Well it’s official - PayPal are crap

Ocnor said:
I didn't add anything. Paypal keeps changing the agreement whenever they get caught and called out.
Click to expand...
...and that's my story (inane conspiracy theory) & I'm sticking to it LMAO!! I'm sure they changed it TODAY, on a SUNDAY, right after you posted...TODAY!
 
Ocnor said:
Paypal keeps changing the agreement whenever they get caught and called out.
Click to expand...
Just FYI, I'm looking at the wayback machine for the paypal terms of service, and I don't see any evidence that it ever looked like the excerpt you quoted. I'm not saying you made it up, but you have to admit that's hard to explain.
 
notalemming said:
...and that's my story (inane conspiracy theory) & I'm sticking to it LMAO!! I'm sure they changed it TODAY, on a SUNDAY, right after you posted...TODAY!
Click to expand...

I don’t know….this looks shady and no conspiracy theory to me as the Fed courts are involved.

Red flags 🚩 everywhere. And just the start

PayPal & eBay implications …

 
They are obviously evil. You can see it in their eyes...particularly that alien looking one.
Anyhoo... Without Paypal offering any significant protection to buyers, I'm just going to add my CC to eBay, so one less turd to deal with. As others have said, PayPal is accepted as the sole form of payment by some traders so I'll keep my account. It'll just have waaaay less transaction$ going through it.

Thanks
Pauly


reclavea said:
I don’t know….this looks shady and no conspiracy theory to me as the Fed courts are involved.

Red flags 🚩 everywhere. And just the start

PayPal & eBay implications …

Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I sold a tube amp and the guy who bought it wrote me that he has used it without any cabinet or load etc. plugged in and now the amp doesn’t work anymore.

He opens a case on PayPal and they send him his money back and told him to send the broken amp back to me.
It doesn’t matter what I wrote PayPal etc.
At the end everything did go to court and I won.
I never use PayPal again.
 
The discussion regarding free speech is going bonkers again with Twitter.

I really don't know why people think we have free speech. We've never really had it. There's all sorts of legal exceptions - libel, threats, obscenity, false advertising, perjury, gag orders, etc. Along the way we've had some very heinous laws like making it illegal to teach a slave to read or write.

Then there's the simple notion that there is no freedom from consequences - just because there are no legal ramifications doesn't mean there are no ramifications. You are free to say all sorts of stupid things in my home, that doesn't mean you get to stay in my home. Similarly, social networks, forums, etc. can make any rules they want and boot you whenever they feel like it - and you agreed to it in the terms of service you never read.

Web sites, journalists, your aunt's blog, etc. have no obligation to ensure you get the full story. They can omit whatever doesn't support their viewpoint and get to delete any comments they dislike. And if you challenge any of these outlets, they have no obligation to fill you in on the stuff they didn't want you to know about.

Having said all that, if you have enough money or clout you really can say whatever you want.

The truth may be out there, we just don't have access to it.
 
hippietim said:
The discussion regarding free speech is going bonkers again with Twitter.

I really don't know why people think we have free speech. We've never really had it. There's all sorts of legal exceptions - libel, threats, obscenity, false advertising, perjury, gag orders, etc. Along the way we've had some very heinous laws like making it illegal to teach a slave to read or write.

Then there's the simple notion that there is no freedom from consequences - just because there are no legal ramifications doesn't mean there are no ramifications. You are free to say all sorts of stupid things in my home, that doesn't mean you get to stay in my home. Similarly, social networks, forums, etc. can make any rules they want and boot you whenever they feel like it - and you agreed to it in the terms of service you never read.

Web sites, journalists, your aunt's blog, etc. have no obligation to ensure you get the full story. They can omit whatever doesn't support their viewpoint and get to delete any comments they dislike. And if you challenge any of these outlets, they have no obligation to fill you in on the stuff they didn't want you to know about.

Having said all that, if you have enough money or clout you really can say whatever you want.

The truth may be out there, we just don't have access to it.
Click to expand...
Thing is, whenever any social media site starts altering their content (such as deleting things they don’t like), they fall into the category of “publisher”. And with that comes a whole different set of regulations and rules-including liability for their content.

However, it hasn’t worked that way for the past number of years. As long as these sites continue to do the bidding of one group they have gotten away with it.

And now Twitter has an owner who refuses to censor one half of the population, and the machine has turned on him.
 
Frodebro said:
Thing is, whenever any social media site starts altering their content (such as deleting things they don’t like), they fall into the category of “publisher”. And with that comes a whole different set of regulations and rules-including liability for their content.

However, it hasn’t worked that way for the past number of years. As long as these sites continue to do the bidding of one group they have gotten away with it.

And now Twitter has an owner who refuses to censor one half of the population, and the machine has turned on him.
Click to expand...

IOW, there's no freedom of speech :)
 
hippietim said:
Where is the truth available? And how do you know?
Click to expand...
Sometimes right in front of your eyes. If 99 MSM outlets are reporting the queen of England died and the Weekly World News reports she was beamed up by space invaders and whisked away to seti alpha 6, it’s up to you to either believe she died or not. Unless you personally saw her die, you don’t in fact know. There is a legal principle of beyond a reasonable doubt. I like that one. I don’t need to in fact know to accept something as truth.
 
Frodebro said:
It’s not really an issue of freedom of speech, but rather the suppression of information. When only one side is allowed to be heard, people are denied the ability to make informed decisions.
Click to expand...

Potato potato.

Information shouldn't have a side. Either way it doesn't matter because nobody is obligated to provide any information that they don't care to.

Gathering and publishing information costs money. Most people don't want to pay for it. We are provided information that can be monetized. So the majority of the information that is disseminated caters to small but very vocal pockets of the population.

YGWYPF
 
Frodebro said:
It’s not really an issue of freedom of speech, but rather the suppression of information. When only one side is allowed to be heard, people are denied the ability to make informed decisions.
Click to expand...

This exactly….

Hence why revolutionaries raid the news outlets first ….…(supposed unbiased news outlets)
 
Dave Merrill said:
And without total omniscience, none of us can really tell which of the various offered "truths" is actually The Truth.
Click to expand...
Again, beyond a reasonable doubt prevails in my world. I don’t need to in fact know a truth is true to accept it as truth. I also don’t let confirmation bias get in the way of changing my mind upon compelling evidence.
 
Bruce Sokolovic said:
Again, beyond a reasonable doubt prevails in my world. I don’t need to in fact know a truth is true to accept it as truth. I also don’t let confirmation bias get in the way of changing my mind upon compelling evidence.
Click to expand...
What constitutes"evidence"?

For instance, there are people I more or less trust, and people who to my eye have blatantly lied in public so many times that I nearly assume everything they say is UNtrue, but they're trusted sources according to some.

Each of us trusts some sources.
Why?

How does that not turn into a hall of mirrors, with no solid points of reference?
We don't have direct experience of 98% of the "information" we "have" about the world, so instead we decide who we believe.

How do we make those decisions?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom