, except for people's assumptions about it and the wording clarification.

Say you had a scammer setup a Paypal account to steal donations or funds. Rather than them getting those funds, the account get locked and investigated, then can send the funds back to the scam victim(s) and/or use them to pay for the criminal investigation.

I don't see why people are so freaked out about it.

[Naru, Chief Defendestrator]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Azza ☠:

I had already explained it here:
https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/12/3392924441158984020/?tscn=1665365131

Nothing has changed, except for people's assumptions about it and the wording clarification.

Say you had a scammer setup a Paypal account to steal donations or funds. Rather than them getting those funds, the account get locked and investigated, then can send the funds back to the scam victim(s) and/or use them to pay for the criminal investigation.

I don't see why people are so freaked out about it.

Do you have any insight as to why PayPal would lie about their good will efforts to help victims of scams - by saying their intent to charge scammers like a multibillion dollar corporation incarnation of Robinhood was "an error" - only to perform the error a second time after all the hubbub about their righteous endeavours being grossly misinterpreted (evidently by both the general public and their own PR team) had died down?

Your theory seems reasonable enough at face value otherwise.

[MinionJoe]

Yeah, saw the video earlier while I was at work. Got to messing around with some new headphones tonight. I'll be closing my accounts tomorrow. Thanks for the reminder.

[Edge_Master]

Diposting pertama kali oleh 👻Pocahawtness:

I closed my paypal account years ago. They used to be a good company but they are rubbish now. You really don't need a paypal acc.

yeah you do. if buying online you get insurence coverage on lost/fraudulent items . if you pay via direct debit you don't get that protection.