They were dropped by their service provider. They don't have to provide a reason of any sort, let alone one that holds up in court. Paypal dropped them and issued the following statement: "The company is diligent in performing reviews and taking account actions. When a site is explicitly allowing the perpetuation of hate, violence or discriminatory intolerance, we take immediate and decisive action." They also don't have to serve people that they don't want to. Private companies can choose not to serve other companies. It's nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.
You have to state on which clauses you are enacting. The other party has the right to request the specific instance if the clauses themselves are not specific. "let alone one that holds up in court." If gab.ai have the money to contest the termination as unreasonable, then it had better hold up in court. "Paypal dropped them and issued the following statement: "The company is diligent in performing reviews and taking account actions." https://www.paypal.com/ie/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full#r07 Nothing there applicable to hosting the content of the Pittsburgh nutter.
Allow me to demonstrate how invalid the comparison is Facebook is hosted by Facebook Twitter is hosted by Twitter Youtube is hosted by Google, who own Youtube Gab were hosted by a third party, be it Asia Registry or Joyent Also your claim that Gab was "taken down" is simply not true, as not only is the platform in the exact same situation as they were in 2017 when they were dropped by Asia Registry and looking for a new host, but they announced on their Twitter feed that they'll be back up at the weekend, no doubt choking on their bile at having to use a social media platform where people with opposing views to their founder are permitted
QED (re EQUITABLE) . "Also your claim that Gab was "taken down" is simply not true" After the events of the weekend, has gab.ai been online and usable from then to now ?? If not, then they have been "taken down" .
That's like saying that an author without a publisher or a product without a shop has been taken down.
And as I said, gab.ai is at liberty to contest such behaviour as unreasonable (a court may even decide - as I said - that whatever clauses Paypal may claim are enacted are actually unenforceable) .
They have terminated an existing contract (gab are not a new customer) . The grounds for termination have to be covered by explicit clauses in the contract, and reasonable (if a general clause is being cited for a specific scenario) , in the event it goes to court.
No, they don't. PayPal's terms explicitly allow them to terminate the contract at any time. We'll see how Gab's non-existent lawsuit gets on though, I guess.
Sorry, was that not clear enough? Facebook is hosted by Facebook Twitter is hosted by Twitter Youtube is hosted by Google, who own Youtube Gab were hosted by a third party, be it Asia Registry or Joyent Facebook, Twitter and Youtube are not subject to the Ts&Cs of their hosts because they are their hosts, Gab on the other hand was subject to the Ts&Cs of a third party host and there's no argument in either case, as Joyent's terms of service (last updated in June 2017) make it abundantly clear that... Customer shall not post, transmit, re-transmit or store material on or through any of Company’s Services or Products which, in the sole judgment of the Company (i) is in violation of any local, state, federal or non-United States law or regulation, (ii) threatening, obscene, indecent, defamatory or that otherwise could adversely affect any individual, group or entity (collectively, “Persons”) or (iii) violates the rights of any person, including rights protected by copyright, trade secret, patent or other intellectual property or similar laws or regulations including, but not limited to, the installation or distribution of “pirated” or other software products that are not appropriately licensed for use by Customer. Customer shall be responsible for determining what laws or regulations are applicable to its use of the Services and Products. Customer Security Obligation And, no, in spite of you continuing to claim to the contrary Gab has not been "taken down" for the simple reason clicking on their URL takes you to a page featuring a blanket statement that refers to Robert Bowers as "an alleged terrorist" (and not, say, "One of our users made numerous posts about shooting up a synagogue and we did nothing about it, making us look like apathetic dickheads when he went and shot up a synagogue") and the fact the page exists means the site has not been taken down.
You should have checked this section of their user agreement 9.1 Restricted Activities. In connection with your use of our website, your Account, or the Services, or in the course of your interactions with PayPal, a User or a third party, you will not: a. Breach this Agreement (including, without limitation, opening multiple PayPal accounts or breaching the Card Processing Agreement, the Acceptable Use Policy or any other agreement that you have entered into with PayPal (including a Policy)); b. Breach any law, statute, contract, or regulation (including, without limitation, those governing financial services including anti-money laundering, consumer protections, unfair competition, anti-discrimination and false advertising); c. Infringe PayPal’s or any third party's copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property rights, or rights of publicity or privacy; d. Act in a manner that is obscene, defamatory, libelous, unlawfully threatening or unlawfully harassing; e. Provide false, inaccurate or misleading Information; (there's 36 parts to this section, but rather than copy/paste the whole thing I'll just add the first five as b and d are more than sufficient)
Oh please let this be true....... Farage in chains being shipped off to Guantanamo or similar location
David Cameron is considering a return to frontline politics and has his eye on being Foreign Secretary, saying he's "bored ****less" sitting at home - somehow forgetting the main reason he's been sat at home for the past two years was due to him not only being dumb enough to gamble with the nation's EU membership to gain some short-term political advantage over the titan of statesmanship Ed Milliband but also declaring that he'd trigger Article 50 the next day if a Leave vote came in, and failed to learn from doing more for the cause of Scottish independence than William Wallace during his bungled campaign ahead of the Scottish independence vote and never considered a good basis for the remain campaign would be saying what the benefits of EU membership are, and after ****ing up the vote (and the country with it) his response was to run for the hills as fast as his legs could carry him in the mistaken belief that if he ran fast enough nobody would hold him responsible for the mess he created In other, less strangleable news... Buried in a postage stamp-sized boxout in yesterday's Standard was a mention that Ze'ev Elkin, Benjamin Netanyahu's candidate for the Mayor of Jerusalem, failed to make it past the first round of voting picking up just 20% of the vote. The remaining candidates are... Mosche Lion of the Degel HaTorah party who represent Ashkenazi Jews is opposed to Netanyahu's plan to build a barrier separating East Jerusalem from the rest of the city who picked up 33% of the required 40% in the first round of voting Ofer Berkovitch of the grassroots Hitorerut party whose main policies include affordable housing, increased jobs, and opening up Jerusalem to the non-Orthodox by ending the forced closure of shops and restaurants during Shabbat, who picked up 29% of the vote
BBC, with an editorial decision that makes commissioning a remake of Are You Being Served look to be a well thought out decision, are giving that well known philanthropist and supporter of Russian causes, Aaron Banks, airtime in Sunday’s Andrew Marr Show to spout his no doubt vitriolic defence ahead of any judicial process. Somebody, somewhere in the Beeb must have looked at this and thought it is a good idea - or is their political bias or influence now so well accepted that they don’t care about hiding it? Our Licence Fees safe in their Hands........ Mind you, the announcement hasn’t exactly been met with universal support
This is too funny!! These two Trumpist halfwits trying to damage Mueller by accusing him of rape, pick a day in 2010 when their target was on Jury Duty - a story covered in the Washington Post at the time. But rather than exit gracefully, they suggest that the WP planted the story - in 2010 - in anticipation of Mueller being accused of rape 8 years later!! Time travel coming to a Far Right conspiracy theorist near you!! https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2018...s-Wohl-and-Burkman-emerge-from-mom-s-basement
It says all you need to know about Banks and the Leave(Dot)EU echo chamber that they couldn;t even issue a statement about Banks being referred to the National Crime Agency without dogwhistling about George Soros please log in to view this image One thing that's telling about Banks is the way he conducts himself, which can best be described as a cockney gangster who thinks he's gotten away with it so he can rub it in people's faces - examples of which include...
Trump's White House commits copyright abuse in advertising his new sanctions policy against Iran. I would doubt whether the producers / copyrightholders of Game of Thrones are likely to be Trumpists, so expect a Cease & Desist letter in the mail shortly, you Orange Twat!
