Commentary
-
Our commentary partners will help you reach your own conclusions on complex topics.
PayPal just gave us a sneak peek at America’s fast-approaching dystopian future: A social credit system with American characteristics. And it should disturb every American, and drive a deep cultural, political, and legal backlash.
The payment processing company, one of the largest nonbank lenders in the world with some $75 billion in assets in 2021, recently modified its user agreement, threatening to fine those who QUOTE, “use…PayPal…for activities that involve the sending, posting, or publication of any messages, content, or materials that, in PayPal’s sole discretion … promote misinformation” at a rate of up to $2,500 per violation. When the world got wind of this policy, the criticism was, rightly, swift and massive. The stock tanked.
PayPal’s former president David Marcus even panned the company, tweeting:
“It’s hard for me to openly criticize a company I used to love and gave so much to. But @PayPal’s new AUP goes against everything I believe in. A private company now gets to decide to take your money if you say something they disagree with. Insanity. “
So PayPal backtracked.
A spokesman said that the updated “acceptable use policy” had gone “out in error that included incorrect information. PayPal is not fining people for misinformation and this language was never intended to be inserted in our policy… We’re sorry for the confusion this has caused.” But no one should be confused. Taking the company at its word, while it might have accidentally released the policy, it still drafted it.
That means at very minimum it contemplated being an arbiter of truth – determining what counts as misinformation and pilfering people’s accounts to punish them should they engage in Wrongthink. And it already applies subjective measures to mete out punishment against its users – generally cutting in one ideological direction.
PayPal’s acceptable use policy already had language calling for fines up to $2,500 per violation for those using the product to engage in “the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory.”
In a world where up to half the country is classified as semi-fascist by the president, where conservatism, which calls for a colorblind society antithetical to bigotry, and a rule of law antithetical to violence – is equated by our betters with bigotry and violence, one can imagine how arbitrarily such a policy could be applied to ideological undesirables.
Consider who PayPal has punished in the past. Just weeks ago, PayPal allegedly shut down the account of “Gays Against Groomers,” a self-identified “coalition of gays against the sexualization, indoctrination and medicalization of children.”
The group’s founder said it had never received a violation before and that it was simply notified that it had violated Paypal’s user agreements – without specifying where.
Around the same time, PayPal also suspended the account of Great Britain’s Free Speech Union, described as an “organization which defends gender-critical academics and people who have lost work for expressing opinions,” as well as that of its founder, and his website the Daily Sceptic.
All reportedly because of again unspecified violations of its Acceptable Use Policy. As we explored in a recent episode, the effort to push both the private sector and government to pursue those who would dare challenge radical gender ideology is strong, so PayPal’s efforts would be consistent with that trend. Years ago – all the way back in 2017 – PayPal briefly barred the account of prolific counterjihadist scholar Robert Spencer, and it has barred plenty of others on the right as well.
The payment processing outlet’s efforts go beyond targeting critics of the left, to even leftists who challenge establishment orthodoxy. Months earlier, two “alt” news sites that might seemingly be described as the dissident left, had their PayPal accounts suspended without explanation.
One of the purged thinks PayPal may have done so based on a purported violation of another restricted activity, “Provid[ing] false, inaccurate or misleading information” – which would again be in the eye of the beholder.
PayPal’s contemplating of the chilling standard that it quickly revoked, but apparent application of similar standards, illustrates a trend we have already seen accelerating in recent years: The targeting of those who hold beliefs that challenge the prevailing orthodoxy of America’s ruling elites using public and private sector power—a running theme in my Straight Arrow News commentaries.
Amazon can pull your book. Facebook and Twitter can censor and silence you. And yes, financial institutions can de-bank you.
PayPal’s pulled language should serve as, and maybe even was meant to serve, as a warning: Comport your beliefs with those of the Ruling Class, or else.
If we assume that dissent on virtually every major issue is ultimately going to be cast by those in government, Woke Capital, Big Tech, and beyond as fake, if not hateful, and violent dangerous – because these institutions cannot tolerate threats to their monopoly on power and influence – then the assumption has to be that every institution may well impose a standard like the one PayPal laid out. Whether implicitly or explicitly, du jour or de facto.
That is a direct threat to our livelihoods, our freedoms, and our ability to function as a society. Therefore, all on the left or right who believe in preserving any semblance of this country must fight back against viewpoint discrimination.
And they will likely need to use the force of law to achieve it, given the corruption of our civil society, and its loss of respect for free speech, and tolerance of dissent.
-
Trump’s Jan. 6 pardons aim to restore liberty, justice
President Trump has defended his decision to issue pardons and halt prosecutions for the more than 1,500 individuals charged in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol attack. The pardons included violent extremists who had been convicted of assaulting law enforcement officers and of plotting sedition against the United States. Some Republicans — and even… -
Trump, Congress must protect First Amendment
During the COVID-19 pandemic, federal government agencies began corresponding with private social media companies like Facebook to regulate sensitive public health information and to suppress certain COVID-19 misinformation which they believed could present an existential threat to U.S. public health. Some Americans felt that this relationship went too far, however, saying that it violated the… -
Is Meta’s free speech overhaul a power play or real change?
On Jan. 7, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced major changes to the company’s content moderation policies. He pledged to “get rid of fact-checkers and replace them with Community Notes similar to X.” Supporters of Zuckerberg’s pivot view this as a win for the First Amendment, promoting more free expression on the platform. Critics, however, argue… -
Trump must confront jihadism and Islamist supremacism
At least 14 revelers celebrating New Year’s on Bourbon Street in New Orleans have died after 42-year-old U.S. Army veteran Shamsud-Din Jabbar used a rented Ford pick-up truck to run over as many civilians as he could. The FBI is classifying this as a deliberate act of terrorism. The suspect, heavily armed and wearing body… -
DOJ spied on Congress during ‘Russiagate’ investigation
A report from the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General reveals that, during President-elect Donald Trump’s first term, DOJ personnel misled courts to obtain gag orders, preventing federal employees from knowing they were under surveillance in the “Russiagate” investigation. The report concluded that seeking the records of congressional staffers did not violate…
Latest Opinions
-
China celebrates Lunar New Year with debut of 25 panda cubs
-
Hamas releases Israeli soldier in latest hostage-prisoner exchange
-
Bodies recovered after passenger jet, Army helicopter collide
-
Trump restricts gender ideology in schools with executive order
-
Trump says Reagan plane crash should have been prevented
Popular Opinions
-
In addition to the facts, we believe it’s vital to hear perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum.