While it may be a matter of perspective and circ*mstance, PayPal's payment process doesn't clearly convey the implications of sending money as a 'gift.'
The interface simplifies the transaction to such an extent that users may be unaware of the potential risks. It doesn't say, "Dear user, you're not making a purchase, so the risk of being scammed is ostensibly lower." Instead, the process is streamlined, and bang, the transaction is complete.
There was no act of charity here; the description field clearly indicated an exchange of legitimate goods and services. It's only when things go awry that PayPal espouses a narrative that users are simply giving 'gifts,' a convenient argument that absolves them of responsibility. Yet, should a transaction fall within PayPal's purview in a less favorable light, the organization is quick to enforce its policies with full force.
This scenario pits the individual against a multi-million dollar corporation that adopts a philosophy similar that exudes a philosophy to mankind as the "goes whichever way the wind blows".
It's often used to describe someone who easily changes their opinions to match those around them or to suit the current situation.
If not making gifts results in extra payments to PayPal's pocket by those who have been scammed through gift transactions, then the additional 'pocket cash' fees could be deducted by Paypal, and the remainder of the amount should be returned to the customer.
This approach is arguably the fairest way to address these kind of issues. A win-win scenario for both.
But instead & currently, all doors are extensively barricaded and sealed by PayPal, making it impossible to reach them regarding these types of transactions. This situation is a complete black box.
