Paypal CEO replaced by 66,000 Guardian Readers

We work hard to achieve the right balance and to ensure that our decisions are values-driven and not political.” That was the press release churned out by Paypal’s PR team last Thursday, when they announced their decision to remove founder and former EDL leader Tommy Robinson’s (real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) account in response to an online petition with garnered 66,000 signatures. Additionally, the Far-Right activist alleges that “a lot” of money left in the account has been frozen for six months. Earlier this year, Twitter took a similar approach when they removed his ‘verification’ tick, and eventually revoked his account’s access to the site permanently.

Being private companies I concede that yes, they do have the legal right to do so, as long as they cite the relevant fine print in their terms and conditions. But this sets a dangerous precedent. We cannot allow companies barring customers due to their political views become the norm. What’s next, George ‘Gideon’ Osborne being asked for ID at a Wetherspoons because of his unfortunate stance on Brexit? What happens when your favourite iconoclast is stripped of their money and platform?

If you aren’t worried by companies choosing to define what is and isn’t hate speech, then you should be. Paypal now have the precedent to remove any public figure that falls on the wrong side of at least 66,000 people. I’m sure you could find as many ‘Men’s Rights Activists’ that have a grudge against Germaine Greer. It’s reasonable to believe that the banks could follow suit, and it’s not so ridiculous to extend that to the rail services and major airlines. Now Greer is stuck on a Ryanair flight and she can’t even buy a soggy egg and cress sandwich. Is that really the future that liberals want?

Of course conglomerates have sovereignty over their decisions: they can take any action that they believe will increase their market value, including to discriminate at will. Except for the fact that they most definitely do not. The law states that a person merely has “the right not to express an opinion which one does not hold.” Paypal justified this action by claiming they do not allow their services “to be used to promote hate or violence.” But allowing Robinson access to the platform does in no way constitute a declaration of support for his political views. It would take an impressive leap of logic to conclude that Paypal founder Elon Musk voted Leave just because Robinson was allowed to send £4.50 for his share of the Uber. Similarly, Paypal fails to make such a song and dance over the closure of accounts found to be processing drug-related transactions.

Discrimination on the grounds of age, gender reassignment, marriage status, pregnancy, disability, religion, sex, or sexual orientation is illegal. Does it not infringe on the right to freedom of speech to potentially be made financially insecure as a result of your views not lining up with the majority? By this I don’t claim that Robinson is a sort of Islamophobic Rosa Parks; he will almost certainly be found to be on the wrong side of history. But are we to expect Paypal to be the sole arbiter of progressive views? Or just anyone who can retweet a petition to a large enough audience?

No matter what you think of Yaxley-Lennon’s views, however abhorrent you may consider them, no-platforming such radical views will never be the way to change public opinion. You will never squash controversial opinions by no-platforming, ridiculing, or simply screaming “fascist!” repeatedly into the abyss. Instead, they will continue to breed and bubble up somewhere outside of your echo chamber. The next thing you know, a populist with beliefs that you refused to consider and challenge as ‘legitimate’ has majority support.