Thoughts on Paypal?

jbreezy5

https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilymason/2022/10/27/after-paypal-revokes-controversial-misinformation-policy-major-concerns-remain-over-2500-fine/

Wondering members thoughts regarding the $2,500 fine discussed in above article.

pitdogg2

How do you get a misinformation fine paying for goods?

Emlyn

I shut my own PalPal account a couple years ago because I no longer had much of a use for it and other payment methods not involving direct access to my bank are available. I never had a problem with their service but I just consider it more of potential liability than a benefit. Outdated.

txcoastal1

pitdogg2 wrote: »

How do you get a misinformation fine paying for goods?

you know, the african prince send me $3000 and I will pay you $10000 when I get to the states

F1nut

It's not a social media site, so I fail to understand why they are pretending like they are.

Emlyn

The full story is kind of murky. From what I understand the legalese in their terms of service documents have always had a provision to potentially take funds from a person’s linked account if the account has been used to accept money from activities that violate the company’s terms of service.

jbreezy5

pitdogg2 wrote: »

How do you get a misinformation fine paying for goods?

F1nut wrote: »

It's not a social media site, so I fail to understand why they are pretending like they are.

The article referenced Venmo as having a social media aspect to it, and it is a sister company to Paypal.

It also seems they may make value judgments on where persons are sending money, if they deem funds are sent to recipients that spread misinformation; but I can’t say that for sure.

It’s all very vague, but the verbiage said it’s at Paypal’s sole discretion.

pitdogg2

Emlyn wrote: »

The full story is kind of murky. From what I understand the legalese in their terms of service documents have always had a provision to potentially take funds from a person’s linked account if the account has been used to accept money from activities that violate the company’s terms of service.

Good luck with that. My account I use for PP never has any money in it unless I'm purchasing something or getting a refund. It is not linked to any account that does have money. If there's refund it's immediately withdrawn.

It's for all intents and purposes a dead account.

Those who use their daily banking accounts I just shake my head at.

The credit card I use for PayPal is the same way, it's not my daily card.
If it gets hacked I'm not liable for any of it. It's basically just a loadable card. Once again not linked to any of my personal bank accounts.

heiney9

They basically retracted the idea months ago. Very bad PR move on their part to put this in their terms of service and then get push-back and then issue a retraction.

This was in the news months ago.

I use Paypal a lot for merchant purchases and will continue to use Paypal. I consistently use the "over $99 purchase and 6 mos no interest". Why use my money if I can use someone else's? I ALWAYS pay it off before the 6 months.

H9

Gardenstater

He he he. Makes me feel better about this:

sucks2beme

I'm OK if someone was buying/selling drugs and paypal
Fined them. But the wording sounded way too vague to me.

jbreezy5

heiney9 wrote: »

They basically retracted the idea months ago. Very bad PR move on their part to put this in their terms of service and then get push-back and then issue a retraction.

This was in the news months ago.

I use Paypal a lot for merchant purchases and will continue to use Paypal. I consistently use the "over $99 purchase and 6 mos no interest". Why use my money if I can use someone else's? I ALWAYS pay it off before the 6 months.

H9

No, this was last month when the retraction of the verbiage occurred, which apparently existed since 2013; however, Paypal restored the verbiage again, same month, after retracting it.

I just find it confusing due to the back-and-forth on Paypal’s part.

TroyD

RT1 nailed it:

Q: What is replete with suckiocity?

A: Paypal

xschop

They just exposed their surveillance and 4th amendment violations.

jbreezy5

Maybe Elon Musk with hostile takeover Paypal. 😅

heiney9

jbreezy5 wrote: »

heiney9 wrote: »

They basically retracted the idea months ago. Very bad PR move on their part to put this in their terms of service and then get push-back and then issue a retraction.

This was in the news months ago.

I use Paypal a lot for merchant purchases and will continue to use Paypal. I consistently use the "over $99 purchase and 6 mos no interest". Why use my money if I can use someone else's? I ALWAYS pay it off before the 6 months.

H9

No, this was last month when the retraction of the verbiage occurred, which apparently existed since 2013; however, Paypal restored the verbiage again, same month, after retracting it.

I just find it confusing due to the back-and-forth on Paypal’s part.

For me it doesn't matter. I don't spread false misleading lies on Social Media. It's a non-issue for me. I admit to not reading the user agreement updates.

H9

jbreezy5

heiney9 wrote: »

jbreezy5 wrote: »

heiney9 wrote: »

They basically retracted the idea months ago. Very bad PR move on their part to put this in their terms of service and then get push-back and then issue a retraction.

This was in the news months ago.

I use Paypal a lot for merchant purchases and will continue to use Paypal. I consistently use the "over $99 purchase and 6 mos no interest". Why use my money if I can use someone else's? I ALWAYS pay it off before the 6 months.

H9

No, this was last month when the retraction of the verbiage occurred, which apparently existed since 2013; however, Paypal restored the verbiage again, same month, after retracting it.

I just find it confusing due to the back-and-forth on Paypal’s part.

For me it doesn't matter. I don't spread false misleading lies on Social Media. It's a non-issue for me. I admit to not reading the user agreement updates.

H9

Therein lies the rub; the arbiter of deciding whether you do that, or not, is Paypal, it seems.

heiney9

The thing is we are all free to use or not use something based on their rules. No rub, if you don't like the way a company is run or it's user agreements, then move onto something that fits better for you.

You stated it was in the user agreement as far back as 2013, if you read the user agreement then, would it not have stood out to you? Or is it because someone has made an example of it and now it seems wrong when in 2013 it was a non-issue (for you).

Sorry, to rag on it, but I am so tired of people complaining about things, when all you have to do is move on (or create) something else that fits your needs better.

I have zero issue with this clause as it doesn't affect me. If one goes around making false, slanderous, bald faced lies on Social Media then one might have something to worry about.

H9

heiney9

Why anyone who is using the Paypal platform legitimately object to punishment for messages that are “fraudulent, promote misinformation or are unlawful” ?

I'm not sure what the beef is here?

H9

mhardy6647

jbreezy5 wrote: »

Maybe Elon Musk with hostile takeover Paypal. 😅

That would be pretty amusing, given that he kinda got started with PayPal...
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/world/300523191/elon-musk-and-peter-thiels-start-the-rise-and-legend-of-paypal

jbreezy5

heiney9 wrote: »

The thing is we are all free to use or not use something based on their rules. No rub, if you don't like the way a company is run or it's user agreements, then move onto something that fits better for you.

You stated it was in the user agreement as far back as 2013, if you read the user agreement then, would it not have stood out to you? Or is it because someone has made an example of it and now it seems wrong when in 2013 it was a non-issue (for you).

Sorry, to rag on it, but I am so tired of people complaining about things, when all you have to do is move on (or create) something else that fits your needs better.

I have zero issue with this clause as it doesn't affect me. If one goes around making false, slanderous, bald faced lies on Social Media then one might have something to worry about.

H9

heiney9 wrote: »

Why anyone who is using the Paypal platform legitimately object to punishment for messages that are “fraudulent, promote misinformation or are unlawful” ?

I'm not sure what the beef is here?

H9

Whatever.

Was simply interested in other people’s thoughts on the subject. Apparently, I’m not the only one whom doesn’t have the time to read ridiculous amounts of user agreements to justify use of internet services.

More power to you if that’s a good use of your time.

“Sorry, to rag on it, but I am so tired of people complaining about things, when all you have to do is move on (or create) something else that fits your needs better.”

Talk about hypocrisy; complaining about others complaining, when you could just move on and ignore the conversation altogether.

xschop

The situation is no different than your bank fining you for ill advice or reprimanding a bad audio decision here at the pokey.

F1 would be bankrupted lol

F1nut

xschop wrote: »

The situation is no different than your bank fining you for ill advice or reprimanding a bad audio decision here at the pokey.

F1 would be bankrupted lol

Well, it beats being a xscrackpot.

xschop

Another strike Nutty buddy. You're gonna have to start taking out loans to pay your fines.

F1nut

You looking for a permanent vacation from here? I'll make it happen for ya.

xschop

Tell your "higher ups" to please remove everything I've ever posted here while you're at it.

txcoastal1

msg

The ordeal has spurred a call for people to delete their PayPal accounts with #PayPalCancelled and #DeleteVenmo gaining momentum on Twitter.

Ohh, my favorite, another opportunity for bandwagoneererers to feel relevant.

VR3

Maybe they can convince them to lower their fees, I'm down with that!

Jimbo18

Our local TV news explained that the PayPal rule is intended to allow them to take funds back from a fraudulent seller. If someone misrepresents what they are selling, they have the right to get the money back from them. The wording is confusing, but that's supposedly what they were saying.

heiney9

jbreezy5 wrote: »

heiney9 wrote: »

The thing is we are all free to use or not use something based on their rules. No rub, if you don't like the way a company is run or it's user agreements, then move onto something that fits better for you.

You stated it was in the user agreement as far back as 2013, if you read the user agreement then, would it not have stood out to you? Or is it because someone has made an example of it and now it seems wrong when in 2013 it was a non-issue (for you).

Sorry, to rag on it, but I am so tired of people complaining about things, when all you have to do is move on (or create) something else that fits your needs better.

I have zero issue with this clause as it doesn't affect me. If one goes around making false, slanderous, bald faced lies on Social Media then one might have something to worry about.

H9

heiney9 wrote: »

Why anyone who is using the Paypal platform legitimately object to punishment for messages that are “fraudulent, promote misinformation or are unlawful” ?

I'm not sure what the beef is here?

H9

Whatever.

Was simply interested in other people’s thoughts on the subject. Apparently, I’m not the only one whom doesn’t have the time to read ridiculous amounts of user agreements to justify use of internet services.

More power to you if that’s a good use of your time.

“Sorry, to rag on it, but I am so tired of people complaining about things, when all you have to do is move on (or create) something else that fits your needs better.”

Talk about hypocrisy; complaining about others complaining, when you could just move on and ignore the conversation altogether.

Sorry, you asked, I answered. If you use a service and don't read the fine print (or rather can't be bothered) then you really can't complain. The clause is really to cover them in the case of fraud. Pretty standard.

Maybe it was worded a bit confusing, but in the end it's about fraudulent activities, they just went a bit farther and explained misinformation is also considered fraud. Like descriptions of items for sale that are totally inaccurate, deceiving and outright lies. That's how I'm reading it. Again, standard stuff. It just got blown up by the news and other peoples sometimes wild interpretations based on the news article.

H9