PayPal sparks furore over limits on "obscene" e-books

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

03-14-2012
thir

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucy

Now that's just plain wrong. Every privately owned business is free to sell or not sell a service or product, provided they abide the corresponding laws.

Sure. That is what I said.

Quote:

I work in the publishing business. The main topic of the journal we produce is human powered mobility. The fact that we don't publish articles about Porsche's newest version of the Cayenne has nothing to do with wanting to convert anyone to our ideas of how traffic in modern cities should work, but it has a lot to do with what we chose to write about.
And in that choice we are (almost) completely free.

You publish magazines, which people can choose to buy or not. But you do not, if I understand you correctly, use your publishing business to try to impose othernon-related ideas on people, for example, if they buy your magazine they must refrain from/adhere to something completely different. As I understand it, you sell your mag with no strings attached.

What pay pal did was to sell a service - how to pay for things to buy - while at the same time trying to use this service to interfere with what you can buy, which is none of their business.
03-14-2012
lucy

Yeah, sorry thir, I misunderstood you there.

Still, it's Paypal's business if they want people to use their service to buy, say, my book "kunt", which is non-consensual through and through and full of rape. Nobody can force them to co-operate with a company who sells such gruesome books. It is also their legal right to say we don't want people to use our service to buy sunflower seeds online, because, simply, sunflowers suck. They got every right to do that. And if they don't, they should have.

Also, Paypal finds itself between hammer and anvil, with the banks and credit card companies being the hammer and the writers, publishers and readers of smut like mine being the anvil. In a way I can understand that they're wetting their pants at the prospect of being connected to such stories. But I can even better understand the outcry from the other side.

However, putting pressure on the cc-companies and the banks to cut down on the moral bullshit would be even better (after all, they don't have the slightest fucking problem with financing arms deals and stuff) than accusing Paypal of censorship. The way to put pressure on them would of course be the threat of not using their service anymore. I don't think accusing them of censorship bothers them much. Bankers are used to much worse. Threatening to hurt their profits will, though.

And the best would be to have a Paypal which isn't based in America or owned by an American company with the morals of the so-callel moral majority. But then again, I'm having a hard time right now thinking of a country which would be better suited ...

PS: Of course sunflowers don't suck. I love sunflowers, mostly because they're nice to look at but also because so far I haven't met one which wanted to force its morals upon me. Just wanted to clarify :)
03-14-2012
ksst

The anti porn creed comes from both the left and the right. From the left it is phrased as not denigrating women, from the right it is phrased as upholding morality. Either way, I think they are wrong. I am a leftist on some issues, but on the porn/ freedom of buying/selling writing it I'm squarely on the side of .... Who? I guess the libertarians. Or the perverts.
03-16-2012
Strypi

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucy

@Strypi: My husband pays a shitload of taxes to the IRS even when he doesn't earn a fucking cent in the US of A. Just because he's American and America's the only country in the world which taxes its expatriates.
Yet, even if he doesn't get anything in return and most likely never will, he doesn't whine about it all the time. So, instead of whining, how about making sure your money is spent on something you want it to be spent on? (Starting another war in Iran comes easily to mind, as some Reps seem to be so keen about. Maybe this time they've got an idea on how to pull out before they go in ....)

However, whether abortions are paid with your (and mine, too, coz half of that dough was mine) tax money or not has got fuck all to do with Paypal forcing their fucking morals down our throats.

Thanks, Lucy, for that. I had no idea that my talking about a side issue while in the main topic of conversation was any different than your rant, about how you have to pay US taxes. I didn't vote for that, by the way. And yes, I would LOVE it if you could pay for the abortions and leave me the hell out of it. Wanna buy me out?? And I would also LOVE to have more say in where my money goes...but having a vote doesn't always mean that you get your way.

Now, This thread is all about how "they" should stop trying to make "us" think like "them". Or is it all about "us" trying to make "them" think like "us"? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

I am not arguing that Paypal is in the right here. I think that bigotry of any kind is deplorable. And I believe that pressure on other companies should be grounds for the public caning of the CEO of Paypal, as well as any MVPs of companies that fall in with that whole idea. Just for starters, anyway. And yes, if a shop owner asks that you pray before entering, then you should, or leave. Their property. Their turf. Their wishes. They're not gonna make any money that way, but hey, maybe they just want to go through the motions of owning the business, and don't need to make money as well. None of my business. I'll go where the customer service is better, again and again.
03-17-2012
thir

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucy

Yeah, sorry thir, I misunderstood you there.

No offence, some times I have trouble explaining myself properly.

Quote:

Still, it's Paypal's business if they want people to use their service to buy, say, my book "kunt", which is non-consensual through and through and full of rape. Nobody can force them to co-operate with a company who sells such gruesome books.

This is exactly what I do not understand. Why should selling a service to people give anyone the right to try to force moral/religious/political or any other ideas on them? One thing has nothing whatsoever to do with the other. If anyone wants to promote their convictions, there are plenty of media where this can be done. But I cannot for the life of me see how my personal reading or personal life has anything what so ever to do with my baker or my dentist, or my pay pal servicer.

Quote:

It is also their legal right to say we don't want people to use our service to buy sunflower seeds online, because, simply, sunflowers suck. They got every right to do that. And if they don't, they should have.

But why?

Quote:

Also, Paypal finds itself between hammer and anvil, with the banks and credit card companies being the hammer and the writers, publishers and readers of smut like mine being the anvil. In a way I can understand that they're wetting their pants at the prospect of being connected to such stories. But I can even better understand the outcry from the other side.

I agree with the hammer and anvil picture. Buy maybe, if everybody told the banks to stay out of other people's business, these things would not happen. I haven't heard of a bank in UK or DK which tried to interfere with people's reading or any other thing. If I am wrong, will someone please correct me, but so far I haven't.

Quote:

However, putting pressure on the cc-companies and the banks to cut down on the moral bullshit would be even better (after all, they don't have the slightest fucking problem with financing arms deals and stuff) than accusing Paypal of censorship. The way to put pressure on them would of course be the threat of not using their service anymore. I don't think accusing them of censorship bothers them much. Bankers are used to much worse. Threatening to hurt their profits will, though.

I agree, but how in this case? Pay pal gets the heat because they are the ones to make conditions.

Quote:

And the best would be to have a Pay
pal which isn't based in America or owned by an American company with the morals of the so-callel moral majority. But then again, I'm having a hard time right now thinking of a country which would be better suited ...

If it is a majority..?

Quote:

PS: Of course sunflowers don't suck. I love sunflowers, mostly because they're nice to look at but also because so far I haven't met one which wanted to force its morals upon me. Just wanted to clarify :)

And they always turn themselves towards the sun :-)
03-17-2012
lucy

thir, Paypal doesn't want to force their morals down our throats. At least that's what I believe.
Why they feel the need to do that I don't know. The only reason I can think of is that the political and social climate in one of their key markets leads them to believe that it's possible their business might get harmed or even shut down because of their enabling smut to be purchased.
As to which key market that might be: Your guess is probably as good as mine.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page