PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Mase on January 31, 2020, 07:30:20 PM
-
Some people think so:
https://www.teaparty247.org/while-we-arent-looking-house-dems-quietly-vote-to-support-chinese-style-credit-system/
-
I'm sure the proposed admendment had some flaws that caused it to be rejected.
Given an opportunity, the congresscritters will do their job.
-
I have no problem with the policy. Business are free to conduct business as they see fit, as long as they are above board about it. I wouldn't want to insure undependable people either. Low credit scores correlate with more claims and higher premiums for everyone.
-
I have no problem with the policy. Business are free to conduct business as they see fit, as long as they are above board about it. I wouldn't want to insure undependable people either. Low credit scores correlate with more claims and higher premiums for everyone.
First, businesses are not free to conduct business as they see fit. There are numerous restrictions on businesses, even private businesses, in order to protect civil rights.
When a credit score is based on irrelevant things like political views, you would be hard pressed to correlate with more risk. I would love to see someone show that religion or politics correlates any increased credit risk.
-
First, businesses are not free to conduct business as they see fit. There are numerous restrictions on businesses, even private businesses, in order to protect civil rights.
When a credit score is based on irrelevant things like political views, you would be hard pressed to correlate with more risk. I would love to see someone show that religion or politics correlates any increased credit risk.
I agree. We are now at the point where Corporations are as much a threat to freedom and liberty as Government. Tech, Social Media, Finance, and big Media are now able to decide what we can see, do, buy, and what we can speak about politically. This is the Big Brother we were warned about. It's actually beyond 1984 at this point.
-
First, businesses are not free to conduct business as they see fit. There are numerous restrictions on businesses, even private businesses, in order to protect civil rights.
When a credit score is based on irrelevant things like political views, you would be hard pressed to correlate with more risk. I would love to see someone show that religion or politics correlates any increased credit risk.
Yeah, I posted to early. I read the OP yesterday and replied before coffee today. I was "thinking" the post said should credit scores affect insurance rates. (??? :-[ )
I definitely agree that politics should not affect credit scores. (well, unless you get penalized for being a socialist democrat, but I"m sure that's not how it would pan out).
-
Yeah, I posted to early. I read the OP yesterday and replied before coffee today. I was "thinking" the post said should credit scores affect insurance rates. (??? :-[ )
I definitely agree that politics should not affect credit scores. (well, unless you get penalized for being a socialist democrat, but I"m sure that's not how it would pan out).
You suffer from my disease: inability to comprehend anything before coffee.
It’s very likely that there is a statistical correlation between political views, religion, etc and creditworthiness. For example, political affiliations correlate with socioeconomic status which correlates to creditworthiness. And now technology allows us to build complete profiles of individuals including your thoughts, instead of just basic facts such as age and gender and bank account balance.
Up til now society has accepted that it’s fair for insurance companies to discriminate based on age and gender and net worth. The older you are the higher your life insurance premium. Men pay more than women. In the past they also may have discriminated on race but now we have declared that unfair and illegal even if race correlates to health or lifespan or creditworthiness (through socioeconomic status). This is because aggregate statistics do not apply to individuals.
The theory is they can discriminate based on some things but not others which simply means they can’t use race as a profiling tool to screen out high risk customers. More work for them maybe to do the homework to vet them as an individual but society has decided that’s the moral thing to do.
But insurance companies and lenders would not remain in business if they couldn’t do some kind of discrimination. The mortgage lending disaster taught us that it’s madness to not discriminate based on financial health for example. Or, if you required life insurance companies to ignore health status in selling policies and setting premiums, the very sick would all rush to buy policies, promptly die and put the company out of business. (This is exactly why government run social programs inevitably bankrupt nations.)
But that doesn’t mean it’s right to allow corporations to use the present technological ability to build a detailed profile of our every thought in addition to basic physical facts to discriminate. Capitalism is a horribly unfair economic system, but better than all the rest - but it does need some regulation. A line needs to be drawn that allows companies to profit and remain a going concern but doesn’t allow them to lock out individuals just because they fall into a statistical group down to the nitpicking level of thoughts and speech.
First Amendment applies to government persecution but the truth is these tech giants are cohorts of government. Government is looking the other way and (wink wink) loving that google and Facebook is collecting all this data on us. The threat is not big business nor big government alone, the threat is when the two of them get together against us the citizens.
Government should reign in private company access and use of our data and also limit their own access and use of it. Anybody holding their breath for that?
My leftist liberal brother tells me big business is evil and government is our friend. He thinks conservatives think big government is evil and private corporations are our friend. He might be correct some on the right think that. I try to tell him both are wrong: the problem is when big business and big government get in bed together. Big business has the know how to get stuff done and big government has the power of law to force what they want.
The divide between right and left in this country has each side thinking the enemy is the other, when the true enemy is those at the top wanting power over all the rest of us. This 1984 style data collection will hurt probably more Democrats than Republicans if the algorithms work like I predict, yet it’s a right wing tea party site alerting us to the threat and Democrats failing to put in this protection. That’s because Democrat elite in power already have their wealth and don’t care. For whatever reason right now it’s mostly the left carrying the torch for tyranny, they are the rotten core in the swamp. Please God let ordinary Democrats wake up and see what those at the top of their party have become before it’s too late.
-
First, businesses are not free to conduct business as they see fit. There are numerous restrictions on businesses, even private businesses, in order to protect civil rights.
When a credit score is based on irrelevant things like political views, you would be hard pressed to correlate with more risk. I would love to see someone show that religion or politics correlates any increased credit risk.
Exactly. Credit reporting agencies are quasi-public agencies in that a citizen doesn’t engage them, but they engage you without your consent, assemble information on you, and third parties use this information to either grant or deny you credit, and affect whatever other goods or services that use such ratings.
-
mylife.com
Looks harmless right now, but just look at what they use to determine "your score".
-
mylife.com
Looks harmless right now, but just look at what they use to determine "your score".
I can't believe they haven't been sued for defamation.
-
I can't believe they haven't been sued for defamation.
According to Wikipedia they’ve been sued for other things:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyLife (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyLife)
-
I can't believe they haven't been sued for defamation.
Look at their methodology and how they create a “score”. Obviously the model is to get this to take off and become more accepted.
-
First, businesses are not free to conduct business as they see fit. There are numerous restrictions on businesses, even private businesses, in order to protect civil rights.
When a credit score is based on irrelevant things like political views, you would be hard pressed to correlate with more risk. I would love to see someone show that religion or politics correlates any increased credit risk.
Beyond being irrelevant, association is protected. Any credit system which was slanted based on political association would likely be cause of a massive civil suit.
-
Beyond being irrelevant, association is protected. Any credit system which was slanted based on political association would likely be cause of a massive civil suit.
Then how does Tech and Social Media get away with censoring conservative content and promoting Progressive content? Corporations are solidly on the Far Left Progressive band wagon. They believe the Urban, Metro 15 - 45 Demographic has the BUYING POWER.
Politics, and AGE has huge effect on your credit score, ability to borrow and what you can buy. Private lenders already restrict using their credit for BUYING FIREARMS, and giving financing to gun shops, gun distributors and gun manufacturers. That's not political???