PayPal is terminating its relationship with Alex Jones and his website, Infowars, the online payment service said Friday.

After an extensive review of Infowars and its related sites, PayPal said in a statement, the company “found instances that promoted hate or discriminatory intolerance against certain communities and religions, which run counter to our core value of inclusion.”

PayPal notified Infowars of the decision Thursday, prompting the site to accuse PayPal in a blog post of a “political ploy designed to financially sabotage an influential media outlet.” Infowars said PayPal had given it 10 days to find a new payment platform, after which PayPal’s services would no longer function.

PayPal declined to cite specific examples of Infowars’s problematic behavior. But Infowars has gained increasing attention — and criticism — for its role in spreading conspiracy theories and misinformation online. PayPal’s decision Friday makes it the latest tech company to ban Jones and his content from its platform, following in the footsteps of Apple, Facebook and Google, among others.

Last month, Jones’s podcasts were removed from iTunes after Apple said it did not tolerate hate speech. YouTube soon took similar enforcement steps against Infowars, saying Jones had “repeatedly” violated its terms of service. Although Twitter initially resisted banning Jones, it, too, removed him from its platform earlier this month with a permanent suspension.

Twitter’s decision came hours after Jones appeared at a high-profile congressional hearing involving Twitter chief executive Jack Dorsey and Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg. During the event, Jones was recorded heckling journalists and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). Afterward, Jones tried to confront Dorsey as he was exiting the Senate office building where the hearing was held.

PayPal’s decision to remove Jones hits him where it will probably hurt his business the most: his wallet.

Research by Columbia University’s Tow Center for Digital Journalism has found that Jones has been successful at turning his headlines into e-commerce revenue. Revenue could dry up without an online payment processor.

Last month, roughly 1.15 million visitors logged onto Jones’s online storefront, Infowarsstore.com, Jonathan Albright, the Tow Center’s research director, told The Post’s Craig Timberg in a recent interview. Of those, more than 60 percent went to PayPal after visiting his digital shop, implying that Jones is effective at converting visitors into paying customers.

Having learned of the impending ban, supporters of Infowars began urging the site to accept cryptocurrency such as bitcoin.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/technology/2018/09/21/paypal-bans-alex-jones-saying-infowars-promoted-hate-or-discriminatory-intolerance/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4083796&forum_id=2#36861970)

Lol are libs gonna tank bitcoin now (I mean, even more than it already has) just so people can't fund "hate speech"?

What the FUCK IS GOING ON IN THE WEST, FUCK LIBS

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4083796&forum_id=2#36861977)

I do my little part too. Whenever I hire blue collar workers and they mention supporting Trump, off they go, fired on the spot, no money for them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4083796&forum_id=2#36861994)

Date: September 22nd, 2018 2:52 PM

Author: ,,, ,,,, ,, ,;,,,,, ,. .,.;,,,,,; ; ,,,,.,... ,,,, ( )

This is 180. Businesses are free to associate with who they want.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4083796&forum_id=2#36863783)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4083796&forum_id=2#36863871)

I agree, pumo.

...but where there is reasonable evidence of anti-competitive collusion between ostensibly competing entities operating across state lines, the federal government has an affirmative responsibility to initiate an antitrust investigation and to pursue legal action against all of the entities in question if that investigation uncovers evidence of violations of federal antitrust law. Do you agree?

...also, where companies are providing a service that has started to essentially function as a utility or as a quasi-utility, those companies should be subject to far more extensive government regulation on that basis. Do you agree?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4083796&forum_id=2#36863800)

I don't give a fuck about Alex Jones personally (although it's pretty clear that he's operating as a canary in the coalmine at this point).

Not sure why you're getting fiesty with me if we're apparently in agreement on all counts. I just wanted to make sure that we were, in fact, in full agreement.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4083796&forum_id=2#36863824)

*unzips*

"Go on..."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4083796&forum_id=2#36863867)

Yeah I agree with you that Jews should be incarcerated

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4083796&forum_id=2#36864005)

of course what they did is perfectly legal and capitalistic, but the undertone is that they are cucking to the ever-encroaching lib thought police menace. do you enjoy the first amendment?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4083796&forum_id=2#36863961)

i didn’t realize private platforms have to give a microphone to fat lunatics that they despise because “free speech.” alex jones isn’t banned from the internet the last time i checked

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4083796&forum_id=2#36864044)

but i still don’t see how theres an actual first amendment legal issue here since twitter isn’t formally or practically the government. the first amendment is a red herring.

personally i’d pay for video of him locked in a room with a bunch of crowbar wielding sandy hook fathers. but i’m trying to not let my disdain for him color my argument

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4083796&forum_id=2#36864088)

And why does it follow legally or logically that by benefiting from network effects, a private business should be subject to regulation like some common carrier?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4083796&forum_id=2#36868765)

Separate the private aspects of these companies (the code, the user interface) from the public aspects (the fact that millions of people use them). The second reason wasn't created by the social media companies, it's leveraged. This is why you see people who are indifferent to or even dislike the private aspects of the services still use them purely because of the network effects.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4083796&forum_id=2#36869076)

literally the only way i wouldn’t burst out laughing at someone bringing up the first amendment when a private company tells someone to fuck off is if the firm benefits from government-granted barriers to entry and there isn’t any practical alternative for the service. i don’t think anyone here has a first amendment argument, but twitter and facebook come the closest for not being forced to disseminate alex jones’ retarded fuckery against the will of their duly elected board and management

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4083796&forum_id=2#36869126)