VintageComics

It's a matter of scope and influence, right? If CGC makes an erroneous decision that influences the discussion on whale farts nobody cares. Drop in the bucket. But if CGC makes an erroneous decision that might influence someone's comic business then it matters more. We saw that with the acetate covers debacle. It was a big enough deal that CGC had to change their position based on public pressure...I don't see the whale fart community clamouring for change though. By extension, if a company like Twitter or Paypal, who are multi billion $ companies that influence the business of millions of people (or in the case of someone with a large following) then what they do and don't allow matters much more. I put "settle" in quotes because settling is generally seen as a capitulation. Various reasons come to mind: to keep out of the courts to minimize publicity, to not be found in the wrong or ruled against, or just not to waste the expense on a losing battle. It's basically a way of cutting losses and sweeping things under rug...and usually done to minimize press exposure or criticism. And just ot be clear it wasn't 'patently false' because if it was, he would have remained banned. Right? Minor detail. As long as we're clear on that, we can move on.

The point of all of this is to say that it's terrifying to me that someone like Paypal can just "decide at their sole discretion" to fine you $2500. The deck is literally stacked against you and all you have to stand on against the giant Tsunami is one tiny leg.

Correct. But your bias was showing when you ended your 2nd last post with this: Making it sound as though he deserved to be banned by adding the @ttfitz stamp of approval to Twitter's WRONG decision. In fact, the reason Twitter 'settled' and REINSTATED HIS ACCOUNT was because Twitter WAS IN THE WRONG. Minor detail. And since Twitter reinstated him that was an admittance on their part that he WASN'T POSTING MISINFORMATION. Minor detail. But let's burn the witch nonetheless, just because it sounds good and makes everyone cheer. BTW, I love this painting. SALEM WITCH TRIALS, 1692. 'The Trial of George Jacobs at Salem for Witchcraft.' Oil on canvas by Tompkins Harrison Matteson (1813-1884).

He's not banned. He's reinstated meaning he was found NOT to be in the wrong. Or does the attention to detail only go in one direction?

Man if you think Section 230 is archaic, what must you think about the rules regulating Television and Radio? Just because something was written a while ago doesn't make it "bad". And just because something was written after the rules regulating Television and Radio doesn't make it "good". Additionally, rules written to regulate the internet while in it's infancy are an entirely different can of worms than rules written to regulate television while in it's infancy and can't be directly compared so it's a pointless exercise that serves no purpoise. It's also the reason for the large difference in power between social media and the people. So, out of billions of Social Media users you don't think it's strange that the White House targets certain individuals? The scope of this discussion is beyond the scope of what's allowed on the boards (or at least what I'm allowed to say - others seem to be allowed to talk about anything) and so I can't elaborate to make my point the way I'd like to here but would love to do it via PM... or elsewhere. Suffice to say he was "singled out" for "spreading misinformation" by Big Tech, pressured by the White House, banned after the White House asked why he's still posting, and then Alex Berenson took it to court and the ban overturned and won. They key point here being that if he didn't have the internal conversation from a Twitter employee telling him he'd done nothing wrong he'd still be banned. That should terrify any reasonable and sane person in this society. And if anyone wants to get more details, Alex Berenson explains it in detail in an interview with an interviewer who is "banned" on this site but I think everyone knows who he is. His initials are "JR" Hopefully I can type that out at least. ------------------------- This brings us back full circle to our discussion about Paypal. They can arbitrarily fine you $2500 and you literally have no leg to stand on. And that's likely due at least in part to how archaic Section 230 is. I recommend anyone listen to a snippet / short of the interview I mentioned above. It's very enlightening. I'd use the words 'jaw dropping' but people might think I'm sensationalizing it.

The definition seems clear to me, with the condition that said disinformation is against generally accepted knowledge. For instance, once the link between cigarette smoking and increased risk of cancer and emphysema became generally accepted, tobacco companies could no longer claim in their adverts that their smokes were safe (and later had to be affixed with large warning labels of the harm). Any time a situation falls into a gray area lacking generally accepted knowledge, it's excluded. Then the big question is who defines what "generally accepted knowledge" is?

If it's up to Paypal's "sole discretion" (their words) how is it clear what is and isn't considered misinformation?

So you're actually OK with Paypal arbitrarily fining people $2500 "at their sole discretion"? It's interesting to know which people agree with the policy and which don't.

Listen to interviews with Alex Berenson to understand the full implications of Section 230, it's failings, how inadequate (and even corrupt) it is and how it will be challenged eventually. Alex was banned off of social media (Twitter), took it to court, won and ended up getting reinstated - but the only reason he was reinstated was because he had private, internal communication with someone inside Twitter assuring him that he was doing nothing wrong. If he didn't have this communication with someone inside Twitter he would never have been reinstated. Why was he shut down? Internal government documents explain that the Federal government specifically targeted him for spreading 'misinformation' when in fact he wasn't spreading misinformation. That's how faulty section 230 is. And that's the problem with Paypal's position of fining someone $2500 for "spreading misinformation". As Jaybuck stated, there's no due process. It's arbitrary. Section 230 is archaic (decades old) and it is going to be challenged on many fronts. It protects MANY of the wrong people currently.

For what it's worth this pic doesn't do Buzzetta justice. But he does look like he's pinching one off...

There are already several, new, large (Federal) law suits in the US in motion regarding "free speech" and Big Tech, and they seem to be moving to trial, meaning they have not been thrown out but seem to have legs. If anyone wants details they can PM me as I'm one strike away from being banned permanently from these boards and while others seem to be able to talk about anything they want I want to keep it vanilla....but free #onlyfans pics are available via DM! Correct. But it would also prevent those sites from raping people's cookies (physically and digitally), monetizing our private lives and keep them from spreading their OWN misinformation. There is always a ying and a yang to every decision.

Nope. The Paypal rule that they 'mistakenly' added and then removed has to do with something very different, carrying a much greater scope. The word "misinformation" has been weaponized over the last 2-3 years and Paypal basically took it upon themselves to fine anyone "at their sole discretion" who happens to deal with Paypal (person or organization) and is involved in "spreading misinformation" in some way that goes against Paypal's own personal, corporate beliefs. Those beliefs would likely be aligned with the mainstream narrative. So Paypal has stated that they can arbitrarily fine you $2500 should they choose to find you doing the same. We've all seen the demonetizing happening over the last few years for anyone who disagrees with the mainstream. Google, YouTube, Facebook etc have all done it. Even Paypal themselves have cancelled accounts with several organizations that went against their corporate beliefs (although I think most were restored after public outcry). It's my personal belief that if there wasn't a pushback, it would not have been labelled a "mistake" and it would still be instituted. I think it was just a 'test' to see if it would work.

Zod's battlefield.

Mom's mortified . Buttock is actually a good friend. This is a running joke we have between us. Mod's notified.

I started the thread here because this is where this belongs. I was banned from the WC because of trolling similar to yours and for trying to defend myself or my position. Just know that everything you post is being recorded and gathered as evidence for harassment. It's helpful that you've already exhibited a pattern of behavior and already admitted who you are many times so that there is no longer any doubt. And libel. People are free to ask me whatever they want. I never lie. For some reason Stu has decided to target me even though I've never done anything against him personally. His choice.

New account. Immediately wants thread moved to Watercooler.

Not for much longer. I'm on my way out and don't post anywhere anymore except for in sales threads, but thought this was too important not to bring to people's attention.

I'm exactly the same. I get meaningful gifts for the people around me, year round when it hits me, not when the Holidays hit. I actually hate Christmas. And I insist my kids don't spend any money at Christmas and make a gift or just buy me something I'll wear that makes me think of them whenever I use it.

BTW, thanks fo Mike for cleaning this thread up and restoring it. It's a very important thread for people using Paypal and I was surprised to find that nobody was even talking about it on here before I started the thread.

I just think some people here are connecting dots And some people refuse to connect dots even when they're almost almost touching each other.

The "fine" was for any Paypal user who used Paypal as a payment system and was deemed to be involved in "spreading misinformation". This was to be determined at Paypal's SOLE DISCRETION. So, completely ARBITRARY. The question is who in the WORLD is going to use Paypal now after they've shown to be this selfish and corrupt.

Wait, what?

I'll be posting these soon... Message me for details.

Got tons of SWEET books coming in weekly. Amazing Spider-man #194 CGC 9.8 White (1st Black Cat) Batman #251 CGC 9.6 White (Classic Joker / Neal Adams cover) Incredible Hulk #180 CGC 9.8 White (1st Wolverine Cameo) - this copy is absolutely flawless. It's perfectly centered, White pages, has no markings and looks newsstand fresh front and back. Sub-Mariner #6 CGC 9.8 OWW (Tiger Shark battle issue, 2nd app Tiger Shark) Thor #225 CGC 9.8 White (1st Firelord) X-men #101 CGC 9.6 White (1st Phoenix) X-men 129 CGC 9.8 White (1st Kitty Pryde) ----------------------------- Many more in the coming weeks...

Don't get me wrong. I don't think it's a GOOD strategy. It's just the CURRENT strategy. Like every other strategy that is employed by big money, they're much more interested in transferring wealth than just making money from traditional revenue source like sales or service. So the current strategy is being employed and pushed hard, but something else will eventually gain favor. It always does. The term "go ____, go broke' is real and eventually the bottom falls out and the market spins into some other sort of scheme once this one loses steam.