This is BS. It matters very much to me as a customer of a financial services provider what sort of company I am keeping.
For example, I don't want my bank to provide services to organised crime because I both feel that would be morally wrong and I think it'd open the bank's staff to influences that aren't in the best interests of other customers.
Also, your argument isn't with PayPal; it's with the entire FS industry.
Organized crime is illegal and content farms are not, so this is a terrible example.
A better example might be highly religious community not wanting their bank to do business with companies focused on the gay and lesbian community.
This is a good example because: it is not illegal for a company to cater to the gay and lesbian community, it is not illegal to discriminate against gay and lesbian people in many states, and there are communities that would dislike this sort of company.
Your example is irrelevant as that’s a civil rights issue.
Either way, I gave the example of organised crime not in an attempt for people to take it as a literal suggestion of equivalence but to argue against the idea that a financial institution has no place being choosey about its customers.
It's not being choosey to not support organized crime, because it's illegal; the choice has been made through the law. It IS choosey to chose not to support an organization that's doing something legal that you don't like.
For example, I don't want my bank to provide services to organised crime because I both feel that would be morally wrong and I think it'd open the bank's staff to influences that aren't in the best interests of other customers.
Also, your argument isn't with PayPal; it's with the entire FS industry.