SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Paypal has stopped processing payments for Voat, a donation-supported open-source clone of Reddit. A moderator of Reddit's SRS community has taken credit for convincing Paypal to take action against Voat.
Additionally: This is what happens when you create an online community without any rules, part 2
PayPal Cuts Off Reddit Clone Voat Over 'Obscenity'
Previously: HostEurope.De Cuts Service to Reddit Alternative Voat
Original Submission
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Paypal Cuts Service to Reddit Clone Voat
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 60 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
It's raisins that make Post Raisin Bran so raisiny ...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @12:39PM
So the linked post says paypal cut voat off for carrying child porn.
That seems to be entirely consistent with paypal's long standing policies and completely unremarkable.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Marand on Thursday June 25 2015, @01:53PM
So the linked post says paypal cut voat off for carrying child porn.
That seems to be entirely consistent with paypal's long standing policies and completely unremarkable.
The problem isn't that Paypal is following its own policies, it's that their policies are being weaponised, much the same way SWATing is a problem because it's weaponising the police force for someone's personal vendetta. A reasonable, civil way to approach this: contact the voat admins, tell them that you found [illegal thing], and warn them that this could cost the site its access to funding such as Paypal. Give a period of time for response, and approach Paypal if necessary afterward.
What seems to be happening instead: "These fuckers made a competitor to us? FUCK THEM! LET'S DESTROY THEM! HAHAHAHAHA LOOK I CUT THEIR FUNDING HAHAHAHAHA PWNED BIZZATCHES"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by FreeUser on Thursday June 25 2015, @02:17PM
The problem isn't that Paypal is following its own policies, it's that their policies are being weaponised
This is exactly how the Church of Scientology broke through the anonymity of anon.fi back in the day, when some anonymously posted their most secret, expensive "scripture" (the famous, badly written sci-fi nonsense about people being strapped to volcanoes and nuked by low-flying spaceships that look exactly like 20th century airplanes), except that in that case the Church of Scientology anonymously posted pictures of naked children via anon.fi, then went to the Finnish police and demanded they reveal everyone's identity because of "child porn." They destroyed anon.fi, and presumably the lives of whoever posted their secret materials they'd been charging their marks hundreds of thousands of dollars to read.
I actually look at reddit from time to time, but I can't help but wonder if they didn't engage in the exact same tactics. At the very least, as you point out, rather than informing the site owners and giving them a chance to address the issue, they weaponized and used Paypal's policies to destroy their competition. I've never been to voat, so I have no idea if it was any good or not, but in light of this I may well never go back to reddit.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy, a Novel
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @03:22PM
> This is exactly how the Church of Scientology broke through the anonymity of anon.fi back in the day
Except that anon.penet.fi didn't allow messages larger than 16KB, hardly enough to fit a uuencoded image.
But don't let that get in the way of a good conspiracy theory, it didn't stop the The Observer either.
(Score: 2) by Marand on Thursday June 25 2015, @03:34PM
I actually look at reddit from time to time, but I can't help but wonder if they didn't engage in the exact same tactics.
From what I understand about the SRS sub-reddit, that sort of behaviour is more or less its reason to exist. Go searching for something they find objectionable, post it there, and if their readers "just happen to" doxx, attack, threaten, harass, etc. then it's a happy coincidence, but they totally don't endorse it *wink wink nudge nudge*
Hell, look at the second link in TFS for an example of it: one of their moderators took credit for doing exactly that sort of thing. Even if he (or she, doesn't matter) didn't do it, he was proud enough of what happened that he wanted to claim responsibility for the action.
Even when I agree that a comment is distasteful, I disagree with the methods used. Usually, when someone says something you find offensive, the appropriate response is to ignore it, because not everyone has to follow your worldview and you're just as likely to say something others think is terrible. Trying to stir up more shit by getting all your like-minded internet buddies to riot isn't productive, and if everyone attacks everything that bothers them, nobody will be able to say anything.
Disclaimer: I'm not really a reddit fan and don't visit much, so I could be missing some nuances to the SRS/rest-of-world interaction. From my outsider perspective, though, SRS basically seems like a shithole that exists to harass people for thinking or saying the wrong things (according to SRS groupthink). It's an angry mob at internet scale.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @03:13PM
> Give a period of time for response, and approach Paypal if necessary afterward.
How do you know that didn't happen?
It has been reported that the stuff was on the front page. [washingtonpost.com]
(Score: 2) by Marand on Thursday June 25 2015, @03:47PM
How do you know that didn't happen?
I don't, just like you don't know that it did happen. I said as much in my comment.
The only thing I know is that the person claiming responsibility didn't make any claim of trying to handle it reasonably first, but did brag about it in the "haha I showed those fuckers, PWNED" way I already mentioned. There's a distinct tone of "this person is using Paypal policies for a personal vendetta".
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25 2015, @03:52PM
> I said as much in my comment.
I find it hard to take you at your word, your entire comment rests on the premise that someone wasn't just talking shit.
Including a 'seems' disclaimer doesn't negate everything else.