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

[kav]

On 10/12/2022 at 11:07 AM, jaybuck43 said:

You have to use eBay managed payments as a seller, no longer Paypal.  

jesus christ what???  how does that work.

[jaybuck43]

On 10/12/2022 at 2:08 PM, kav said:

jesus christ what???  how does that work.

No clue.  I got the email and never sold anything.  I assume it's the same.  Link a bank account, eBay holds my money until I tell them where to send it.  Pay their fees.

[BlowUpTheMoon]

[THE_BEYONDER]

On 10/12/2022 at 2:14 PM, jaybuck43 said:

No clue.  I got the email and never sold anything.  I assume it's the same.  Link a bank account, eBay holds my money until I tell them where to send it.  Pay their fees.

I hate it.  The whole point of EBay for me  was to get quick cash and/or build a PayPal balance for a larger purchase. 
 

Now I have to front the shipping costs and don’t get paid until after the buyer receives it.

 

Pretty much done with selling on there....

[shadroch]

On 10/12/2022 at 11:34 AM, THE_BEYONDER said:

I hate it.  The whole point of EBay for me  was to get quick cash and/or build a PayPal balance for a larger purchase. 
 

Now I have to front the shipping costs and don’t get paid until after the buyer receives it.

 

Pretty much done with selling on there....

If you are selling comics that MCS will take, you are literally giving away your money.

[Cat]

On 10/13/2022 at 3:00 AM, CAHokie said:

I have been asking that for years and demand answers! 

The families just want closure.

[ttfitz]

On 10/12/2022 at 10:49 AM, VintageComics said:

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.

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.

[VintageComics]

On 10/12/2022 at 12:31 PM, jaybuck43 said:

On 10/12/2022 at 10:49 AM, VintageComics said:

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. 

 

Expand  

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.

On 10/12/2022 at 12:31 PM, jaybuck43 said:

Section 230 is also the reason you HAVE the internet as you know it.  The boards, the eBay chat before it, etc, all only exist because of Section 230.  

It's also the reason for the large difference in power between social media and the people. 

On 10/12/2022 at 12:31 PM, jaybuck43 said:

Also no "internal government documents" explained the federal government was targeting him for spreading misinformation.  Berenson tweeted a picture of a comment made by twitter workers asking what the takeaway from a meeting with a White House official was.  The answer was that they had asked a bunch of questions, including why Berenson hadn't been kicked off the platform.  There was no demand to do so.  It's like if I asked CGC mike why @Buzzettahadn't been banned.  "Hey Mike, he keeps wishing people death on Christmas, why hasn't he been banned"?  I'm not running a conspiracy against him, im trying to get information so I understand how come he hasn't been removed. 

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. 

[jsilverjanet]

On 10/12/2022 at 1:34 PM, THE_BEYONDER said:

Now I have to front the shipping costs and don’t get paid until after the buyer receives it.

you can deduct your shipping costs from your ebay balance

[VintageComics]

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.

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? 

[jsilverjanet]

@BlowUpTheMoon

over/under on #of pages this thread goes to (20 posts per page) - currently at 12

O/U 17 pages

 

 

 

 

[Logan510]

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

[ttfitz]

On 10/12/2022 at 2:50 PM, VintageComics said:

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.

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? 

Apparently, because I didn't say he was currently banned, I said he "got banned." Which he did - that's the reason for the lawsuit, right?

And once again, he wasn't "found" to be anything. Twitter decided to settle and reinstate his account.

[F For Fake]

On 10/12/2022 at 2:08 PM, kav said:

jesus christ what???  how does that work.

 

On 10/12/2022 at 2:14 PM, jaybuck43 said:

No clue.  I got the email and never sold anything.  I assume it's the same.  Link a bank account, eBay holds my money until I tell them where to send it.  Pay their fees.

Essentially, eBay realized there was some money that they didn't have their mitts on yet, so they parted ways with Paypal, and began their own payment system. You can still use Paypal to PAY for items, but you can no longer accept it as payment. When you get paid, the money goes into your eBay Managed Payments account (minus the selling fees, which they now deduct up front, instead of waiting until the end of a billing cycle).

So, they get their cut off of the top, then they put the money in a "Pending" status, where it stays for about a day; then it changes to "Available", and then the following day it pays out to your bank account. At least that's how it's been since it launched at the beginning of last year. Now they are adopting the Paypal model where you can connect your account to your debit card, and pay a small fee to have your funds much faster. However, I haven't finished setting it up yet, so I can't speak to how successful it is.

Anyway, yeah, it was a total pain, but if you want to sell on eBay, per usual, there wasn't much you could do about it. They continue to have the sellers over a barrel.

[VintageComics]

On 10/12/2022 at 3:01 PM, ttfitz said:

Apparently, because I didn't say he was currently banned, I said he "got banned." Which he did - that's the reason for the lawsuit, right?

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. 

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).

[VintageComics]

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. 

[Buzzetta]

On 10/12/2022 at 12:31 PM, jaybuck43 said:

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".  Section 230 is also the reason you HAVE the internet as you know it.  The boards, the eBay chat before it, etc, all only exist because of Section 230.  Section 230 isn't responsible for Berenson getting thrown off Twitter, or responsible for getting him back on.  

Also no "internal government documents" explained the federal government was targeting him for spreading misinformation.  Berenson tweeted a picture of a comment made by twitter workers asking what the takeaway from a meeting with a White House official was.  The answer was that they had asked a bunch of questions, including why Berenson hadn't been kicked off the platform.  There was no demand to do so.  It's like if I asked CGC mike why @Buzzettahadn't been banned.  "Hey Mike, he keeps wishing people death on Christmas, why hasn't he been banned"?  I'm not running a conspiracy against him, im trying to get information so I understand how come he hasn't been removed. 

The lack of moderation (or the over moderation) of a platform has absolutely nothing to do with Section 230.

 

On 10/12/2022 at 1:00 PM, CAHokie said:

I have been asking that for years and demand answers! 

 

On 10/12/2022 at 1:10 PM, CGC Mike said:

I recommend having @Domo Arigato start a poll.

 

On 10/12/2022 at 1:25 PM, jsilverjanet said:

please @Domo Arigato start the poll to ban @Buzzetta

Har har hardy har har 

 

 

Edited October 12, 2022 by Buzzetta

[ttfitz]

On 10/12/2022 at 4:28 AM, Buzzetta said:

As far as being a supporter of censorship, yes, I am a strong supporter of the concept that if I have a backyard BBQ I can establish my own backyard conditional rules.  One of those rules are that my guests are allowed to stay and enjoy themselves so long as they do not speak poorly about the wild bunny rabbits.   One of my guests insists on speaking poorly about the bunny rabbits.  He is warned and continues to do so.  

He is thrown out of the BBQ and not allowed back in. 

My house.  My rules. 

A lot of times in these situations, there tends to be some degree of contradictory behavior. Buzz doesn't want to make his special BBQ for people who hate wild bunnies. Bunny Haters complain, "He should make his special BBQ for everyone!" and his friends say it's his right to decide who he serves. But if the Bunny Haters tell everyone Buzz is a bunny lover and don't go to his BBQ, his friends say, "You're trying to cancel Buzz!"

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?

[Buzzetta]

On 10/12/2022 at 3:24 PM, ttfitz said:

A lot of times in these situations, there tends to be some degree of contradictory behavior. Buzz doesn't want to make his special BBQ for people who hate wild bunnies. Bunny Haters complain, "He should make his special BBQ for everyone!" and his friends say it's his right to decide who he serves. But if the Bunny Haters tell everyone Buzz is a bunny lover and don't go to his BBQ, his friends say, "You're trying to cancel Buzz!"

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?

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. 
 

 

Edited October 12, 2022 by Buzzetta

[MAR1979]

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. 
 

 

apropos as "playing chess with pigeon" applies from the get go in this train wreck of a thread.

Edited October 12, 2022 by MAR1979