PayPal: Limiting access to align with their corporate values

[ken_sylvania]

SPLC’s list of “hate groups” includes anti-gay-marriage organisations. And the whole point point of this is PayPal made a commitment to deplatform anyone on SPLC’s list.

Josh, that is a rather serious accusation. Do you have evidence to back it up?

The WSJ article in fact quotes PayPal as specifically stating that they do not always agree with SPLC on whether situations warrant banning individuals from PayPal's platform.

If PayPal has in fact committed to deplatform everyone on SPLC's list, please step up and provide the evidence. If not, let me remind you that false accusations are an abomination before God.

Okay, ken, let's try a different one.

Instagram bans Babylon Bee founders' pro life cartoon as hate speech

It's obvious that "hate speech" and "hate groups" will, eventually, include people who are opposed to abortion or gay marriage. And it's now obvious that that day has already come.

I'm interested in hearing more defenders of how it's OK that that happens, and if we don't like it, we can just go and start our own Instagram, PayPal, bank, our own country, go settle our own planet, etc. And I'm particularly interested in hearing the argument from people who simultaneously argue that Christians should be assimilated into the world and do things like try to wear identical clothing to whatever the latest fashions in the world are.

The end game of this is that, eventually, you'll have to eagerly promote and support abortion, gay marriage, and all other manner of wickedness. Or you'll bear the consequences.

And "conservatives" will gladly walk you to the gallows if you do decide to stand up for righteousness. The free market worked! The free market demanded that those who oppose abortion be branded as "hate groups" and ostracised from society.

I think we can expect this to continue to happen more often as the world continues to walk away from God. As Christians, we need to be prepared to suffer for righteousness sake.

[Josh]

I think we can expect this to continue to happen more often as the world continues to walk away from God. As Christians, we need to be prepared to suffer for righteousness sake.

Of course we do - but that doesn't mean that it's good that this happens.

[PeterG]

I'm afraid I'm too busy right now to write a more detailed post, but there are a few of my thoughts.

The end game of this is that, eventually, you'll have to eagerly promote and support abortion, gay marriage, and all other manner of wickedness.

So, to prevent Christians from being required to support homosexuality and abortion, PayPal must be required to support the KKK? Should Chik-Fil-A be required to provide catering for a Planned Parenthood event?

If all people are saying is, "This is a negative trend," that's one thing. But there seems to be a sentiment that PayPal, Instragram/Facebook, etc. should be prevented from denying service to people and organizations on the basis of their viewpoints or actions. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Prevented by whom—the government? This would involve a significant expansion of the government's power over the actions of private organizations and individuals, precisely the kind of reliance on human law that Temp decries. That's playing with fire for a number of reasons.

[Josh]

If all people are saying is, "This is a negative trend," that's one thing. But there seems to be a sentiment that PayPal, Instragram/Facebook, etc. should be prevented from denying service to people and organizations on the basis of their viewpoints or actions. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Prevented by whom—the government? This would involve a significant expansion of the government's power over the actions of private organizations and individuals, precisely the kind of reliance on human law that Temp decries. That's playing with fire for a number of reasons.

If you want a "free market" solution, then remove exemptions from existing laws that Facebook, PayPal, etc. enjoy and instead treat them as publishers, and then anyone can sue them for publishing false statements on behalf of one of their subscribers.

Currently, they have their cake and eat it too. They get to enjoy immunity from taking responsibility for polluting public discourse with conspiracy theories, fake news, and so on, claiming they are simply a platform others can use to engage in speech. But then they also get to turn around and regulate that speech, but without any simultaneous responsibility.

[PeterG]

Remove exemptions from existing laws that Facebook, PayPal, etc. enjoy and instead treat them as publishers

I agree, that would probably be a good idea in the case of Facebook and similar media companies. But I see that as a separate issue from what I thought this thread was about. (And I'm not sure how it would make sense to treat PayPal as a publisher.)

[QuietObserver]

Josh,
Do you think social media should place any limits on speech?
- Facebook, for example, doesn't allow pornography. Do you have a problem with that?
- Should spam/bot accounts be allowed? Prohibiting bot accounts restricts the free speech rights of those who program bot accounts. Citizens United allows corporations to dump money in super PACs because of free speech, how are bot accounts different?

I don't like some of the decisions social media companies make either, but I don't think it's feasible for them to allow free speech. If free speech was allowed, their sites would full of terrible stuff that would drive users away.

[Josh]

Remove exemptions from existing laws that Facebook, PayPal, etc. enjoy and instead treat them as publishers

I agree, that would probably be a good idea in the case of Facebook and similar media companies. But I see that as a separate issue from what I thought this thread was about. (And I'm not sure how it would make sense to treat PayPal as a publisher.)

I would treat PayPal as a bank.

Whether or not certain people should be ostracised from banking is a separate topic, but that decision should be made democratically or judicially, not by a private but giant bank.

[Josh]

Josh,
Do you think social media should place any limits on speech?
- Facebook, for example, doesn't allow pornography. Do you have a problem with that?
- Should spam/bot accounts be allowed? Prohibiting bot accounts restricts the free speech rights of those who program bot accounts. Citizens United allows corporations to dump money in super PACs because of free speech, how are bot accounts different?

I don't like some of the decisions social media companies make either, but I don't think it's feasible for them to allow free speech. If free speech was allowed, their sites would full of terrible stuff that would drive users away.

I think they should be treated as exercising editorial control and 100% responsible for everything their users post.

[Bootstrap]

The internet makes it much easier for child pornography, sex traffickers, money launderers, fraudsters, terrorists, spies, white supremacists, and other bad actors to find each other, radicalize each other, and make plans to hurt others. If we want absolute freedom for these bad actors, there will be bad consequences. We have already seen that in each of these areas.

Paypal can face legal consequences if they don't take precautions against some of these things. If they wink and nod at money laundering, sex trafficking, child pornography, or fraud, I would want them to be held responsible. And I do not think they should be forced to allow their platform to be used to threaten other people because of their race or religion.

Remember Charlottesville, where armed white supremacists camped out around a Jewish synagogue, insisting that this was all about free speech and the second amendment. I am not particularly concerned about the rights these white supremacists were claiming. I am more concerned about the right of a religious congregation to worship in peace and safety. If I'm every involved in this kind of conflict, I know I am more likely to be in the congregation worshipping God. I want to see religion and race protected against those who spread hatred and fear to stir up persecution. I do think constitutional freedoms are important too - the United States has carefully built up a legal framework over many years to strike a balance between freedom of speech and freedom of association and civil rights. Let's not throw it overboard. These are complicated issues, and they require balance.

I am also concerned about emotionally linking white supremacy to conservativism. If Paypal is endangering conservatism when they say they won't foster white supremacy, that's not any kind of conservatism that I would want to embrace. And it has nothing to do with simple obedience to the Bible, the kind of conservatism that I agree with. If Christians come to be associated with white supremacists, it's not a good look. And if we continually defend them, other people just might associate us with them.

[Josh]

So, you’re saying you don’t care about freedom of speech?

Should someone who engages in speech against transsexuality or gay marriage be allowed to use PayPal or not?

Try to take a break for a few minutes from bleating about white supremacists. The original topic of this thread wasn’t about that, and Instagram banned Babylon Bee for a pro-life message. Let’s stay on topic with those things.

So: should banks have freedom to ban customers who hold opinions against gay marriage or modern transsexualism?