PayPal sparks furore over limits on "obscene" e-books

[lucy]

Yeah, sorry thir, I misunderstood you there.

Still, it's Paypal's business if they want people to use their service to buy, say, my book "kunt", which is non-consensual through and through and full of rape. Nobody can force them to co-operate with a company who sells such gruesome books. It is also their legal right to say we don't want people to use our service to buy sunflower seeds online, because, simply, sunflowers suck. They got every right to do that. And if they don't, they should have.

Also, Paypal finds itself between hammer and anvil, with the banks and credit card companies being the hammer and the writers, publishers and readers of smut like mine being the anvil. In a way I can understand that they're wetting their pants at the prospect of being connected to such stories. But I can even better understand the outcry from the other side.

However, putting pressure on the cc-companies and the banks to cut down on the moral bullshit would be even better (after all, they don't have the slightest fucking problem with financing arms deals and stuff) than accusing Paypal of censorship. The way to put pressure on them would of course be the threat of not using their service anymore. I don't think accusing them of censorship bothers them much. Bankers are used to much worse. Threatening to hurt their profits will, though.

And the best would be to have a Paypal which isn't based in America or owned by an American company with the morals of the so-callel moral majority. But then again, I'm having a hard time right now thinking of a country which would be better suited ...

PS: Of course sunflowers don't suck. I love sunflowers, mostly because they're nice to look at but also because so far I haven't met one which wanted to force its morals upon me. Just wanted to clarify

[thir]

Yeah, sorry thir, I misunderstood you there.

No offence, some times I have trouble explaining myself properly.

Still, it's Paypal's business if they want people to use their service to buy, say, my book "kunt", which is non-consensual through and through and full of rape. Nobody can force them to co-operate with a company who sells such gruesome books.

This is exactly what I do not understand. Why should selling a service to people give anyone the right to try to force moral/religious/political or any other ideas on them? One thing has nothing whatsoever to do with the other. If anyone wants to promote their convictions, there are plenty of media where this can be done. But I cannot for the life of me see how my personal reading or personal life has anything what so ever to do with my baker or my dentist, or my pay pal servicer.

It is also their legal right to say we don't want people to use our service to buy sunflower seeds online, because, simply, sunflowers suck. They got every right to do that. And if they don't, they should have.

But why?

Also, Paypal finds itself between hammer and anvil, with the banks and credit card companies being the hammer and the writers, publishers and readers of smut like mine being the anvil. In a way I can understand that they're wetting their pants at the prospect of being connected to such stories. But I can even better understand the outcry from the other side.

I agree with the hammer and anvil picture. Buy maybe, if everybody told the banks to stay out of other people's business, these things would not happen. I haven't heard of a bank in UK or DK which tried to interfere with people's reading or any other thing. If I am wrong, will someone please correct me, but so far I haven't.

However, putting pressure on the cc-companies and the banks to cut down on the moral bullshit would be even better (after all, they don't have the slightest fucking problem with financing arms deals and stuff) than accusing Paypal of censorship. The way to put pressure on them would of course be the threat of not using their service anymore. I don't think accusing them of censorship bothers them much. Bankers are used to much worse. Threatening to hurt their profits will, though.

I agree, but how in this case? Pay pal gets the heat because they are the ones to make conditions.

And the best would be to have a Pay
pal which isn't based in America or owned by an American company with the morals of the so-callel moral majority. But then again, I'm having a hard time right now thinking of a country which would be better suited ...

If it is a majority..?

PS: Of course sunflowers don't suck. I love sunflowers, mostly because they're nice to look at but also because so far I haven't met one which wanted to force its morals upon me. Just wanted to clarify

And they always turn themselves towards the sun :-)