6 ms·

Don't know if it is the reason for the ban, but Niteos main product seems to be a service for creating spam networks. https://www.easyblognetworks.com https://w

Don't know if it is the reason for the ban, but Niteos main product seems to be a service for creating spam networks. https://www.easyblognetworks.com https://www.easyblognetworks.com, https://niteo.co/projects https://niteo.co/projects

dmurko 7y ago
As I mentioned in the previous comments - we're not using PayPal to process our SaaS products.
- sirn 7y ago
  > we're not using PayPal to process our SaaS products Disclosure: I used to work in payment industry. Unfortunately from the brand's perspective (Visa, Mastercard, etc.) it doesn't matter which of your product is using their channel to process payments, if the business is involved in doing something shady, the whole company will be flagged. If you already passed KYC 12 years ago, but your business _today_ won't pass KYC if you were to apply again, then it's a matter of time until you get kicked out.
- xtracto 7y ago
  I've got no simpathy for your business. It is spam plain and simple.
- Someone1234 7y ago
  What were you using them to process?
- village-idiot 7y ago
  No denial that you’re selling software designed to spam. Interesting. Maybe you should focus on making your business run in the ethical clear first. You’re not getting any sympathy from me that your unethical practices got you cut off from financing.
- SilasX 7y ago
  Weird. Last comments from this account before today were in 2010.
mprev 7y ago
Ooof, PBNs are literal spam. They're designed to game Google by producing a deluge of low quality content with backlinks on whatever search terms you're hoping to squat on. I'm utterly sick of this kind of junk.
- m-p-3 7y ago
  What's the difference between this and 1-click VPS with WordPress/etc preinstalled?
  - mintplant 7y ago
    If you look at their other (past/sold) projects, it's part of a suite of software they've developed for "autoblogging", scraping, automatically reposting articles from prewritten databases, "enriching" them with random images, etc. It's very clear what industry they serve.
- Lowkeyloki 7y ago
  True, but as long as there are rules, somebody is going to find a loophole or a way to game the system. I'd personally be more concerned with Google improving their product or with society's increasing reliance on a single company's service and our unwillingness to consume information critically. PBNs are garbagey, but trying to put them all down is unrealistic. And even if they could be stopped, it would only be a band aid fix, not addressing the real problems.
  - mattigames 7y ago
    Hundreds of sites have been brought down for hosting pirated movies thanks to laws against that, don't know why putting down PBns would be unrealistic.
    - cvuls 7y ago
      ah yes, and the wide-reaching effects on piracy those have caused.
TheRealDunkirk 7y ago
Yikes. And proof, once again, that there's ALWAYS another side to these stories.
astura 7y ago
Thank you! After reading the story I headed to the comments to look for this exact comment! This story was super, super sketchy! The tell was it didn't at all mention the products or services they sell. Since any normal person would mention the products/services they sell front-and-center as key information to the story, I went ahead and assumed the problem was the products or services they offer were illegal/sketchy/questionable/against TOS. So I came here to see if anyone looked up what sort of products and services they offer.
- arielm 7y ago
  Same! And it’s definitely sketchy, but... PayPal could have at least pointed towards the clause in their terms that is being used for the rejection.
  - doctoboggan 7y ago
    I am wondering why PayPal cares in this case? I had no idea what PBNs where before this thread, and I agree they are spammy and should be dealt with (by google presumably), why does PayPal see the need to ban this company? I assume PBNs aren't illegal, so PayPal wouldn't face legal jeopardy. My guess is either Google is encouraging PayPal to do this ban or PayPal is afraid of some societal backlash if people realize they are profiting off of spam. I am honestly happy they are attempting to limit spam, but just surprised they are harming their bottom line to do it.
    - unreal37 7y ago
      It's deceptive and unethical. There should be no surprise that legitimate payment providers like PayPal and even Visa/Mastercard would not want to work with them. PayPal also does not do business with many Porn Websites, which are generally legal.
      - doctoboggan 7y ago
        Good point regarding porn websites being banned by PayPal. I guess it falls under my "societal backlash" reasoning.
ben509 7y ago
That raises another question: why couldn't Paypal simply say this? I can imagine several plausible reasons, related to potential liability, but does that mean that if we're trying to outsource business functions to specialist firms that we can't expect them to be transparent in their operations?
- codezero 7y ago
  Having worked in a different industry that also had to ban people I can make an assumption: they don’t need to, and doing so never makes anyone happy, so why bother. If they said it was because of their spam business, the owner would do exactly what they did on HN: “but we didn’t use PayPal for our spam business” - this won’t change the decision.
  - synlatexc 7y ago
    But failing to do so leads to increased operational costs, as customers contact CS again and again, demanding the rationale. It can also lead to negative press.
    - codezero 7y ago
      It's pretty easy to no longer support someone who is banned. The negative press is usually OK because like in this case, and in many others I've seen on HN, the one complaining is usually in clear violation of stated policy. It's completely reasonable to disagree with and complain about that policy, but they rarely do so explicitly, it drums up more support when the policy violation isn't made a highlight.
      - downandout 7y ago
        What specific violation of stated policy are you referring to?
        codezero 7y ago
        I wasn’t being specific. When I said that policy, I mean the policy the company invoked to justify the ban, which the customer may not know.
ryandrake 7y ago
Great observation and critical missing piece of information! My sympathy level instantly went from 100 to 0.
imhoguy 7y ago
who keeps company with wolves will learn to howl In my opinion the reason for ban, even though mentioned that unrelated to their SaaS offering, is likely higher number of transactions with parties who have been also baned for some shady practices. Such rat clusters are usualy nuked in batch.
writepub 7y ago
And it took PayPal 12 years to flag their product as Spam? In any case, PayPal should be a payment processor, not a enforcer of arbitrary business standards, like tagging something as spam 12 years too late.

dmurko 7y ago

As I mentioned in the previous comments - we're not using PayPal to process our SaaS products.

sirn 7y ago
> we're not using PayPal to process our SaaS products Disclosure: I used to work in payment industry. Unfortunately from the brand's perspective (Visa, Mastercard, etc.) it doesn't matter which of your product is using their channel to process payments, if the business is involved in doing something shady, the whole company will be flagged. If you already passed KYC 12 years ago, but your business _today_ won't pass KYC if you were to apply again, then it's a matter of time until you get kicked out.
xtracto 7y ago
I've got no simpathy for your business. It is spam plain and simple.
Someone1234 7y ago
What were you using them to process?
village-idiot 7y ago
No denial that you’re selling software designed to spam. Interesting. Maybe you should focus on making your business run in the ethical clear first. You’re not getting any sympathy from me that your unethical practices got you cut off from financing.
SilasX 7y ago
Weird. Last comments from this account before today were in 2010.

mprev 7y ago

Ooof, PBNs are literal spam. They're designed to game Google by producing a deluge of low quality content with backlinks on whatever search terms you're hoping to squat on. I'm utterly sick of this kind of junk.

m-p-3 7y ago
What's the difference between this and 1-click VPS with WordPress/etc preinstalled?
- mintplant 7y ago
  If you look at their other (past/sold) projects, it's part of a suite of software they've developed for "autoblogging", scraping, automatically reposting articles from prewritten databases, "enriching" them with random images, etc. It's very clear what industry they serve.
Lowkeyloki 7y ago
True, but as long as there are rules, somebody is going to find a loophole or a way to game the system. I'd personally be more concerned with Google improving their product or with society's increasing reliance on a single company's service and our unwillingness to consume information critically. PBNs are garbagey, but trying to put them all down is unrealistic. And even if they could be stopped, it would only be a band aid fix, not addressing the real problems.
- mattigames 7y ago
  Hundreds of sites have been brought down for hosting pirated movies thanks to laws against that, don't know why putting down PBns would be unrealistic.
  - cvuls 7y ago
    ah yes, and the wide-reaching effects on piracy those have caused.

TheRealDunkirk 7y ago

Yikes. And proof, once again, that there's ALWAYS another side to these stories.

astura 7y ago

Thank you! After reading the story I headed to the comments to look for this exact comment! This story was super, super sketchy! The tell was it didn't at all mention the products or services they sell. Since any normal person would mention the products/services they sell front-and-center as key information to the story, I went ahead and assumed the problem was the products or services they offer were illegal/sketchy/questionable/against TOS. So I came here to see if anyone looked up what sort of products and services they offer.

arielm 7y ago
Same! And it’s definitely sketchy, but... PayPal could have at least pointed towards the clause in their terms that is being used for the rejection.
- doctoboggan 7y ago
  I am wondering why PayPal cares in this case? I had no idea what PBNs where before this thread, and I agree they are spammy and should be dealt with (by google presumably), why does PayPal see the need to ban this company? I assume PBNs aren't illegal, so PayPal wouldn't face legal jeopardy. My guess is either Google is encouraging PayPal to do this ban or PayPal is afraid of some societal backlash if people realize they are profiting off of spam. I am honestly happy they are attempting to limit spam, but just surprised they are harming their bottom line to do it.
  - unreal37 7y ago
    It's deceptive and unethical. There should be no surprise that legitimate payment providers like PayPal and even Visa/Mastercard would not want to work with them. PayPal also does not do business with many Porn Websites, which are generally legal.
    - doctoboggan 7y ago
      Good point regarding porn websites being banned by PayPal. I guess it falls under my "societal backlash" reasoning.

ben509 7y ago

That raises another question: why couldn't Paypal simply say this? I can imagine several plausible reasons, related to potential liability, but does that mean that if we're trying to outsource business functions to specialist firms that we can't expect them to be transparent in their operations?

codezero 7y ago
Having worked in a different industry that also had to ban people I can make an assumption: they don’t need to, and doing so never makes anyone happy, so why bother. If they said it was because of their spam business, the owner would do exactly what they did on HN: “but we didn’t use PayPal for our spam business” - this won’t change the decision.
- synlatexc 7y ago
  But failing to do so leads to increased operational costs, as customers contact CS again and again, demanding the rationale. It can also lead to negative press.
  - codezero 7y ago
    It's pretty easy to no longer support someone who is banned. The negative press is usually OK because like in this case, and in many others I've seen on HN, the one complaining is usually in clear violation of stated policy. It's completely reasonable to disagree with and complain about that policy, but they rarely do so explicitly, it drums up more support when the policy violation isn't made a highlight.
    - downandout 7y ago
      What specific violation of stated policy are you referring to?
      - codezero 7y ago
        I wasn’t being specific. When I said that policy, I mean the policy the company invoked to justify the ban, which the customer may not know.

ryandrake 7y ago

Great observation and critical missing piece of information! My sympathy level instantly went from 100 to 0.

imhoguy 7y ago

who keeps company with wolves will learn to howl In my opinion the reason for ban, even though mentioned that unrelated to their SaaS offering, is likely higher number of transactions with parties who have been also baned for some shady practices. Such rat clusters are usualy nuked in batch.

writepub 7y ago

And it took PayPal 12 years to flag their product as Spam? In any case, PayPal should be a payment processor, not a enforcer of arbitrary business standards, like tagging something as spam 12 years too late.