Dupe of the topic discussed at <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32923570" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32923570</a>
<i>Looks up FSU on Wikipedia</i><p>> After Cambridge University launched an online portal for students to anonymously report microaggressions, the Free Speech Union threatened legal action. The portal was ultimately removed.[11]<p>I guess they consider some kinds of speech more free than others.<p>I found this article less than persuasive as it was clearly written to arouse rather than inform or supply context.
Without commenting on the merits or lack thereof in this case, I think it would be useful to give some more information about the FSU: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Union" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Union</a>
PayPal has been blocking people, businesses, and organisations due to real or perceived ideological wrongthink for years. This is why more businesses are waking up and changing to Asian payment processors.
The FSU/Daily Sceptic/Toby Young is conspiracy theoristic, grifting, scam.<p>He knows that he broke the T&Cs - learning to cry for fun and profit.<p>The sad thing is that TY’s dad coined the term “meritocracy” and he’s the only reason why anyone pays any attention to Toby.
Some of these cases seem like plain censorship. Other cases seem like something equivalent to the 10% rejection policy many US American insurance companies have, where they will flat out reject valid insurance claims just to raise the profit margins.<p>Personally I would never dare putting anything but spare change in the hands of Paypal or other US American payment providers.
Although the original article is tangential, my bigger concern is that there is no explanation why. I find it abhorrent to 'punish' someone without telling them why they are punished, even if it is a contractual agreement that is broken or enforced.<p>Some have noted that they broke the T&C, but as per this article we do not know this. We can conjecture, but there is little indication to this until PayPal confirms if and which T&C was broken. We have ample examples where accounts are suspended or closed without breaking T&C.<p>My other concern is the comments regarding 'private venues'. Indeed PayPal is, in general a private venue, but at what point does such a private venue become an agent of the (whichever) Government? We also have examples where essential resources to function in the cyber space were contacted by Government entities and suggested, cajoled, threatened, or outright told how to deny such resources to counter-Goverment entities.<p>And, for those who think 'good, the bad people are gone', I say yes, today your 'bad people' are gone. Tomorrow, when the Government flips (and it always does) to your 'wrong side', you are the 'bad people'. Suddenly 'you are' the one denied. Ample evidence to this in history.
Just like the Kiwi Farms thing -- if you foment hate, particularly hate against protected groups like LGBTQ -- that may be legal in your jurisdiction. But you still shouldn't expect legitimate businesses to continue doing business with you. This is how society works now. Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences, and it does not mean that businesses run by decent people have to brook the toxic slime you spread.
The issue I have here is that a company is restricting access to the financial assets of another entity (which could just as easily be you or me) without any form of judicial oversight.<p>This is nightmarishly dystopian, since you and only you should have the final say on where your funds are parked and how they are used.<p>If anyone thinks this is normal or acceptable, they have been badly gaslit by the 1% who continue to leverage their power to parasitize the 99%.
Well they're keeping this UK citizen's account <i>open</i> without explanation, so the accountants are happy I suppose?<p>(An account I didn't knowingly consent to open. An account which they want more PII to close than they currently have (provided by me anyway) on file.)
When there's no explanation, it's almost always because of 2 reasons:<p>1. Sanctions.<p>2. Financial crimes. Think "funding terrorist-equivalent groups" or "money laundering". Now a terrorist-equivalent group is open to an interpretation by PayPal itself.. the same way we yell at facebook/twitter to be the decider of truth.<p>For these 2 reasons, employees are not allowed to notify the company what the reason is. Doing so would result in jail time for the employees. This rule is imposed by US government.<p>It's no surprise employees "overdo" the ban. Employees get paid the same whether they decide to ban a company or not. If they ban a company wrongly, big deal.. nothing happens (of course, unless they ban 100000 companies wrongly, but nobody would reach that number). If they make a mistake and don't ban a bad company, they (the employees themselves) could go to jail. Guess which side the employee would be biased toward.
Young says:<p>> I suspect it’s because it often publishes sceptical pieces about the five sacred nostrums you’re not allowed to dissent from: the view that sex, like gender, is a social construct and therefore not binary and immutable; that the lockdown policy and associated Covid restrictions were a prudent response to the pandemic; the mRNA vaccines are safe and efficacious; we’re in the midst of a ‘climate emergency’ and the only solution is to achieve ‘net zero’ by 2050 (preferably earlier); and the West should continue to supply arms and aid to Ukraine.<p>How did these five things end up being part of the same tribe? How is it that, like, "don't take the Moderna vaccine" is on the same page as "stop helping Ukraine?"
I think PayPal has been hacked and they don't know the extent of it yet and don't want to publicly comment. An intruder with an agenda could have closed those accounts. I say they've been hacked after I closed my account due to phishing attempts from their domain.