Payment Methods

Marko What are the recent policy changes? (I tried googling it, but must not be seeing it).

Check this out

https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=14304

Basically they announced a change to Terms of Use whereby they would fine users $2,500 for posting "misinformation" - cue outcry and they reveresed a day or so later.

So if they reversed the decision and admitted it was a mistake, why would you have concerns with using PayPal moving forward?

I choose not to do business with parties that I don't consider trustworthy and that may present a risk to my wellbeing (their words).  The point of PP at the start was to be an "honest broker" for online consumer transactions.  They are or are threatening to expand far beyond that role.  As in any free market business transactions I can choose to move/withhold my business I feel it isn't in my best interest to continue.

It does not impact payment processing.  It only impacts an individual if the guy with the button decides you speak with forked tongue anywhere on the internet.  Only you can decide if that is acceptable to you.  It does not sit well with Mr. Marco.  Mr. Marco either has aforementioned forked tongue....or he is tired of multinational corporations deciding for him what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior (speech in this case) and then having the power to unilaterally ding his bank account to the tune of $2500 per instance.

That is my rudimentary understanding.

You got it 

You can review several years of my posts on DFS and decide for yourself as to the bifurcation or not of my tongue.

To be clear, I didn't want to get into the politics of PP's actions but was genuinely interested whether there were alternatives out there.

It does not impact payment processing.  It only impacts an individual if the guy with the button decides you speak with forked tongue anywhere on the internet.  Only you can decide if that is acceptable to you.  It does not sit well with Mr. Marco.  Mr. Marco either has aforementioned forked tongue....or he is tired of multinational corporations deciding for him what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior (speech in this case) and then having the power to unilaterally ding his bank account to the tune of $2500 per instance.

That is my rudimentary understanding.

You got it 

You can review several years of my posts on DFS and decide for yourself as to the bifurcation or not of my tongue.

To be clear, I didn't want to get into the politics of PP's actions but was genuinely interested whether there were alternatives out there.

I tried to tread lightly on the politics....but in this instance, that's all it is. A digital ghetto designed to oppress.

It does not impact payment processing.  It only impacts an individual if the guy with the button decides you speak with forked tongue anywhere on the internet.  Only you can decide if that is acceptable to you.  It does not sit well with Mr. Marco.  Mr. Marco either has aforementioned forked tongue....or he is tired of multinational corporations deciding for him what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior (speech in this case) and then having the power to unilaterally ding his bank account to the tune of $2500 per instance.

That is my rudimentary understanding.

You got it 

You can review several years of my posts on DFS and decide for yourself as to the bifurcation or not of my tongue.

To be clear, I didn't want to get into the politics of PP's actions but was genuinely interested whether there were alternatives out there.

Marko Check out:

Zelle, Apple Pay, CashApp

I've been considering another payment method just to have options. Cash app is one I thought about. The problem is, if I understand it correctly is the options are only good if the other people have and use the same methods/options.

It does not impact payment processing.  It only impacts an individual if the guy with the button decides you speak with forked tongue anywhere on the internet.  Only you can decide if that is acceptable to you.  It does not sit well with Mr. Marco.  Mr. Marco either has aforementioned forked tongue....or he is tired of multinational corporations deciding for him what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior (speech in this case) and then having the power to unilaterally ding his bank account to the tune of $2500 per instance.

That is my rudimentary understanding.

You got it 

You can review several years of my posts on DFS and decide for yourself as to the bifurcation or not of my tongue.

To be clear, I didn't want to get into the politics of PP's actions but was genuinely interested whether there were alternatives out there.

In the context of the BST, the problem is that there’s not other payment services that offer buyer protection (at least as far as I know). I can’t stand PayPal especially since they started this stuff with issuing 1099’s to people receiving G&S payments, but I haven’t seen any other service that can fill that void of giving the buyer any protection.

It does not impact payment processing.  It only impacts an individual if the guy with the button decides you speak with forked tongue anywhere on the internet.  Only you can decide if that is acceptable to you.  It does not sit well with Mr. Marco.  Mr. Marco either has aforementioned forked tongue....or he is tired of multinational corporations deciding for him what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior (speech in this case) and then having the power to unilaterally ding his bank account to the tune of $2500 per instance.

That is my rudimentary understanding.

You got it 

You can review several years of my posts on DFS and decide for yourself as to the bifurcation or not of my tongue.

To be clear, I didn't want to get into the politics of PP's actions but was genuinely interested whether there were alternatives out there.

In the context of the BST, the problem is that there’s not other payment services that offer buyer protection (at least as far as I know). I can’t stand PayPal especially since they started this stuff with issuing 1099’s to people receiving G&S payments, but I haven’t seen any other service that can fill that void of giving the buyer any protection.

The 1099 is what bugs me as I don't have proof of my cost of the item when purchased to offset the taxes......

New for 2022, the IRS requires 1099 tax forms to be sent out to individuals who generate $600 or more in goods & services transactions.

This is not a PayPal policy. Etsy, Ebay, etc are required to do it as well.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/gpsol...ncome-irs/

New for 2022, the IRS requires 1099 tax forms to be sent out to individuals who generate $600 or more in goods & services transactions.

This is not a PayPal policy. Etsy, Ebay, etc are required to do it as well.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/gpsol...ncome-irs/

I understand that but if you sell razors and get the payment and they want to tax you you can't prove it cost more than you sold it for and offset the tax liability. Not meant for people like us but caught us all in the net. That's what bugs me with the sites I'm using now affected including eBay.....they don't issue us credits when we spend money using them....I see it as the equivalent of taxing people selling their things in a yard sale.

This is interesting. On the surface it makes no sense - how could PayPal fine customers for spreading misinformation, and why would they want to? I worked a long time in that industry and I think I can guess what’s going on. You can be sure the last thing PayPal would ever want is to get involved in politics - big companies, especially regulated financial institutions are allergic to that sort of thing and they never do it. The brand damage and the legal peril would keep them well away from any sort of politically motivated overreach, but anyway they just don’t think like that - they are businesses and they are apolitical.

I presume this arises out of the Alex Jones case and the vagaries of the highly litigious American legal system. If PayPal was processing fund transfers to Alex Jones’ company that the courts determined were due to his defamatory speech about Sandy Hook then PayPal will be thinking very hard about their potential legal exposure. If you can sue Alex Jones and get a $1Bn award (plus punitive damages) then aren’t people potentially going to name PayPal as a co-defendant in future cases, since they can argue PayPal facilitated the financial gains Alex Jones made and were potentially part of the scheme (and earning revenue from it)? After all, future Alex Joneses won’t have $1Bn but PayPal does, so plaintiffs go after where the money is. To you and me PayPal is just transferring money, and they have nothing to do with anyone’s defamation or misinformation - but that’s not always how the American legal system works.

So PayPal would want to avoid legal exposure by finding a way to terminate the accounts of people like Alex Jones, but they can’t easily do that without exposing themselves to anti-trust lawsuits which require them to treat all customers the same. If Alex Jones was selling heroin it’s easy to close his account - and the law probably requires it. But in this case Alex Jones was doing something that was unlawful but not illegal, and not against the terms and conditions of using PayPal. I think they’re trying to find a legal way to change their terms and conditions so that they don’t get caught up in an Alex Jones case in future. They’re not looking to steal your money because you post something on Twitter that they don’t agree with - if they ever did anything like that it would cause immense damage to their business, and I doubt they would have any lawful basis to do it.

I think it’s a really difficult legal tightrope that PayPal has to walk in order to protect itself here. It’s nothing to do with politics, it’s to do with legal risk.