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

[jsilverjanet]

Have a great day everyone - it’s only two more days till Friday 

[VintageComics]

On 10/11/2022 at 11:07 PM, ttfitz said:

Yeah, no. If you had read a little further in that Wikipedia article you quoted, you would have seen this:

"Section 230(c)(2) further provides "Good Samaritan" protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the good faith removal or moderation of third-party material they deem 'obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.'"

Some good advice here, though.

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. 

 

Edited October 12, 2022 by VintageComics

[Dr. Balls]

I saw a piece of OA where the seller described the page as a "great investment with the new movie coming out", if it turns out it is indeed not a great investment, would that person be fined for misinformation?

Or, even worse: could the Rippaverse (for example) Paypal account be targeted if Paypal deemed the messages related to the plot of the story in the comics "disinformation"?

I know that Paypal reversed the policy, but it seems that this policy could have been finagled to fit any sort of situation.

[namisgr]

On 10/12/2022 at 10:53 AM, Dr. Balls said:

I saw a piece of OA where the seller described the page as a "great investment with the new movie coming out", if it turns out it is indeed not a great investment, would that person be fined for misinformation?

What do you think?

At the time the piece was offered for sale, there was no knowing whether in the future it would prove to be a great investment or not.

Misinformation: 'false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive'

So clearly not.

Edited October 12, 2022 by namisgr

[Dr. Balls]

On 10/12/2022 at 8:56 AM, namisgr said:

What do you think?

At the time the piece was offered for sale, there was no knowing whether in the future it would prove to be a great investment or not.

Misinformation: 'false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive'

So I think not.

I definitely agree with you, but I think that it could be twisted around to fit the "disinformation" definition. I am being deceived that making a purchase based on a preconceived notion that it will gain in value based on non-factual or trackable speculation. Of course, if you buy on speculation - it's a risk, but putting a clause in there that allows manipulation in the reason a buyer is engaging in a speculative purchase seems like it's only a matter of time until it's abused.

And again, I 100% agree with you - I'm just suggesting that creating a policy so open-ended as "spreading misinformation" is stupidly dangerous. And thankfully, the backlash caused them to get rid of it.

[VintageComics]

On 10/11/2022 at 11:42 PM, namisgr said:

Freedom of speech is not freedom of reach!

[Edit for Lizards' sake: it's black and white.  No non-government private corporation or institution is required to extend the reach of anyone's speech.  Indeed, for speech that incites violence or treason, or spreads bigotry, hatred, or dangerous misinformation, there is an ethical obligation to not extend reach.]

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. 

 

[jsilverjanet]

@paypal 

[VintageComics]

On 10/12/2022 at 10:56 AM, namisgr said:

What do you think?

At the time the piece was offered for sale, there was no knowing whether in the future it would prove to be a great investment or not.

Misinformation: 'false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive'

So clearly not.

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

[MAR1979]

IMHO this topic does not belong in Comics General. Seems suited for The Water Cooler.

@CGC Mike what is your opinion?

Edited October 12, 2022 by MAR1979

[namisgr]

On 10/12/2022 at 11:07 AM, Dr. Balls said:

I definitely agree with you, but I think that it could be twisted around to fit the "disinformation" definition.

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. {edit to avoid possible confusion: by excluded, I mean from being prohibited as misinformation}.

Edited October 12, 2022 by namisgr

[jsilverjanet]

me waiting for the next post

[Jaxxon]

On 10/12/2022 at 8:26 AM, MAR1979 said:

IMHO this topic does not belong in Comics General. Seems suited for The Water Cooler.

@CGC Mike what is your opinion?

You should start a poll.

 

[Buzzetta]

I would say that it belongs in comics general as it impacts the sale of comics in the same way that eBay discussions are allowable here.  eBay sales may encompass the sale of other items but they do deal with a significant portion of comic sales. 
 

We have blocked eBay bidders, help with eBay and other similar threads.  I would push to keep this thread here in comics general. 

[Dr. Balls]

I would suggest anyone who may have a fine levied on them by Paypal utilize the Costanza defense.

[VintageComics]

On 10/12/2022 at 11:29 AM, namisgr said:

On 10/12/2022 at 11:07 AM, Dr. Balls said:

I definitely agree with you, but I think that it could be twisted around to fit the "disinformation" definition.

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? 

[Dr. Balls]

On 10/12/2022 at 9:35 AM, VintageComics said:

Then the big question is who defines what "generally accepted knowledge" is? 

Paypal, of course. And these giant conglomerates wouldn't dare of doing something untoward to their user base.

[Galen130]

[Sigur Ros]

On 10/12/2022 at 10:32 AM, shadroch said:

Any plan that requires you to give away 1.5% of your money to access it early on a regulat basis is financial suicide. Sadly, far too many people don't understand that.

Is that a strong enough statement for you?

Strong, but not realistic.

People selling books on eBay are paying 13% ?, then 3% payment processing fees ?, but it's that last 1.5% that's going to ruin them ?!

[Sigur Ros]

On 10/12/2022 at 11:45 AM, All Star said:

Roy is banned from the WC.

3rd ID in this thread alone ?  4th?

[THE_BEYONDER]

On 10/12/2022 at 5:01 AM, Buzzetta said:

So mean to the bunnies.  They are cuter than the squirrels.