[ccnafr]

They intentionally named their site that way to capitalize on Google search result traffic. If you read their articles, you realize they can barely put together two English sentences with proper grammar and structure. Furthermore, most of their articles are stolen from other sites. I've seen journalists from Motherboard, The Register, and Bleeping Computer accuse them of blatantly copying articles, and when I checked out the articles, they were right. I have zero problems with this. Couldn't have happened to a bunch of bigger assholes.

And I'm not the only one who noticed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18783710

[SilasX]

So ... PayPal made the right call.

[1001101]

Cutting a business off from the financial system seems like a fairly harsh punishment for plagiarism, especially when there are other routes for a remedy. We may never know if that was the reason, though, so it's hard to measure whether justice was done or not.

[judge2020]

I suspect that one of the sites they plagiarized which accept PP donations/subscriptions asked PP to take them off or risk the large news company switching to another payment processor.

[abnry]

I don't know if it is too harsh. What seems unfair is that paypal gives no reason.

[SmellyGeekBoy]

Well, there's plagiarism and then there's impersonating a well-known (admittedly in niche circles) brand to make money. I think they made a good call here.

[slang800]

So, rather than using our existing copyright / trademark system to handle cases of brand impersonation or stealing content, we're just going to rely on payment processor companies to punish people? That sounds like a really bad idea.

[naasking]

Why should a payment processor be able to make such legal decisions? That's what the courts are for. The current trend of cutting services for political reasons is problematic at best, particularly when there's arguably a monopoly.

There needs to be more transparency, and a clear and fair system for arbitration and dispute resolution. Better still, one that's consistent across all digital services so people know what to expect when signing up without wading through a novel's worth of user agreements.

[danso]

You’re arguing that companies should only be able to decline service after a court allows them to?

[naasking]

We have discrimination laws don't we? Are banks allowed to refuse service for any reason whatsoever?

We're talking about people's livelihood here. If transactions don't violate any laws, payment processors should not be permitted to refuse service. When they do refuse service, there should be transparency in reporting.

[danso]

Yes, there are laws that protect against discrimination based on certain categories (religion, gender, race, veteran status, etc). Business owners still have the right to refuse service for other reasons of their choosing, like the customer being a loudmouth ass, or not following the dress code, without having to refer to a legal statute.

[naasking]

You're changing the goalposts. This thread is about:

1. (arguably monopolistic) payment processors upon which people's livelihood depends, not restaurants or other noncritical services of which there are many to choose, and

2. It's about discrimination for political motivations, not being abusive to your employees.

There's a hardly a line between religious and political convictions, and if you don't find discrimination along these lines troubling, then I think your bias is showing.

[jammygit]

I think he's saying that near-monopolies should have to follow special rules because the market system breaks down

[yellowapple]

As popular as PayPal may be, it's a far cry from being a monopoly.

That said, I do think holding money should be cause for more stringent regulations. Stopping service is one thing; holding funds entirely should absolutely happen only under direct court order (anything else would be theft).

[toufiqbarhamov]

Counterpoint: The “market system” is already a fiction, and contesting the laws to further promulgate that fiction is a non-starter. Calling a business a somethingnotquitea-monopoly isn’t an incantation that makes it true or legally sound.

[amazingman]

Who can know?