Paypal institutes $2500 fine for anyone who promotes "misinformation" and then pulls the rule after massive public backlash. 8 8

[Lazyboy]

On 10/11/2022 at 9:49 AM, jaybuck43 said:

Eh, you can not like Roy if you want Stu, but the thread has merit, especially in CG since we basically all use PayPal for comics transactions (heck I just checked out my auction winnings using PP.)

 

On 10/11/2022 at 10:38 AM, VintageComics said:

I started the thread here because this is where this belongs.

Cool. I'm going to start a thread about roads in Comics General. After all, I use roads to get to comic shops, conventions, etc. and if I have something delivered it also comes via roads.

We all know why you started this thread in CG, Roy. You aren't fooling anyone, except maybe yourself.

[Cobbledclam]

Children terrified 

[lizards2]

On 10/11/2022 at 6:00 AM, jsilverjanet said:

On 10/11/2022 at 5:55 AM, lizards2 said:

racist, sexist comic books.

que?

They might fine you for being a nerd as well.

[Humpty-Dumpty]

On 10/10/2022 at 1:09 PM, jaybuck43 said:

Hopefully Mike just prunes the problem posts and doesn't lock the thread.  Let's be realistic.  1) Paypal's "excuse" that this policy was "mistakenly" uploaded is bunk.  This was written and ready.  That means it was passed around legal, got the sign offs on language etc.  They meant to do SOMETHING.  What that something is, that's up to interpretation.  2) Personally, I believe that what they were ATTEMPTING to do is to go after scammers who use PayPal.  Generate a fake invoice?  Fine.  Con people into buying a "magic hologram" that helps people with their balance?  Fine.  3) The real issue here isn't whether or not they care about people spreading 'misinformation'.  It's the lack of due process.  The fact that PayPal in its "sole discretion" can fine me, means I have no recourse.  If the federal government has to go through due process to fine/sue me, PayPal should have too as well.

There is such a thing in America as the first amendment. Under our God created rights, which the government does not grant, but we are born with, we are permitted to say, and type offensive language, and inaccurate information too. Of course, if it is about another person and inaccurate one can get sued for libel or slander, but that is another issue.

However, I can say I don't like so and so ethnic group (my mind does not run like that, just an extreme example to make a point) in the rudest of terms and my speech is protected in a public forum. I think it may actually be illegal for paypal to institute this type policy, as it is probably even more so with all the big tech social media too. They are in reality the modern-day public square, DeFacto public interest companies. This forum may be different, but I strongly suspect FB, Twitter, Instagram, etc.; the supreme court or a circuit court would rule against the big tech social media entities if they claimed they had the right to censure free speech. In fact, I expect class action lawsuits against the big tech social media companies when it is indisputably proven that they have censured and suspended people for information they deemed false that clearly is not, (although even that is not a viable justification) and will be/or has been, proven so in the courts. This will one day, and maybe soon, come to the supreme court, a high-level federal court, and /or congress

Edited October 11, 2022 by Humpty-Dumpty
word

[jaybuck43]

On 10/11/2022 at 6:31 PM, Humpty-Dumpty said:

There is such a thing in America as the second amendment. Under our God created rights, which the government does not grant, but we are born with, we are permitted to say, and type offensive language, and inaccurate information too. Of course, if it is about another person and inaccurate one can get sued for libel or slander, but that is another issue.

However, I can say I don't like so and so ethnic group (my mind does not run like that, just an extreme example to make a point) in the rudest of terms and my speech is protected in a public forum. I think it may actually be illegal for paypal to institute this type policy, as it is probably even more so with all the big tech social media too. They are in reality the modern-day public square, DeFacto public interest companies. This forum may be different, but I strongly suspect FB, Twitter, Instagram, etc.; the supreme court or a circuit court would rule against the big tech social media entities if they claimed they had the right to censure free speech. In fact, I expect class action lawsuits against the big tech social media companies when it is indisputably proven that they have censured and suspended people for information they deemed false that clearly is not, (although even that is not a viable justification) and will be/or has been, proven so in the courts. This will one day, and maybe soon, come to the supreme court, a high-level federal court, and /or congress

Curlis? That your shill???

Second amendment is right to bear arms.

The constitution and amendments were written by man. 
 

You have no write to say anything on a private service.

[jsilverjanet]

On 10/11/2022 at 4:29 PM, lizards2 said:

They might fine you for being a nerd as well.

then we are all in trouble

[kav]

On 10/11/2022 at 5:03 PM, Buzzetta said:

Not on a private entity owned by the business. It is likened to a club or a bar.  If you decide to have dinner at the bar or hang out in the club and you are asked not to bring up a certain topic or act in a certain way and you choose to do so, the bouncer will throw you to the curb. 

At the end of the day it is a private entity that sets their own rules. Whether you agree or disagree, whether they are fair or unfair, that is irrelevant.  You, me, Kav, Jsilverjanet, that guy over there picking his nose while reading this and the other scratching his... nevermind... are here by whim. 

You have no rights to be here.  Neither does anyone else.   You do not have an unalienable right to say whatever you want on a comic book collecting forum. 

Such is the way of life. 

If congress deemed internet sites were a public square this could change though.  For now you are correct.

[oakman29]

On 10/11/2022 at 5:20 PM, kav said:

If congress deemed internet sites were a public square this could change though.  For now you are correct.

Kav is this the new place to be?

[kav]

On 10/11/2022 at 5:30 PM, oakman29 said:

Kav is this the new place to be?

 

[oakman29]

Nice!

[ttfitz]

On 10/11/2022 at 8:03 PM, Buzzetta said:

You, me, Kav, Jsilverjanet, that guy over there picking his nose while reading this and the other scratching his... nevermind... are here by whim. 

I was certain my webcam was off....

[ttfitz]

On 10/11/2022 at 7:11 PM, Humpty-Dumpty said:

The former executive in chief in fact passed an executive order in May of 2020 rescinding section 230, which was a God send.

I might be wrong ( @jaybuck43 ?) but I think if section 230 is gone, "censorship" (put in quotes, since technically only the government can censor) would go up. Platforms would be responsible for the content posted, and would be more likely to remove content they think could cause them grief.

Edited October 12, 2022 by ttfitz
typo

[Buzzetta]

On 10/11/2022 at 8:37 PM, ttfitz said:

I might be wrong ( @jaybuck43 ?) but I think if section 230 is gone, "censorship" (put in quotes, since technically only the government can censor) would go up. Platforms would be responsible for the content posted, and would be more likely to remove content they think could cause them grief.

Yup… make them liable and there will be even a stricter hand that will smack everyone away. But even so it would not likely apply to a company message board as technically this place solely exists for the singular purpose of discussing the product. 

[Buzzetta]

Can anyone PM me what Humpty Dumpty responded to me with ?  It’s gone now and I never saw it. 

[oakman29]

Humpty Hump get down with your bad self. 😉

[jsilverjanet]

On 10/11/2022 at 7:46 PM, Buzzetta said:

Can anyone PM me what Humpty Dumpty responded to me with ?  It’s gone now and I never saw it. 

He said you were wrong 

[Buzzetta]

On 10/11/2022 at 8:48 PM, jsilverjanet said:

He said you were wrong 

I was too busy biting my nails watching a bases loaded play at the plate. 

If he has something to say he can send it via PM. 

If it was pulled I didn't hump the button on him.  I reserved my humping of said button for a comment made this morning by someone else.  It was the first time I did that in 2022 and possibly 2021.   

[otherworldsj331]

Can anyone tell me if they understand Section 230?

If not here, goes - 

"Section 230 is a section of Title 47 of the United States Code enacted as part of the United States Communications Decency Act, that generally provides immunity for website platforms with respect to third-party content. At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

Pardon my capital letters, but many of you are so uneducated about this or misinformed I need to stress this point.

ONCE A THIRD-PARTY PROVIDER CENSURES PEOPLE THEY CEASE TO BECOME MERELY PROVIDERS AND BECOME PUBLISHING EDITORS. 

Think about that for a second and let it sink in, and stop with your third grade parroting of something you heard once or twice, never researched, and are simply regurgitating. Furthermore, as I previously said, but some of you are ignoring, the social media companies it can be strongly argued in a court of law, are DeFacto public squares and as such can possibly be liable to the first amendment. 

Is this clear enough for you all supporters of censorship? 

So before you make comments that are clearly questionable, realize this issue is not decided and probably ultimately will be in the courts or (in a pro Constitutional) congress

 

 

[jaybuck43]

On 10/11/2022 at 8:37 PM, ttfitz said:

I might be wrong ( @jaybuck43 ?) but I think if section 230 is gone, "censorship" (put in quotes, since technically only the government can censor) would go up. Platforms would be responsible for the content posted, and would be more likely to remove content they think could cause them grief.

No president can remove an act of congress be EO. We don’t have a king. All 45 did was order federal department heads to evaluate federal spending on platforms who “censor speech”. It was a meaningless EO because nothing changed.

[CGC Mike]

I have removed a few posts that are too political.  Lets move away from political postings.