No, PayPal Did Not Resurrect Its ‘Misinformation’ Penalty (its worse... Long-standing rules reveal the payment giant will still police “false, inaccurate or misleading information.”)

Financial Twitter is again abuzz over rumors that PayPal, the world’s third-largest payments platform, has reinstated a controversial policy to fine its users for “misinformation.”

The uproar, however—which has drawn in many popular crypto influencers—appears to be over old news.

BREAKING: 🛑 PayPal has brought back the $2,500 fine for speech they don’t like.

At issue is a passage within PayPal’s “Restricted Activities” section of its user agreement, which states that users who violate its Acceptable Use Policy are liable to pay a minimum of $2,500 in damages.

The Acceptable Use Policy includes a list of “prohibited activities,” which include transactions related to “the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory.”

Twitter user Jeremy Knauff called attention to the passage on Tuesday, claiming that PayPal had effectively reinstated a “misinformation” clause that attracted widespread criticism earlier this month—a clause that PayPal retracted after saying it had been published “in error.”

Remember the draconian clause PayPal added to its TOS a couple of weeks ago that would enable them to steal $2,500 from your account every time you post anything they don't like? Well, after the widespread criticism died down, they put it right back in.https://t.co/QwUsB56p0L

“The term ‘other forms of intolerance’ is so broad that it legally gives the company grounds to claim that anyone not fully supporting any particular position is engaging in ‘intolerance’ because the definition of the word is the unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own,” claimed Knauff in an article on the matter.

In reality, however, the “misinformation” clause was not reinstated, nor have any other changes been made to the policy page since PayPal’s retraction a week ago.

As detailed by KellyKga on Twitter, the controversial passage that was published on October 7—and removed the next day—sought to prevent users from using PayPal for activities that involve “the sending, posting, or publication” of content that met certain criteria.

Listed among those criteria were content materials that are, according to PayPal, “harmful, obscene, harassing, or objectionable,” or which “promote misinformation,” among other things. This entire passage had been removed from the Acceptable Use Policy and is now only available through internet archives.

By contrast, the clause that Knauff and others took issue with this week isn’t a new policy at all. Both the list of prohibited activities and the associated $2,500 fine have existed since September 2021.

It seems the $2,500 in damages section and the long and broad list of prohibited activities dates back to September 2021 (last year). https://t.co/BgoQjgX6IC pic.twitter.com/VZGoElFcqB

Yet the story gets even more complicated: While Paypal’s current Acceptable Use Policy contains no mention of “misinformation,” its user agreement essentially does—and has since at least February 12, 2022.

The agreement reads that PayPal users may not “provide false, inaccurate or misleading information,” in connection with PayPal, its website, services, or “third parties.” Those who do so may see their accounts suspended, limited, or closed, and PayPal may take legal action.

In short, no surprise changes have been made to PayPal’s policy this week. While the company does levy punishments toward users for certain forms of “misleading statements” under its user agreement (and has for months), a $2,500 fine is not explicitly one of them.

Thus we have another example by "Big Tech" of increasing censorship of ever-morphing politically incorrect speech via the expanded use of ambiguous and terms that enable subjective judgments of what is considered "harmful" or "objectionable." While "Terms of Service" type agreements often use ambiguous language, as posted here for example, that enable such judgments, they can be expected to become more expansive, and punitive,

This is what PayPal exampled in announcing an updated Acceptable Use Policy, effective Nov. 3, 2022, that,

"You may not use the PayPal service for activities that:....." “Involve the sending, posting, or publication of any messages, content, or materials that, in PayPal’s sole discretion, (a) are harmful ... or objectionable … (e) depict, promote, or incite hatred or discrimination of protected groups or of individuals or groups based on protected characteristics (e.g. ... religion, gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, etc.) … (g) .... promote misinformation … or (i) are otherwise unfit for publication.”

The update also stated,

"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..."[99] [100]

Obviously, since even posting what the Bible states regarding false gospels as well as illicit sexual unions and effects thereof can be subjectively judged in "PayPal’s sole discretion" as "harmful" or "objectionable" then this policy effectively can work to silence those whom PayPal autocratically judges to be politically objectionable.

And while PayPal later said that it will not fine $2500 users who engage in “misinformation” or “hatred” against protected identities," and that this language was never intended to be inserted in our policy, yet PayPal actually did not remove fining people for misinformation, and while it changed "activities that.... are harmful ... or objectionable … (e) depict, promote, or incite hatred or discrimination of protected groups or of individuals or groups based on protected characteristics, " into forbidding "the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory" the terms are ambiguous and broad enough to be subjectively defined as per the former descriptions. Its Acceptable Use Policy now states,

Prohibited Activities You may not use the PayPal service for activities that:...relate to transactions involving... (f) the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory.

Yet in PayPal subjective "sole discretion, "the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory" can easily translate into what was previously ambiguously described as activities that:....." “Involve the sending, posting, or publication of any messages, content, or materials that, in PayPal’s sole discretion, (a) are harmful ... or objectionable … (e) depict, promote, or incite hatred or discrimination of protected groups or of individuals or groups based on protected characteristics (e.g. ... religion, gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, etc.) …

And as the PayPal User Agreement also states outlined in the User Agreement,

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).

And the Restricted Activities and Holds” section of the PayPal User Agreement currently states.

If you’ve violated our Acceptable Use Policy, then you’re also responsible for damages to PayPal caused by your violation of this policy..You acknowledge and agree that $2,500.00 U.S. dollars per violation of the Acceptable Use Policy is presently a reasonable minimum estimate of PayPal’s actual damages - including, but not limited to, internal administrative costs incurred by PayPal to monitor and track violations, damage to PayPal’s brand and reputation, and penalties imposed upon PayPal by its business partners resulting from a user’s violation - considering all currently existing circumstances, including the relationship of the sum to the range of harm to PayPal that reasonably could be anticipated because, due to the nature of the violations of the Acceptable Use Policy, actual damages would be impractical or extremely difficult to calculate. PayPal may deduct such damages directly from any existing balance in any PayPal account you control.

Moreover, the "Restricted Activities" in the above section includes providing,

"false, inaccurate or misleading information" as one of the 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." ]

Thus it remains that it is quite possible for PayPal to engage in the degree of punitive censorship that resulted in an outcry and PayPal modifying its Acceptable Use Policy.

Note also the broad scope (damages, costs, reputation, existing circumstances, range of harm, etc.) and imprecise criteria means that its subjective present estimation of a $2.500 legally penalty could be far more: For the Restricted Activities and Holds” section of the PayPal User Agreement currently states,

You acknowledge and agree that $2,500.00 U.S. dollars per violation of the Acceptable Use Policy is presently a reasonable minimum estimate of PayPal’s actual damages - including, but not limited to, internal administrative costs incurred by PayPal to monitor and track violations, damage to PayPal’s brand and reputation, and penalties imposed upon PayPal by its business partners resulting from a user’s violation - considering all currently existing circumstances, including the relationship of the sum to the range of harm to PayPal that reasonably could be anticipated because, due to the nature of the violations of the Acceptable Use Policy, actual damages would be impractical or extremely difficult to calculate. PayPal may deduct such damages directly from any existing balance in any PayPal account you control.

Eph. added.

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.