Deny banking services or lose access to their account because of their values

#126
#126
LouderVol said:
neither do you.

you are supporting a system as "libertarian" while admitting it will harm people and actively restrict their ability to do business. a system that will not be relying on individual choices or input, but rather the input of society to actively shape the market in a way actively neither fair nor free.
Click to expand...

You can't be serious.

My position as a libertarian has nothing to do with whether or not I like a social credit scoring system. My position has to do with my opposition to government interference. That's what libertarianism is all about.

Let's ban Google business reviews, while we're at it. ***
 
#127
#127
BigOrangeMojo said:
This one is WAYYYYYYY too broad and vague.

And the "conservatives" here aren't going to like the other side of the sword here....
Click to expand...

I have agreed with you that the bill is too broad. The premise of the bill is debatable.
 
#128
#128
n_huffhines said:
These are simple problems to solve with swatters. Why wouldn't the system require verification? We're way past this with tech. These are techniques that used to fool Google 15 years ago. I assume the free market would arrive at social credit scoring systems that are more sophisticated than what our tech allowed 15 years ago.

Why wouldn't there be a high standard for impeaching somebody's credit? Companies want to do business with you. That's the incentive. I'm not afraid of the outcome when the process is a result of freedom (not government interference). You get more information. And the incentive system protects us. Everybody wants to do business, for the most part. They don't care if you are Christian or Republican. Some care if you are a dick. Most people would still do business with you.

Hire a private detective? LOL. OK.

Don't be so afraid of the free market.
Click to expand...

And you don't think a company risks being "Bud Lited" for doing business with too many people with a poor social credit score?
 
#129
#129
McDad said:
Ok. Fair.

What about the seller rating on Ebay as an example?

It doesn't inhibit or promote freedom. It inhibits and promotes the people on the platform to make transactions with trust.
Click to expand...

Yeah, people only see how it discourages transactions. I buy way more online than I would otherwise because of rating systems. Sure, I'm discouraged from buying crap, but that's a win for me. It's a win for the market because hopefully the crap gets sifted out sooner rather than later. But I'm also encouraged to buy a lot of good stuff. Buying **** online used to be a nightmare, but now you can buy with so much more trust in the system and it has allowed me to move a huge portion of my shopping to the digital world.

People already have scores on FB marketplace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#130
#130
hog88 said:
I have agreed with you that the bill is too broad. The premise of the bill is debatable.
Click to expand...

It's really vague as well. It should be a no -starter for those reasons alone.

The govt needs to stay the F out. That includes FDIC pressure as well....
 
#131
#131
n_huffhines said:
These are simple problems to solve with swatters. Why wouldn't the system require verification? We're way past this with tech. These are techniques that used to fool Google 15 years ago. I assume the free market would arrive at social credit scoring systems that are more sophisticated than what our tech allowed 15 years ago.

Why wouldn't there be a high standard for impeaching somebody's credit? Companies want to do business with you. That's the incentive. I'm not afraid of the outcome when the process is a result of freedom (not government interference). You get more information. And the incentive system protects us. Everybody wants to do business, for the most part. They don't care if you are Christian or Republican. Some care if you are a dick. Most people would still do business with you.

Hire a private detective? LOL. OK.

Don't be so afraid of the free market.
Click to expand...
other people shutting people out of the free market is not the free market. If you don't want to do business with someone, don't do business with someone. that freedom is/should be pretty well protected. but relying on some objective AF system ran by the masses is not a market freeing move, its the opposite.

There will 100% be companies using Republican/Christian/political leaning as reason not to do business with someone. WF is already doing it. Businesses aren't going to care if you are a jackarse. look at Trump. he has always been an arse, and businesses didn't care, once he got somewhat right leaning it became an issue to do business with him. you just want to formalize the system they are already using to do what you say won't happen.

and even if it somehow did magically stick to just being a dick, you know society would still split and defend the dicks of their political leaning. so it wouldn't fix the inherent "dick", it would just formalize which companies dealt with which dicks. something they can already do without a social credit score.

I would rather see a social credit score for the companies. Let the people decide if they still want to do business with these companies after they are scored by society. the companies only decision should be: am I comfortable with this request, can they uphold their end of the deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#132
#132
n_huffhines said:
Yeah, people only see how it discourages transactions. I buy way more online than I would otherwise because of rating systems. Sure, I'm discouraged from buying crap, but that's a win for me. It's a win for the market because hopefully the crap gets sifted out sooner rather than later. But I'm also encouraged to buy a lot of good stuff. Buying **** online used to be a nightmare, but now you can buy with so much more trust in the system and it has allowed me to move a huge portion of my shopping to the digital world.
Click to expand...
The 'trusted' seller rating is important for me, too.

Wrt reviews: I've learned to be wary of businesses who have no bad reviews. It's fake or scrubbed. Everyone has bad days. Seeing the bad actually helps me to have confidence the business is genuine.

I recommend my clients leave their bad reviews and use them as a public discourse on their policies. Also like them to use the review as a training point for their team.
 
#133
#133
BigOrangeMojo said:
It's really vague as well. It should be a no -starter for those reasons alone.

The govt needs to stay the F out. That includes FDIC pressure as well....
Click to expand...

We agree that the .gov needs to stay out. But it's too late for that, you can't even get SS payments, military retirement or just about any form of payment from the government without direct deposit and who runs those systems?
 
#134
#134
McDad said:
The 'trusted' seller rating is important for me, too.

Wrt reviews: I've learned to be wary of businesses who have no bad reviews. It's fake or scrubbed. Everyone has bad days. Seeing the bad actually helps me to have confidence the business is genuine.

I recommend my clients leave their bad reviews and use them as a public discourse on their policies. Also like them to use the review as a training point for their team.
Click to expand...

I view seller ratings as completely different that what a social credit score system would be. Seller ratings are (should be) based on performance and not political/social or other unrelated views.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol and McDad
#135
#135
hog88 said:
And you don't think a company risks being "Bud Lited" for doing business with too many people with a poor social credit score?
Click to expand...

Do you have a hypothetical example of how it would play out? I do not think this would be a problem for a company like Budweiser who just puts their products in retail stores and people show up and buy it. Even if they were direct to consumer, I'm doubtful anybody would fault them for selling beer to a guy with a criminal record, or whatever.

So what kind of company and situation would this concern apply to? I'm having trouble thinking of something applicable.
 
#136
#136
hog88 said:
We agree that the .gov needs to stay out. But it's too late for that, you can't even get SS payments, military retirement or just about any form of payment from the government without direct deposit and who runs those systems?
Click to expand...

Making a mountain out of a molehill there though...

Thousands of banks out there. They all only care about making $$$$....

Tens of thousands of credit unions out there....

And to apply this to insurance companies and dozens of other types of companies
 
#137
#137
n_huffhines said:
Do you have a hypothetical example of how it would play out? I do not think this would be a problem for a company like Budweiser who just puts their products in retail stores and people show up and buy it. Even if they were direct to consumer, I'm doubtful anybody would fault them for selling beer to a guy with a criminal record, or whatever.

So what kind of company and situation would this concern apply to? I'm having trouble thinking of something applicable.
Click to expand...

Insurance, financial institutions, direct to consumer, ext. Hell, even contractors.

"Jim Bobs lawncare does business with too many people with bad SCSs, better not use him".
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#138
#138
BigOrangeMojo said:
Making a mountain out of a molehill there though...

Thousands of banks out there. They all only care about making $$$$....

Tens of thousands of credit unions out there....

And to apply this to insurance companies and dozens of other types of companies
Click to expand...

I think we have all seen that not all do care solely about making $$. There has been numerous examples of financial institutions making decisions based on other factors that hurt their $$ making.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77 and LouderVol
#139
#139
hog88 said:
I view seller ratings as completely different that what a social credit score system would be. Seller ratings are (should be) based on performance and not political/social or other unrelated views.
Click to expand...
I agree with the distinction. Also agree a SCS has tremendous potential for abuse.

But (I think this is how Huff is approaching it) a pure system free from corruption would have more positives than negatives.
 
#140
#140
McDad said:
The 'trusted' seller rating is important for me, too.

Wrt reviews: I've learned to be wary of businesses who have no bad reviews. It's fake or scrubbed. Everyone has bad days. Seeing the bad actually helps me to have confidence the business is genuine.

I recommend my clients leave their bad reviews and use them as a public discourse on their policies. Also like them to use the review as a training point for their team.
Click to expand...

Review systems are simple and imperfect, but it doesn't take much to use them in a very reliable way. You just gotta be aware of a few things. There are always complainers. The type of person who can't be trusted in a review, and they're usually very easy to spot. If you're not sure, just click on their profile. See what kinds of scores they are handing out. All bad? OK. Every business is bad? **** that person. Don't listen to that person.

I hand out at least 20:1 positive reviews and sometimes there are some criticisms in there, but that makes them much more powerful, IMO. And when I leave a scathing review, I start with something like, "I almost always leave good reviews. Check my stats...." and then from the get-go, people know I'm not one of those complainers and my takedown has so much more power.
 
#141
#141
hog88 said:
I think we have all seen that not all do care solely about making $$. There has been numerous examples of financial institutions making decisions based on other factors that hurt their $$ making.
Click to expand...

Ultimately, that's all they care about. They do the ESG crap because they think it will help them make $$$ long-term.

It all comes back to money. They take your money, pay you a pittance, and loan it out many times over. Long term, they ain't going to do anything that hurts their bonus...
 
#142
#142
hog88 said:
Insurance, financial institutions, direct to consumer, ext. Hell, even contractors.

"Jim Bobs lawncare does business with too many people with bad SCSs, better not use him".
Click to expand...

I wouldn't care at all who the other customers of my lawn care guy might be, and it's hard for me to imagine anybody else would. Maybe in Beverley Hills they care about that.
 
#143
#143
They may choose to disassociate from certain industries (gun stores,strip clubs) since the risk ain't worth the reward but there will be another institution there to take up the slack...
 
#144
#144
McDad said:
I agree with the distinction. Also agree a SCS has tremendous potential for abuse.

But (I think this is how Huff is approaching it) a pure system free from corruption would have more positives than negatives.
Click to expand...

I get how Huff views it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#145
#145
n_huffhines said:
I wouldn't care at all who the other customers of my lawn care guy might be, and it's hard for me to imagine anybody else would. Maybe in Beverley Hills they care about that.
Click to expand...

You are 1 individual but we all witnessed the idiocy of the Bud Lite boycott.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
#146
#146
hog88 said:
You are 1 individual but we all witnessed the idiocy of the Bud Lite boycott.
Click to expand...

I thought it was idiotic too, but nobody cared if trans people were buying bud light. They cared that bud light used a trans person to promote their beer. I don't even know why it'd be useful for society to track retail buyer behavior in order to pass judgment on the distributor, who is a whole level removed from the customer. I can't imagine anybody is going to use that information to form a boycott in that scenario.
 
#147
#147
Here is another positive component of reviews that we're overlooking...my memory of the 80's and 90's was that a cool store or restaurant would pop up, and often go out of business before they could really get established. Now you find that new place on Google and it's got 50 reviews with 4.5 stars. That place ain't going out of business anymore. Online reviews solved a huge part of the problem for new businesses getting the word out and building trust. You don't have to open the yellow pages and tediously look thru to hopefully, but probably not find them unless you were looking specifically for the type of food they have. Now you just google "food near me" and they're going to catch your eye because they got 4.5 stars on their free listing (which the established competition has trouble swatting).
 
#148
#148
@hog88

I thought of an example....what if you look at the average SCS of your fellow Josh Groban fans and decide you don't want to be one anymore?

I doubt the system would give us that info but I'm not against people deciding to not be a fan because they realize what the other fans are like. That's why I never joined the Libertarian party : )
 
#149
#149
n_huffhines said:
@hog88

I thought of an example....what if you look at the average SCS of your fellow Josh Groban fans and decide you don't want to be one anymore?

I doubt the system would give us that info but I'm not against people deciding to not be a fan because they realize what the other fans are like. That's why I never joined the Libertarian part : )
Click to expand...

I don't have a clue who that is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: n_huffhines
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top