PayPal and Visa are dicks.
-
David1987 wrote:
you clearly believe in freedom as the highest good including the freedom to screw people over without giving them a chance to defend themselves.
OMG!!! I am sure that's libelous, or maybe it's slander! Quick,quick, send an email to Chris and complain that someone is being a meanie!!! Or maybe call out the National Guard? Write to the United Nations? Ask Allah to strike him dead??? A world where I can be insulted is not a just world! Ohmeohmy! :(( Buzz off, kid. I have something important to do now - I just emptied the dryer and I have to sort socks which is a much higher priority than trying to help you to reason.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
Actually no. The case of wikileaks I can sort of understand. Not completely, but I see their point. They are now however targeting random others that did not hurt the US in any way. edit: also, your post borders on libel.
David1987 wrote:
They are now however targeting random others that did not hurt the US in any way.
Well, they targeted Bradley Manning, by suspending his Action Group's account, and then immediately reinstating it. Apparently PayPal considers the act of (allegedly) betraying one's country to be less of an offence than its (alleged) encouragement, facilitation, and instruction by Wikileaks, which remains suspended. (Somewhat ironically, most of my Googled results were the 'right to refuse service' clauses of the companies using PayPal.)
The 1-legged bar stool of understanding is supported by booze. Equipped with that, I know everything, and the rest of you are just a bunch of ignorant peasants with dung on your boots. A R G H
-
David1987 wrote:
They are now however targeting random others that did not hurt the US in any way.
Well, they targeted Bradley Manning, by suspending his Action Group's account, and then immediately reinstating it. Apparently PayPal considers the act of (allegedly) betraying one's country to be less of an offence than its (alleged) encouragement, facilitation, and instruction by Wikileaks, which remains suspended. (Somewhat ironically, most of my Googled results were the 'right to refuse service' clauses of the companies using PayPal.)
The 1-legged bar stool of understanding is supported by booze. Equipped with that, I know everything, and the rest of you are just a bunch of ignorant peasants with dung on your boots. A R G H
-
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
Imagine if Oakman was in the senior management, I could see him retaliating in such a way when someone attacks his ideals!
So you think I have the right to say, "I don't want to work for you!"? I'll bet David really agrees. He just hasn't thought it through and is responding emotionally because he think Wikileaks are white hats so they should get special favors.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
Of course and I personally have done that, refused a contract b/c I did not agree with the ethics of a company (Andersons Consulting). It's just that you are one of the more polarised/outspoken personalities on CP and even David can probably see you responding in this way.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
Of course and I personally have done that, refused a contract b/c I did not agree with the ethics of a company (Andersons Consulting). It's just that you are one of the more polarised/outspoken personalities on CP and even David can probably see you responding in this way.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
It's just that you are one of the more polarised/outspoken personalities on CP and even David can probably see you responding in this way.
In my defense, no matter how far back you go, you will see that when I am the OP in this forum, I have been posting non-inflammatory tidbits, jokes, and generally innocuous concepts. I save my political and economic diatribes for Soapbox 1. However, when someone posts something like the OP of this thread, I have trouble keeping my mouth shut. Some of us are blessed with the persona of Mike, I am stuck with that of Mannie. :sigh:
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
David1987 wrote:
you clearly believe in freedom as the highest good including the freedom to screw people over without giving them a chance to defend themselves.
OMG!!! I am sure that's libelous, or maybe it's slander! Quick,quick, send an email to Chris and complain that someone is being a meanie!!! Or maybe call out the National Guard? Write to the United Nations? Ask Allah to strike him dead??? A world where I can be insulted is not a just world! Ohmeohmy! :(( Buzz off, kid. I have something important to do now - I just emptied the dryer and I have to sort socks which is a much higher priority than trying to help you to reason.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
I'm posting this to both parties involved in this primary school playground spat: I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are both mature, sensible adults in real life. As such: Let it go. Drop it and walk away. Agree to disagree, shake hands and apologise, or take it offline. Whatever. But not here.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
I'm posting this to both parties involved in this primary school playground spat: I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are both mature, sensible adults in real life. As such: Let it go. Drop it and walk away. Agree to disagree, shake hands and apologise, or take it offline. Whatever. But not here.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
Great, the freedom to screw whoever you want. What ever happened to protecting the many from the few?
Oakman wrote:
There are other credit card companies
Yes, they're all doing the same thing, I just excluded them to keep the title short.
Oakman wrote:
Not if you are Wikileaks
Or, you know, anyone. They could pick me next. Or you. And there would be nothing you could do about it. It's not just that they're not doing busyness with criminals, they're not doing busyness with whomever they have a personal dislike for.
David1987 wrote:
Or, you know, anyone. They could pick me next. Or you. And there would be nothing you could do about it. It's not just that they're not doing busyness with criminals, they're not doing busyness with whomever they have a personal dislike for.
Is there some reason why a private entity like PayPal or Visa should be required to do business with those of whom they do not approve? What would you prefer? That government should step in (again) and write a few thousand (more) pages of regulations and force businesses to do business with criminals?
XAlan Burkhart
-
David1987 wrote:
Or, you know, anyone. They could pick me next. Or you. And there would be nothing you could do about it. It's not just that they're not doing busyness with criminals, they're not doing busyness with whomever they have a personal dislike for.
Is there some reason why a private entity like PayPal or Visa should be required to do business with those of whom they do not approve? What would you prefer? That government should step in (again) and write a few thousand (more) pages of regulations and force businesses to do business with criminals?
XAlan Burkhart
-
No. You should be able to complain when they wrongfully cut you off. If you're a criminal there's no way your complaint is going to do anything.
David1987 wrote:
No. You should be able to complain when they wrongfully cut you off. If you're a criminal there's no way your complaint is going to do anything.
Most US businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, as long as civil rights laws are not violated. PayPal and Visa have that right. If one feels that his rights have been violated by such an exclusion, then he can sue the offending business. Like it or not, things go better when businesses can choose to exclude certain customers. It's called freedom.
XAlan Burkhart
-
David1987 wrote:
No. You should be able to complain when they wrongfully cut you off. If you're a criminal there's no way your complaint is going to do anything.
Most US businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason, as long as civil rights laws are not violated. PayPal and Visa have that right. If one feels that his rights have been violated by such an exclusion, then he can sue the offending business. Like it or not, things go better when businesses can choose to exclude certain customers. It's called freedom.
XAlan Burkhart
-
Again with the "freedom"? Ok so lets start a debit card company, and when the total value in the accounts of all customers reaches 1 billion or so, cancel all accounts and retire as a billionaire. Because that's freedom, right?
David1987 wrote:
Ok so lets start a debit card company, and when the total value in the accounts of all customers reaches 1 billion or so, cancel all accounts and retire as a billionaire. Because that's freedom, right?
Sure, you can cancel the accounts. If your customers are banks, they'll just provide cards for their account holders from another company. If customers have accounts set up with you directly and money in those accounts, you'll have to return their money when you fold the company. You'll get to keep whatever interest you've earned above what you're contractually obligated to pay your customers, but that's it. What point were you trying to make here?
XAlan Burkhart
-
jschell wrote:
I don't understand that.
Yep. You are talking about a consumer using a card. I am talking about a business asking a company to process payments for it. When you use a credit card, you are asking a company to pay someone else their money and promising to pay them back. When a business asks Paypal (or Visa) to act as its agent and collect money from its customers, it is hiring them to do a job. They have the right to refuse to work for you, just as you have the right to refuse to work for me.
jschell wrote:
But if all financial institutions refuse to deal with you then there are no choices left.
Then don't piss off Paypal and Visa. If they don't like you, they won't work for you.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
modified on Friday, July 22, 2011 5:18 PM
Oakman wrote:
Yep. You are talking about a consumer using a card. I am talking about a business asking a company to process payments for it.
The "company" that process payments for a merchant is not 'Visa' nor 'Mastercard'. It is a processor like FDC.
Oakman wrote:
When a business asks Paypal (or Visa) to act as its agent and collect money from its customers
No. That isn't how it works. No one, not small businesses nor even companies like Walmart, interact with 'Visa'/'Mastercard'. They interact with their bank and with a processor. The processor, not 'Vis'/'Mastercard' is in a direct relationship with the merchant. And for many small businesses even that isnt true. Instead they go through some other business which proxies the processing via yet another provider. So in the worst case it would be similar to if you could not have internet service at work because the backbone providers decided that they didn't like you. And that then rolled down hill to the ISP, perhaps via another reseller and then into your companies service. And this analogy follows to the extent that you do NOT have a business relationship of any sort with the backbone. And the same is true for a merchant. They do NOT have a business relationship with 'Visa'/'Mastercard'. (And note that I am specifically not talking about Amex/Discover here.)
-
David1987 wrote:
They shouldn't have that right.
Should you? Should the government force you to work for me if you don't like me or what I do? How do you feel about out and out slavery?
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
Oakman wrote:
Should you? Should the government force you to work for me if you don't like me or what I do? How do you feel about out and out slavery?
Specious argument. You are a single individual. Payment processing is a significant financial instrument with a vast impact. Based your argument Visa/Mastercard should have the right to completely shutdown tomorrow if they felt like it. A better analogy would be if you could not work at all unless the government approved it. And that right was strictly enforced as well (not haphazardly.) And your right to work would be removed if the government was investigating you for anything.
-
Oakman wrote:
Yep. You are talking about a consumer using a card. I am talking about a business asking a company to process payments for it.
The "company" that process payments for a merchant is not 'Visa' nor 'Mastercard'. It is a processor like FDC.
Oakman wrote:
When a business asks Paypal (or Visa) to act as its agent and collect money from its customers
No. That isn't how it works. No one, not small businesses nor even companies like Walmart, interact with 'Visa'/'Mastercard'. They interact with their bank and with a processor. The processor, not 'Vis'/'Mastercard' is in a direct relationship with the merchant. And for many small businesses even that isnt true. Instead they go through some other business which proxies the processing via yet another provider. So in the worst case it would be similar to if you could not have internet service at work because the backbone providers decided that they didn't like you. And that then rolled down hill to the ISP, perhaps via another reseller and then into your companies service. And this analogy follows to the extent that you do NOT have a business relationship of any sort with the backbone. And the same is true for a merchant. They do NOT have a business relationship with 'Visa'/'Mastercard'. (And note that I am specifically not talking about Amex/Discover here.)
jschell wrote:
And note that I am specifically not talking about Amex/Discover here.)
Nor Paypal. However, although you have broken the chain down into its separate links, you have not eliminated the concept of a company acting as an agent for another company. As a contractor, I occasionally worked for another contractor who had a piece of a large contract that a general contractor had signed with a company and subbed to them. I had no direct relation ship with the company for whom I was working - and yet it was simpler to say that I was working for the people who ultimately consumed my work, than explain in tedious detail about the contractual relationships that bound us together. I'm guessing you are unaware of the case of the backbones refusing to carry a usenet group called sex.rec. The so-called "cabal" is either gone or much weaker (as is the use of usenet) but there was nothing in the law that kept them from choosing to carry or not carry traffic.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
Oakman wrote:
Should you? Should the government force you to work for me if you don't like me or what I do? How do you feel about out and out slavery?
Specious argument. You are a single individual. Payment processing is a significant financial instrument with a vast impact. Based your argument Visa/Mastercard should have the right to completely shutdown tomorrow if they felt like it. A better analogy would be if you could not work at all unless the government approved it. And that right was strictly enforced as well (not haphazardly.) And your right to work would be removed if the government was investigating you for anything.
jschell wrote:
You are a single individual.
What if I am a corporation with 2 employees, or 3 or 4. At what number is slavery OK?
jschell wrote:
Payment processing is a significant financial instrument with a vast impact.
Then it behooves companies that need CC processing not to piss off Visa and Mastercard. I am quite sure that not even the United Nations has yet discovered a "right to use a credit card."
jschell wrote:
Based your argument Visa/Mastercard should have the right to completely shutdown tomorrow if they felt like it.
Have you done any business with Lehman Bros recently? Now according to our bankruptcy laws how they disposed of their assets could be supervised by the courts, but the legal entity called Mastercard could cease operating on a moment's notice.
jschell wrote:
A better analogy would be if you could not work at all unless the government approved it. And that right was strictly enforced as well (not haphazardly.) And your right to work would be removed if the government was investigating you for anything.
No-one under the age of 14 can be employed full-time, I believe, in this country. People can lose their license to drive for many reasons, even though they may need to drive in order to work, or do whatever. Legally, working is a privilege. Privileges, no matter how much they are depended on, are not rights. In the private sector, Unions often sign contracts with companies that mean that anyone the union chooses to blackball cannot work for that company.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
-
David1987 wrote:
Ok so lets start a debit card company, and when the total value in the accounts of all customers reaches 1 billion or so, cancel all accounts and retire as a billionaire. Because that's freedom, right?
Sure, you can cancel the accounts. If your customers are banks, they'll just provide cards for their account holders from another company. If customers have accounts set up with you directly and money in those accounts, you'll have to return their money when you fold the company. You'll get to keep whatever interest you've earned above what you're contractually obligated to pay your customers, but that's it. What point were you trying to make here?
XAlan Burkhart
They apparently don't have to return the money, because they didn't and somehow that's ok. The point is that this freedom is left completely unchecked and is therefore dangerous. If you feel you've been wrongfully refused service, there's nothing you can do. That's not so much freedom as it is legal corporate tyranny.
-
jschell wrote:
And note that I am specifically not talking about Amex/Discover here.)
Nor Paypal. However, although you have broken the chain down into its separate links, you have not eliminated the concept of a company acting as an agent for another company. As a contractor, I occasionally worked for another contractor who had a piece of a large contract that a general contractor had signed with a company and subbed to them. I had no direct relation ship with the company for whom I was working - and yet it was simpler to say that I was working for the people who ultimately consumed my work, than explain in tedious detail about the contractual relationships that bound us together. I'm guessing you are unaware of the case of the backbones refusing to carry a usenet group called sex.rec. The so-called "cabal" is either gone or much weaker (as is the use of usenet) but there was nothing in the law that kept them from choosing to carry or not carry traffic.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
Oakman wrote:
However, although you have broken the chain down into its separate links, you have not eliminated the concept of a company acting as an agent for another company.
At best the relationship is one of franchisee. And based on that you can claim any infringement is legitimate. For example a coal company in a 3rd world company decides they don't like my 19th cousin removed and consequently every utility company in my country refuses to provide electricity to me.
-
jschell wrote:
You are a single individual.
What if I am a corporation with 2 employees, or 3 or 4. At what number is slavery OK?
jschell wrote:
Payment processing is a significant financial instrument with a vast impact.
Then it behooves companies that need CC processing not to piss off Visa and Mastercard. I am quite sure that not even the United Nations has yet discovered a "right to use a credit card."
jschell wrote:
Based your argument Visa/Mastercard should have the right to completely shutdown tomorrow if they felt like it.
Have you done any business with Lehman Bros recently? Now according to our bankruptcy laws how they disposed of their assets could be supervised by the courts, but the legal entity called Mastercard could cease operating on a moment's notice.
jschell wrote:
A better analogy would be if you could not work at all unless the government approved it. And that right was strictly enforced as well (not haphazardly.) And your right to work would be removed if the government was investigating you for anything.
No-one under the age of 14 can be employed full-time, I believe, in this country. People can lose their license to drive for many reasons, even though they may need to drive in order to work, or do whatever. Legally, working is a privilege. Privileges, no matter how much they are depended on, are not rights. In the private sector, Unions often sign contracts with companies that mean that anyone the union chooses to blackball cannot work for that company.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.
Oakman wrote:
No-one under the age of 14 can be employed full-time, I believe, in this country. People can lose their license to drive for many reasons, even though they may need to drive in order to work, or do whatever.
Err..not even close to an analogy. Loss of the license for most cases occurs after conviction. Conditions for loss are well documented and well publicized. Appeal is possible.
Oakman wrote:
In the private sector, Unions often sign contracts with companies that mean that anyone the union chooses to blackball cannot work for that company.
I doubt that assertion is true at all. And certainly not relevant to my analogy. If you assertion is even true it would only extend to one industry. It wouldn't preclude me from getting a job in any number of other industries. Even related ones.
-
Oakman wrote:
However, although you have broken the chain down into its separate links, you have not eliminated the concept of a company acting as an agent for another company.
At best the relationship is one of franchisee. And based on that you can claim any infringement is legitimate. For example a coal company in a 3rd world company decides they don't like my 19th cousin removed and consequently every utility company in my country refuses to provide electricity to me.
jschell wrote:
For example a coal company in a 3rd world company decides they don't like my 19th cousin removed and consequently every utility company in my country refuses to provide electricity to me.
I find it fascinating that time after time after time in this thread, I have examples handed to me of utilities with government sponsored monopolies denying service as an "example." Visa is not a utility. Visa is not government-sponsored. Visa is not a monopoly. Visa has the right to choose who it allows to use its services. Your franchise analogy makes some, though not complete, sense as a description of Visa's relationship with the acquirers it allows to offer visanet access to merchants. Franchisers are strictly bound by a contract that specifies just about all aspects of their operation, simply because what they do is seen as a reflection on the basic brand. Likewise, acquirers have no ability or right to decide to process transactions for anyone that Visa does not wish to do business with. I would point out that your local electric utility company, in addition to being a public utility required to provide service to all who are willing to pay, is probably not a franchise operation of any coal companies in the third world.
The 3-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots. R. A. H.