Your argument might be stronger if it didn't rely on labeling ("absurd apologism", which is itself an absurd accusation when you think about what apologism means) and appeals to emotion. The short answer to your question is that you should concern yourself (not sympathize) with their problems when those problems intersect with yours and guide their decisions.
Your argument might be stronger if it didn't rely on labeling ...
The argument doesn't rely on labeling, though it does call a spade a spade.
A definition of "apologism" is "a defense or excuse, a speech or written answer made in justification."
I'd love to hear why this is an incorrect characterization of the comment.
The short answer to your question is that you should concern yourself (not sympathize) with their problems when those problems intersect with yours and guide their decisions.
If I retain Matasano for work, I shouldn't need to obsess over the details of your cost structure or employee benefits packages; our contract should suffice. Similarly here, Patrick's description of Paypal's theory of underwriting is interesting, but irrelevant. Deflecting blame based on these issues is, indeed, absurd.
If PayPal's risk profile does not support doing business with Indiegogo projects, they should cease doing business with those projects rather than seizing thousands of dollars on spurious grounds. Feel free to debate the merits, if you actually have a difference in opinion.
No. Were you to retain Matasano, you'd discover that our relationship would be governed by a series of contracts. If you were of any significant size, those contracts would be scrutinized on your side by your counsel. If you were a typical client of size, your counsel and management would likely have questions or concerns about those terms, which would then be the subject of negotiation. Our risk tolerance and cost structure would very much matter to those negotiations.
Regarding the label you used: what makes it absurd is the notion that Patrick would be motivated by an urge to justify the actions of a 3rd party business he's barely engaged with. Here it pains me to cite Paul Graham's "Things You Can't Say" on the semiotic significance of deploying labels to make arguments.
Our risk tolerance and cost structure would very much matter to those negotiations.
Sure, those negotiations would happen before significant money or services are exchanged. And, presumably, we wouldn't enter into an agreement unless we were mutually satisfied. But arbitrarily deciding to withhold payment for your services after the fact, pending an audit of your workplace practices, for instance, would probably land me on the wrong end of an adverse action from you. And deservedly so.
Regarding the label you used: what makes it absurd is the notion that Patrick would be motivated by an urge to justify the actions of a 3rd party business he's barely engaged with.
I didn't (and wouldn't) claim that. I do however think that his well-reasoned, but irrelevant argument for why Paypal feels justified in holding $42,000 of Mailpile's money does indeed serve as apologism in the thread, motivations aside. If you think I'm arguing that Patrick is some shill for PayPal, you're barking up the wrong tree.
Here it pains me to cite Paul Graham's "Things You Can't Say" on the semiotic significance of deploying labels to make arguments.
And it's painful to watch. The argument hardly relies on this supposed labeling and I'd be surprised if you actually believe that. At this point you've already done more labeling, imputing of motives, and purely rhetorical arguing than you seem to think I have.
I don't understand what the difference is between Paypal's handling of payments and remittance of funds, which are governed by its contracts, and the terms and conditions of the work we do, which are also under contracts.
You're describing negotiations that happen before significant money and services have been exchanged; this PayPal "negotiation" occurs after. This turns out to be a rather large difference. Indeed, it's the difference between a contract negotiation and a hostage negotiation.
For the better of part a decade, Paypal has published a "Terms of Service" which you are required to agree to before you can use the service. Business users are required to agree to the TOS again. They regularly email customers regarding changes to the terms of service, and these terms of service are always publicly accessible.
If someone chooses not to read the TOS, that's on them and it is their failure as a business operator. If they wanted to renegotiate the standard terms of the TOS, they should have approached Paypal before agreeing to the TOS or before launching their business activities.
It's not a hostage negotiation--there's no requirement that you start using, or continue to use Paypal.
No, Patrick just got finished explaining how people who do pre-order business with Paypal could have reasonably been expected to know what Paypal was going to do.
