I agree that it’s not right for payment processors or banks (PayPal is, unofficially, kind of both) to pass judgement on what their users spend money on... but I also agree that it is not out of line for a payments company to stop offering their services to businesses designed to spam, defraud, mislead or abuse people. Gambling websites are also known to trigger these detections when you try and deposit on to shady accounts.
There is a world of difference between closing accounts that are used to pay for activities that are illegal and closing accounts because the client does something you don't like, especially if the service provider can't even point out which part of their TOS was violated.
>businesses designed to spam, defraud, mislead or abuse people
If you don't draw any distinctions between "defraud" (illegal and well-defined activity) and "mislead" (can be applied to almost anything), there is literally nothing to discuss here. You don't draw any objectively defined lines between what should and should not be bannable and your stance boils down to "I like when PayPal bans someone I don't like".
What do I want?
I want large payment service providers to have clear and universally enforced rules that pertain only to services they provide, stick to those rules when deciding whom to ban, provide exact reasons for their decision and have a process of redress. It's pretty obvious that PayPal fails at this, miserably, even if you can point out some individual cases where they might be "in the right".
I also want posters who act like corporate cheerleaders here to provide independently observable criteria for whatever bans they "approve". Increasingly often I see astounding hypocrisy when the same person cheers for banning of one organization and against banning another, even though both are banned for the exact same behavior.