<story><title>PayPal Demonetises the Daily Sceptic</title><url>https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/21/paypal-demonetises-the-daily-sceptic/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>moreira</author><text>I understand that companies want to avoid getting into legal complications over it, and that&amp;#x27;s why I think there should be some sort of legislation in place to force companies to explain decisions like this. This is becoming more and more important with time.&lt;p&gt;Something like: If you end your contract with someone because you think that they were in violation of the terms, you have to clearly list what your reasoning is for it, with no tolerance for black box answers.&lt;p&gt;DMCA takedown requests include the list of offending URLs. This should be made similar. &amp;quot;We terminated our contract because this, this, and this signal, make us think that you&amp;#x27;re in violation of its terms&amp;quot;. You can then appeal, and obviously if the two parties can&amp;#x27;t come to an agreement by themselves, you can at least use the legal system.&lt;p&gt;Otherwise, we&amp;#x27;re living in a world where contracts between two parties mean nothing. Anyone can pull out of anything at any time for any reason, with no notice.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>concinds</author><text>This is completely misunderstanding the problem.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.paypal.com&amp;#x2F;us&amp;#x2F;webapps&amp;#x2F;mpp&amp;#x2F;ua&amp;#x2F;useragreement-full&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.paypal.com&amp;#x2F;us&amp;#x2F;webapps&amp;#x2F;mpp&amp;#x2F;ua&amp;#x2F;useragreement-full&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; PayPal [...] reserves the right to suspend or terminate [...] access [...] for any reason and at any time upon notice to you...&lt;p&gt;PayPal never said they broke any terms. PayPal has openly declared war on &amp;quot;hate groups&amp;quot;, as defined by the ADL, which is an organization funded by the U.S. oligarchy[0][1]. That&amp;#x27;s the reason.&lt;p&gt;PayPal is on the side of the political establishment that is interested in consolidating power and manufacturing consent.  Corporate and government power have merged a long time ago; it&amp;#x27;s not gonna reverse itself.&lt;p&gt;Liberals need to read Popper&amp;#x27;s &lt;i&gt;Open Society and its Enemies&lt;/i&gt;, and realize that oligarchy is just as big a threat as fascism, if not bigger due to the population not being innoculated against it (&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;twitter.com&amp;#x2F;nntaleb&amp;#x2F;status&amp;#x2F;1039842312061374464&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;twitter.com&amp;#x2F;nntaleb&amp;#x2F;status&amp;#x2F;1039842312061374464&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;p&gt;[0]: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.adl.org&amp;#x2F;news&amp;#x2F;press-releases&amp;#x2F;paypal-partners-with-adl-to-fight-extremism-and-protect-marginalized&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.adl.org&amp;#x2F;news&amp;#x2F;press-releases&amp;#x2F;paypal-partners-with...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;[1]: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.influencewatch.org&amp;#x2F;non-profit&amp;#x2F;anti-defamation-league&amp;#x2F;#funding&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.influencewatch.org&amp;#x2F;non-profit&amp;#x2F;anti-defamation-le...&lt;/a&gt; (J.P. Morgan, hello!)</text></comment>
<story><title>PayPal Demonetises the Daily Sceptic</title><url>https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/21/paypal-demonetises-the-daily-sceptic/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>moreira</author><text>I understand that companies want to avoid getting into legal complications over it, and that&amp;#x27;s why I think there should be some sort of legislation in place to force companies to explain decisions like this. This is becoming more and more important with time.&lt;p&gt;Something like: If you end your contract with someone because you think that they were in violation of the terms, you have to clearly list what your reasoning is for it, with no tolerance for black box answers.&lt;p&gt;DMCA takedown requests include the list of offending URLs. This should be made similar. &amp;quot;We terminated our contract because this, this, and this signal, make us think that you&amp;#x27;re in violation of its terms&amp;quot;. You can then appeal, and obviously if the two parties can&amp;#x27;t come to an agreement by themselves, you can at least use the legal system.&lt;p&gt;Otherwise, we&amp;#x27;re living in a world where contracts between two parties mean nothing. Anyone can pull out of anything at any time for any reason, with no notice.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>killingtime74</author><text>I assume you are not a lawyer. Anyone can pull out of a contract for any reason. You can then get sued for damages and in specific scenarios (property sales for example), specific performance. Most scenarios do not allow a remedy of specific performance. So in general if you pay, you can walk away.&lt;p&gt;For example you can’t hold someone to their employment contract and force them to work for you.&lt;p&gt;An example of a massive walkaway &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.bbc.com&amp;#x2F;news&amp;#x2F;world-australia-61770012&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.bbc.com&amp;#x2F;news&amp;#x2F;world-australia-61770012&lt;/a&gt;. You think they wouldn’t try to enforce the contract if they could?&lt;p&gt;I’m an Australian lawyer, although this is first year level knowledge.</text></comment>