Really disturbing. I thought the story must be fake news so looked for further references. There are many, so I have no doubt it's true. Presumably it was US specific and therefore not applicable here, but the intent is the main issue. They don't have a forum so I'm not sure what context the "misinformation" would be.

My guess is, selling a book that promoted "vaccines are bad", or "climate change is a myth" would qualify.

Paypal said it was published in error, but you can imagine how many executives and others in the legal team reviewed this before it was published. I searched and found the (now removed) offending wording that was intended to be operative from 3 November.

The bolding is mine.

You may not use the PayPal service for activities that:

involve the sending, posting, or publication of any messages, content, or materials that, in PayPals sole discretion, (a) are harmful, obscene, harassing, or objectionable, (b) depict or appear to depict nudity, sexual or other intimate activities,(c) depict or promote illegal drug use, (d)depict or promoteviolence, criminal activity, cruelty,or self-harm(e) depict,promote, or incite hatred or discrimination of protected groups or of individuals or groups based on protected characteristics (e.g. race, religion, gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, etc.) (f)present a risk to user safety or wellbeing, (g) are fraudulent, promote misinformation, or are unlawful, (h) infringe the privacy, intellectual property rights, or other proprietary rights of any party, or (i)are otherwise unfit for publication.

It's already bad enough that Paypal decides if you have breached their terms. If you have a closer look at their current Australian User Agreement you can see they can already withhold funds for up to 180 days for breaching the agreement if they choose. The US agreement is more draconian.

Paypal User Agreement Extract - USA

While that may only be in the US, it seems that if the terms are breached, Paypal has the sole discretion to charge a minimum of US$2,500.

 ....you will be liable to PayPal for the amount of PayPals damages caused by your violation of the Acceptable Use Policy. You acknowledge and agree that $2,500.00 U.S. dollars per violation of the Acceptable Use Policy is presently a reasonable minimum estimate of PayPals actual damages

So, reading those conditions currently in force (for USA) if I sold a Cleo magazine, Paypal could determine it "appeared to depict nudity", and withhold US$2,500 of my funds. And back to the point of Mike's post, they only need to add that one word ..... "misinformation" and you could be severely penalised for selling something that Paypal alone deems is misinformation.

Another erosion in our freedom of speech. We are not far from following the US.

-- Edited by Are We Lost on Tuesday 11th of October 2022 02:27:59 PM

"Unsurprisingly, PayPal walked back the insanity. The policy was published in error, it said. This was incorrect information, it insisted. PayPal is not fining people for misinformation and this language was never intended to be inserted in our policy. Were sorry for the confusion this has caused."

dorian wrote:

---

I lean to the left, but I have to agree that Spiked is one of the few conservative media sites that has content of any merit. 

---

I think Spiked would take issue with being labelled conservative:

About Spiked

And its long time editor, Brendan O'Neill, was once a Trotskyist, he currently identifies as a Marxist Libertarian. I find he and I align mostly in viewpoints so I suppose I must be one too.

To me Spiked is a beacon of hope for those of us who are passionate about the rights of the individual to be able to express his/her views without being symbolically (or perhaps literally) lynched by the mob of the mainstream who are quite certain they hold the one true viewpoint and will brook no challenge.

This scumbag said the wrong thing on the Internet, and now he's going to pay for it ... big time (I hope):

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-13/alex-jones-ordered-to-pay-more-in-damages/101529912

It seems to me that hosting companies would be wary of becoming entangled in such cases. They could very well become the targets of aggrieved plaintiffs.

Well, at least it casts some perspective on Paypal's deliberations.

I use Pay Pal for paying suppliers.

I presently have no other use for their services.

I cant think how I might post an offensive post on their website.

Are you saying that Pay Pal will monitor this site and forum or are their investigations on our social media pages.

It is probably obvious that I have not bothered to read the *Spike* or other links.

I find their services to be excellent.

Where on earth do people get the idea that there is such a thing as free speech. There isn't. As for the OP s news. Pretty obvious it was a bit of fun to prove that a good percentage of the population are terrifyingly gullible. Or terminally stupid.

We got a 6.30am text claiming to be from paypal " here is your new security code ". wrote the number down and delete text.