WePay Withholds Funds From Sick Woman Due To Offer Of Porn For Donations

[c172]

http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/17/wepay-eden-alexander/

"Should credit card processors and crowdfunding sites be able to deny funds to adult entertainers and sex workers? That’s the question at the heart of an unfortunate situation where donated medical funds are being withheld from a sick woman.

"Adult entertainer Eden Alexander had an allergic reaction to a medication, causing her to need serious medical care. In Alexander’s account, doctors wrote off her condition as stemming from hard drug use, due to her occupation, and did not give her proper treatment, which made her even sicker. Alexander then set up Crowdfunding campaign for her medical bills on GiveForward (now removed), which processes payments with WePay.

"Unfortunately, one of the campaign’s supporters tweeted offering nude pictures in exchange for donations to Alexander’s campaign, and Alexander retweeted the offer.

[John V]

Continuing on:

That retweet was deemed to violate WePay’s terms of service, which states “you will not accept payments or use the Service in connection with the following activities, items or services: Adult or adult-related services, including escort services, adult massage, or other adult-entertainment services; Adult or adult-related content, including performers or “cam girls”; and Obscene or pornographic items.” The list of prohibited uses of WePay is long and many items are open to broad interpretation, including the site’s own origin story.

WePay has rules. If you violate them, they boot you.

Atheistforums.org has rules. If you violate them, they boot you.

Seems reasonable to me.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Withholding funds from a sick woman because of dislike of her employment "seems reasonable" to you?

In what world would allowing someone to suffer from an imaginary high ground "seem reasonable"?

And also, the fact that the original MD report suggested that her reaction was due to hard drug usage when instead it appears to have been down to an allergic reaction makes the whole basis for this utterly null and void anyway.

And how does this actually relate to her occupation anyway? If the above is true, then her illness is not in anyway related to her occupation making their objection groundless. Turns out wepay agreed and ultimately released the funds to her anyway.

Shit, John. You want to try and convince us that you guys hold the key to objective moral truths and that you're sense of morality would trump those that don't follow your own? Some evidence of that being patently false is right here on this thread for those that would agree with you.

[Esquilax]

WePay has rules. If you violate them, they boot you.

Atheistforums.org has rules. If you violate them, they boot you.

Seems reasonable to me.

The issue isn't whether the rules exist, but whether their existence or implementation is reasonable, both in this case and more broadly. "Them's the rules," isn't an automatically reasonable statement, John.

[John V]

Withholding funds from a sick woman because of dislike of her employment "seems reasonable" to you?

No, and that's not the case. They withheld funds because she offered to exchange pornography for donations, which is a violation of the contract she agreed to. You act as if she merely mentioned her occupation and they shut her down, but that's not true according to the link.

And also, the fact that the original MD report suggested that her reaction was due to hard drug usage when instead it appears to have been down to an allergic reaction makes the whole basis for this utterly null and void anyway.

That has nothing to do with the shutdown, which was based on an offer of pornography in exchange for donations.

And how does this actually relate to her occupation anyway? If the above is true, then her illness is not in anyway related to her occupation making their objection groundless.

Read the article FFS. It's about an offer to give pornography for donations, not just a judgment on her occupation.

Turns out wepay agreed and ultimately released the funds to her anyway.

They released some funds, and returned some to donors.

Shit, John. You want to try and convince us that you guys hold the key to objective moral truths and that you're sense of morality would trump those that don't follow your own? Some evidence of that being patently false is right here on this thread for those that would agree with you.

Shit Fidel, take your head out of your ass and read. I don't argue for objective moral truths. Just the opposite. No wonder you can't get a decent job.

---

The issue isn't whether the rules exist, but whether their existence or implementation is reasonable, both in this case and more broadly. "Them's the rules," isn't an automatically reasonable statement, John.

This regards a contract, and yes, unless the subject matter of the contract is illegal, the contract is presumed to be reasonable, as she didn't have to agree to it in the first place.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Withholding funds from a sick woman because of dislike of her employment "seems reasonable" to you?

No, and that's not the case. They withheld funds because she offered to exchange pornography for donations, which is a violation of the contract she agreed to. You act as if she merely mentioned her occupation and they shut her down, but that's not true according to the link.

And also, the fact that the original MD report suggested that her reaction was due to hard drug usage when instead it appears to have been down to an allergic reaction makes the whole basis for this utterly null and void anyway.

That has nothing to do with the shutdown, which was based on an offer of pornography in exchange for donations.

And how does this actually relate to her occupation anyway? If the above is true, then her illness is not in anyway related to her occupation making their objection groundless.

Read the article FFS. It's about an offer to give pornography for donations, not just a judgment on her occupation.

Turns out wepay agreed and ultimately released the funds to her anyway.

They released some funds, and returned some to donors.

Shit, John. You want to try and convince us that you guys hold the key to objective moral truths and that you're sense of morality would trump those that don't follow your own? Some evidence of that being patently false is right here on this thread for those that would agree with you.

Shit Fidel, take your head out of your ass and read. I don't argue for objective moral truths. Just the opposite. No wonder you can't get a decent job.

I stand corrected.

I read the article and it is as you say. Simply an honest mistake. I was actually at work and so didn't have too much time to read through the entire thing. LOL. irony huh considering your last, somewhat bizzare, comment.

But as you don't have the foggiest what I do for a living, or what I earn, or what my lifestyle is like, (or even why you bothered to make that comment) I'm going to assume you were trying to get under my skin. Failed, naturally, as you appear to do regularly on this board, but good for you for trying! Feel free to reply back to me on here if you've got something better to try and use as an insult.

Ok pumpkin?

[John V]

I seem to recall you complaining that you're underpaid relative to your edumacation. Maybe I'm confusing you with someone else.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I seem to recall you complaining that you're underpaid relative to your edumacation. Maybe I'm confusing you with someone else.

Probably? I'm not sure. I complain about my job sometimes on here but I'm not unique in this respect I guess. I actually enjoy it somewhat.

Anyway, please accept my apologies for mis-representing your position.

[Anomalocaris]

I seem to recall you complaining that you're underpaid relative to your edumacation. Maybe I'm confusing you with someone else.

I doubt there are many people who do not feel underpaid relative to their edumacation.

[Foxaèr]

In a fucked up bureaucratic, socioeconomically unfair society, people are sometimes forced to do that which illegally makes them more money just so that they can live reasonably comfortably. Then the system further fucks them over as though that is a long-term solution to ending illegal employment alternatives.