Posted on 10/11/2022 5:25:28 AM PDT by TigerClaws
Got an alternative to banks?
Conservative activists are calling out America’s largest financial institution, charging they are being targeted.
JPMorgan Chase is under fire for closing the bank accounts of several customers in the conservative movement as other right-wingers are threatening to close their accounts unless the bank plays nice.
“If Jamie Dimon can’t absolutely guarantee that Chase Bank won’t ever discriminate against conservatives, conservatives should consider banking elsewhere,” warned David Almasi, vice president of the conservative-leaning National Center for Public Policy Research, referring to JPMorgan’s chairman and CEO.
https://nypost.com/2019/05/25/jpmorgan-chase-accused-of-purging-accounts-of-conservative-activists/
**
Our elites admire the power China has. They want a fake capitalistic economy over which they rule and can, by fiat, destroy the life of any citizen.
$2,500 penalty for wrongthink.
Go to your ATM and find your bank is drained for mis-think.
Yes.
“Can someone explain where the hate speech has to occur?”
Anywhere.
Which means they’re stalking you.
Per PayPal...
“In connection with your use of our websites, your PayPal account, the PayPal services, or in the course of your interactions with PayPal, other PayPal customers, or third parties, you must not:
Breach this user agreement, the PayPal Acceptable Use Policy, the Commercial Entity Agreements (if they apply to you), the PayPal Balance Terms and Conditions (if it applies to you), or any other agreement between you and PayPal;
Per PP Acceptable User Policy...YES, they have a rat line...
“Violations of the Acceptable Use Policy
We encourage you to report violations of this Acceptable Use Policy to PayPal immediately. If you have a question about whether a type of transaction may violate the Acceptable Use Policy, or wish to file a report, you can do so here.”
After this astounding policy announcement, it wouldn’t make sense for anyone to have an account.
You can’t be that stupid PP.
Last updated on September 20, 2021
You are independently responsible for complying with all applicable laws in all of your actions related to your use of PayPal’s services, regardless of the purpose of the use. In addition, you must adhere to the terms of this Acceptable Use Policy. Violation of this Acceptable Use Policy constitutes a violation of the PayPal User Agreement and may subject you to damages, including liquidated damages of $2,500.00 U.S. dollars per violation, which may be debited directly from your PayPal account(s) as outlined in the User Agreement (see “Restricted Activities and Holds” section of the PayPal User Agreement).
Hubby just logged in to PP to close the account and noticed a $699.99 charge to someone who is unknown to us. We’ve been on the phone to “Harvey” (Peggy) trying to get this straightened out before closing the account. They guy can’t speak English, and he can’t understand English — just keeps rambling. At one time both of us screamed into the phone, “STOP TALKING!”.
So, nothing is resolved and “Harvey” refuses to bump us up to the next tier.
Run!!
Needed: a top priority legislative remedy for this and other types of abuse by tech lords and credit providers.
Does the fine include words of hate and intolerance directed toward Trump supporters? /s
When that happens, hang up and call in, again. Usually, your call will be assigned to a different “support” person. Repeat until you reach an intelligent person who speaks English and who can actually help you.
Yes. That did work. Sometimes big call centers have an advantage ‘cause the chance of getting the same dolt is slim to none.
Paypal probably gives rewards for those.
PayPal.... STILL Threatens $2,500 Fines for Promoting ‘Hate’ and ‘Intolerance’As I have been pointing out. the PayPal User Agreement includes providing "false, inaccurate or misleading information" as one of its violations, which can result in disciplinary PayPal actions, "If we believe in our sole discretion that you have breached this agreement or violated the Acceptable Use Policy." [102] [103]] And as per the PayPal User Agreement such can result in disciplinary PayPal actions, "If we believe in our sole discretion that you have breached this agreement or violated the Acceptable Use Policy."
But major tech as Verizon also use ambiguous terms that allow for subjective interpretation. Verizon's Acceptable Use Policy states in part,
1. General Policy: Verizon reserves the sole discretion to deny or restrict your Service, or immediately to suspend or terminate your Service, if the use of your Service by you or anyone using it, in our sole discretion, ...is objectionable...or violates the terms of this Acceptable Use Policy (“AUP”). Is so broad and subjectively defined that it can cover all sorts of otherwise protected speech. It used to say, "Verizon reserves the right to deny Service to you, or immediately to terminate your Service for material breach, if your use... promotes or incites bigotry, hatred or racism; (c) might be legally actionable for any reason, (d) is objectionable for any reason...
And Comporium Communications, like the rest, has a SERVICE AGREEMENT in which it states, Objectionable content. Using our services to post, transmit or disseminate any content that is, in our opinion, abusive, libelous, slanderous, defamatory, incites hatred or is otherwise offensive or objectionable.
Likewise, Comcast Cloud Solutions Terms of Service (for businesses) states, in part,
BY USING THE CLOUD SOLUTIONS MARKETPLACE YOU AGREE NOT TO post, upload, or distribute any User Submission (as defined in Section 8 below) or other content that is defamatory....inaccurate... or that a reasonable person could deem to be objectionable, offensive,...threatening, embarrassing, distressing, vulgar, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive, or otherwise inappropriate.
And as usual with these terms of service consents, this contains some ambiguous language( that would allow broad censorship (cf. content that is offensive or objectionable) which can be interpreted to place FR in violation, and you/us as users, now or in the future.
And note Cloudflare's policy which is, as stated vby CEO Matthew Prince, "One of the greatest strengths of the United States is a belief that speech, particularly political speech, is sacred. A website, of course, is nothing but speech ... A website is speech. It is not a bomb. There is no imminent danger it creates and no provider has an affirmative obligation to monitor and make determinations about the theoretically harmful nature of speech a site may contain."
For all customers Cloudflare offers an "I'm Under Attack Mode" setting. Cloudflare claims this can mitigate advanced Layer 7 attacks by presenting a JavaScript computational challenge which must be completed by a user's browser before the user can access a website - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloudflare
But who dropped the American neo-Nazi website "The Daily Stormer" as a customer. Which I would do also, but as said, if a host can deny such based on its content being objectionable, it can deny conservative content on the same basis (unless perhaps the one denied wanted to promote the homosexual agenda or reverse racism.). This issue led to this opinion piece in the NYT no less, The Terrifying Power of Internet Censors :
Generally speaking, there are two kinds of corporate players on the internet: companies that build infrastructure through which content flows, and companies that seek to curate content and create a community.
Internet service providers like Verizon and Comcast, domain name servers, web hosts and security services providers like Cloudflare are all the former — or the “pipe.” They typically don’t look at the content their clients and customers are putting up, they just give them the means to do it and let it flow.
Social media platforms like Facebook are the latter. They encourage their users to create, share and engage with content — so they look at content all the time and decide whether they want to allow hateful material like that of neo-Nazis to stay up.
One of the additional difficulties with Cloudflare is that it is not so much a piece of pipe as it is a service. Specifically, it is a paid-for-protection service. Having to hire Cloudflare to protect your website is like having to hire security to protect you from attackers when you speak in the public square.
Matthew Prince, Cloudflare’s chief executive, acknowledged how much power his company has, and what’s at stake. “The internet is a really important resource for everyone,” he said in an interview with TechCrunch, “but there’s a very limited set of companies that control it and there’s such little accountability to us that it really is quite a dangerous thing.” - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/opinion/cloudflare-daily-stormer-charlottesville.html
AOL could block FR as per . https://policies.oath.com/us/en/oath/terms/otos/index.htm, You agree not to use the Services to:
make available any content that is harmful to children, threatening, abusive...defamatory, hateful, or racially, ethnically, or otherwise objectionable. Terms such as "harmful," "threatening," "hateful," "or otherwise objectionable" are so broad as to allow subjective definitions of such to justify disciplinary actions. A matter of time.
Yikes... bet you’re right.
:)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.