I love Zubees.
I love ZubeeZone.
I love Zubee collectors.
I don’t love that an otherwise-chill-arena might be used to slip some biased, narrow-minded view of a battle between social & political sides (and Paypal, et al) in North Carolina, a perspective that similarly reflects what the fun is wrong with our country – letting that discussion slip passive-aggresively into the fun business of collecting Zubees.
However – I blog – and thus choose to inject my reply – solely my opinion – into this post.
Here’s my response to the post that states “Paypal is mad with NC because they won’t let men into women’s rooms”, or damn near that quote. (here’s a screenshot if you need). Yes, I removed names and faces, but the content itself is here under Fair Use. And for the moment I’ll not tear into the gross negligence in the statement itself, nor will I spend excessive time here on the statement’s intentional-or-otherwise disrespect for anyone in the global community that may now be or in the future be considering transition, and whose individual civil rights are very much at the root of the NC/PP issue. Hopefully my stance on that part is pretty clear.
Instead, here’s what I wrote right away, in the moment, with only minor typo edits.
My response as originally penned, that I should’ve posted there, but didn’t out of respect for John and 21,000+ respectful Zubee collectors (including the OP, indeed) – because in the end, this post is itself injecting my politics and opinion into the same discussion, and stoking the same fire I say should not be a part of the Zubee landscape. It is what it is, and here’s what my thought is:
“As NC is home, I’m biased – and your injection of politics – if I may – is a bit off base. For the record, the primary objection of most companies (taking action) to the NC legislation is that “part B” of the legislation prohibits any local county or municipality from passing civil protections based on federally defined and/or locally defined protected classes, as defined via numerous legal precedent in the US – and rather, reserves such “right to pass” solely to the State. The hype is on what you too quickly simplify – as so many others have. Here’s to hoping anyone reading this thread sees both sides of the politics someone else took time to inject, without any appropriate perspective, imho.
On the paypal side, I might mention that many in the TE industry (including numerous owners/operators of popular traffic script-based businesses) overlook some basic “legal” requirements presented/required via Paypal. These include appropriate refund policies (some casual TOS that says no refunds on digital traffic doesn’t cut it), some affiliate disclaimers on splashpages that promise cash, and cookie notices for those sites served and/or targeted to a Euro audience. Those are just a start – does anyone think Clickbank introduced their trust-badge system for fun – or instead because of the very public need (per their company emails and policy changes) to satisfy their vendor partners which handle the cash, in terms of legal protections?
I also respectfully think that owners with TEs ought to do a proper course of business presentation to the public, per FTC guidelines, before independent affiliates rush around crying fear, scam, purge, or otherwise by Paypal. First comply with the policies that existed before your cottage-industry business opened, then I think you’ll find less time is spent worrying about perceived Paypal “persecution” or the like”
These same PP/PTC/TE issues first came and went over a decade ago, and will come and go again, and – as before – the owners that persist as intrepid owners will come around, while those existing on false margins from over-inflated affiliate rates (that leave a net loss after appropriate business tax on revenue proper) will move on to other endeavors.
End my 2 cents – but I say in short the over-simplified presentation (by the referenced post) of the NC situation is quite simply uncool., and not too fit for the Zubee world (at the very least).”
Enough said – anyone who believes in the revocation of protections for marginalized groups can, well, carry on elsewhere, ‘cuz such narrow thinking really goes against my groove. 😉