The Grit Daily article cited in the linked-to tweet is fake news. It alleges that PayPal's proposed misinformation clause and associated $2500 penalty, which was cancelled by PayPal earlier this month, has been quietly "added back into the terms of service with equally ambiguous language."
This can be proven wrong with a quick check of PayPal's acceptable use policy in the WayBack Machine. The $2500 fine that the article alleges has been added back after "criticism on social media died down" has been there since 2021. [https://web.archive.org/web/20211013092233/https://www.paypa...]
So there is no justification to the article's allegation that the clauses have been quietly added back to PayPal acceptable use policy.
Furthermore, in building its argument that the misinformation clause was sneakily "added back into the terms of service," the article erroneously makes the assumption that a prohibition on intolerance equates to a prohibition on misinformation. This doesn't follow.
I'm not trying to support PayPal's acceptable use policy. But if you're going to attack it, at least use facts.
This can be proven wrong with a quick check of PayPal's acceptable use policy in the WayBack Machine. The $2500 fine that the article alleges has been added back after "criticism on social media died down" has been there since 2021. [https://web.archive.org/web/20211013092233/https://www.paypa...]
As for article's allegation that a prohibition on intolerance has just been added this October, that clause been there since 2018. [https://web.archive.org/web/20181108164503/https://www.paypa...].
So there is no justification to the article's allegation that the clauses have been quietly added back to PayPal acceptable use policy.
Furthermore, in building its argument that the misinformation clause was sneakily "added back into the terms of service," the article erroneously makes the assumption that a prohibition on intolerance equates to a prohibition on misinformation. This doesn't follow.
I'm not trying to support PayPal's acceptable use policy. But if you're going to attack it, at least use facts.