• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

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

Started by VintageComics,

401 posts in this topic

ttfitz

ttfitz

Posted
Posted
On 10/12/2022 at 3:15 PM, VintageComics said:

Correct. But your bias was showing when you ended your 2nd last post with this:

On 10/12/2022 at 2:43 PM, ttfitz said:

Seeing the kind of completely false information he's been spreading, though, it doesn't surprise me he got banned.

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. :makepoint:

Minor detail. 

And since Twitter reinstated him that was an admittance on their part that he WASN'T POSTING MISINFORMATION.

Minor detail. 

I never said I didn't have a bias against the ridiculous and patently false information the man posted on his Twitter account. And, to be 100% clear, I also didn't say he "deserved" to be banned, just that the decision to do so wasn't surprising, given that.

As for your "minor details", they are merely your supposition, and not actual "details." All Twitter admitted to in settling (not sure why you put that in quotes, that is literally what happened) was that they decided it wasn't worth continuing the lawsuit - with speculation being that they decided to do so based on an email by a single individual from their company who disagreed with the decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ttfitz

ttfitz

Posted
Posted
On 10/12/2022 at 3:29 PM, Buzzetta said:

I don’t know if you are responding in reference to what I was referring in reference to.  Right now I’m still miffed that city wildlife seized my lunch more than anything else. 
 

Nah, it just seemed a good latching on point, as it was an example that was brought up that wouldn't run afoul of prohibited subjects around here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Senormac

Senormac

Posted
Posted
On 10/12/2022 at 11:57 AM, Logan510 said:

Too bad CGC doesn't fine users for posting misinformation.

:idea:

Maybe they would get fined themselves judging by some of the "book info labels" people have posted around here  :popcorn:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
On 10/12/2022 at 3:24 PM, ttfitz said:

Paypal makes a decision on what sort of things they wanted their service to support. People cancel their Paypal accounts because they disagree with that decision. How is one different from the other?

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.

On 10/12/2022 at 3:35 PM, ttfitz said:

I never said I didn't have a bias against the ridiculous and patently false information the man posted on his Twitter account. And, to be 100% clear, I also didn't say he "deserved" to be banned, just that the decision to do so wasn't surprising, given that.

As for your "minor details", they are merely your supposition, and not actual "details." All Twitter admitted to in settling (not sure why you put that in quotes, that is literally what happened) was that they decided it wasn't worth continuing the lawsuit - with speculation being that they decided to do so based on an email by a single individual from their company who disagreed with the decision.

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. 

 

 

Edited by VintageComics
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MAY1979

MAY1979

Posted
Posted
You yawn when you’re because
tired your brain is slowing down, causing its temperature to drop
bored your brain isn’t feeling stimulated and starts to slow down, causing a temperature drop
seeing someone else yawn when you’re in the same environment as them, you’re exposed to the same temperature
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jaybuck43

jaybuck43

Posted
Posted
On 10/12/2022 at 2:47 PM, VintageComics said:

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. :smile:

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. 

You're not ignored (no one is to be honest) so feel free to send me a PM if you wish to discuss things you don't feel comfortable posting in thread.  But to the main issue, Section 230 has nothing whatsoever to do with Paypal's ability (or lack thereof) to fine users. It's the terms of use.  Terms of use are a private, binding, contract between the service provider and the end user.  If they stick a clause in that says "CGC, in its sole discretion, can issue fines up to $500 per instance of a user posting competitors books on its sites".  Then I post a Voldy book to compare something and I get a PM from mike saying "Here's an invoice for your fine, you have 30 days to pay it".  Legally speaking, I don't pay it, Zaid can go to court and get me compelled to pay it.  Same thing here.  Paypal can put in a clause that allows them to fine users for donating to causes they don't like, if they want to.  "The founders of Paypal are Jehova's witnesses. As such, anyone using PayPal to send "birthday gifts" will be fined $100." K.. that's why you have to read the Terms of Use.  A buddy of mine once stuck in a clause that reads "you agree to grant Us a non transferable option to claim, for now and for ever more, your immortal soul. Should We wish to exercise this option, you agree to surrender your immortal soul, and any claim you may have on it, within 5 (five) working days of receiving written notification from us or one of our duly authorized minions."  Dude is STILL negotiating with the Vatican for a sale on the 7,500 souls he has....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
namisgr

namisgr

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 10/12/2022 at 2:43 PM, ttfitz said:

First off, he didn't "win" - which implies that a judge or jury found in his favor. Twitter decided to settle, and yes, speculation is that an email from one Twitter employee saying “The points you’re raising should not be an issue at all” was the reason they decided to settle, but I can't find anything definitive about it.

Seeing the kind of completely false information he's been spreading, though, it doesn't surprise me he got banned.

One billion dollars agrees with you.  Rights come with obligations.

Edited by namisgr
Link to comment
Share on other sites
namisgr

namisgr

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 10/12/2022 at 4:16 PM, jaybuck43 said:

$965 million

-Official CGC Board Factchecker

What's $35 million between friends?  :wink:

Besides, there's already been a $50 million settlement in Texas.  :baiting:

Edited by namisgr
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 10/12/2022 at 4:16 PM, jaybuck43 said:
On 10/12/2022 at 4:10 PM, namisgr said:

One billion dollars agrees with you.  Rights come with obligations.

$965 million

I wonder if there's an edit feature he can use? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VintageComics

VintageComics

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Anyway, this thread has become the De Facto grievances thread again, so I'm going to politely excuse myself out of it. 

Like I said, I was shocked nobody was discussing this move by Paypal and it's certainly changed how a lot of people will do business moving forward. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ttfitz

ttfitz

Posted
Posted
On 10/12/2022 at 3:55 PM, VintageComics said:

And just ot be clear it wasn't 'patently false' because if it was, he would have remained banned. Right?

Wrong. Reasons? Well, let's see:

On 10/12/2022 at 3:55 PM, VintageComics said:

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. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jaybuck43

jaybuck43

Posted
Posted
On 10/12/2022 at 4:18 PM, namisgr said:

What's $35 million between friends?  :wink:

Besides, there's already been a $50 million settlement in Texas.  :baiting:

$49.3 million in a separate case.  While the facts may be similar, don’t commingle verdicts.

o and that’s strike 2. Really hope you’re not using PayPal….

- Official CGC Factchecker

Link to comment
Share on other sites
namisgr

namisgr

Posted
Posted
On 10/12/2022 at 5:07 PM, jaybuck43 said:

$49.3 million in a separate case.  While the facts may be similar, don’t commingle verdicts.

Who said anything about a verdict?  I gave a dollar figure.  

- Scrupulous Stan

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
8 8
Go to topic listing