Can your online comments affect your credit? | Hacker News Reader

Can your online comments affect your credit?

sfgate.com

27 pointsiamelgringo26 comments

I've skipped out on this social networking craze, and now I'm really glad. Now I have to worry about the credit implications of friending that guy from high school that I never particularly liked but hey I don't want to be impolite? (Who, by the way, turns out to be a deadbeat.)

People like me have been saying that young people are going to learn that "letting it all hang out" is a mistake, but I sort of figured it would be a mistake for social reasons. I have to admit I never figured that your credit rating could be impacted. The second-order effects of that would rock the entire scene. If Facebook is wise, they will fight this, but this probably looks like a great income opportunity from their point of view.

"I've skipped out on this social networking craze, and now I'm really glad."

Until the rating agencies' statistical models decide that not being on Facebook is correlated with high credit risk...

While I agree that is some worthy snark and I am chuckling, I would point out that for at least the forseeable future it is very likely to be the other way around, due to the fact that young people have worse credit scores (if for no other reason they've had no time to build them up) and Facebook will correlate with younger people for a while yet. (Certainly older people are on there; I said "correlate", not "be solely occupied by".)

So would you join Facebook, etc., if and when being on it is more likely to raise your credit rating than lower it?

There isn't much I could do to raise my current credit score without becoming fabulously wealthy, so, no. A hypothetical other me might consider it, but... remember, it's not just "being on it" or "not being on it", it's who you are friends with. The real problem isn't the direct effect on your credit score, the real problem is that if you're even thinking about your credit score when considering who to be friends with it distorts the entire experience, possibly to the point of ruining it. The net effect of everyone thinking about that is going to change the dynamics in a generally unpleasant way.

"... Until the rating agencies' statistical models decide that not being on Facebook is correlated with high credit risk ..."

Believable.

If you don't define your online presence you risk being defined by someone else. The worst case, identity theft or at best some reported or leaked half-truth bit of information leaked from someone else. The key point is control over your online persona ~ http://seldomlogical.com/2009/08/20/digital-doppelgangers

If you don't have an online presence, it must mean you have something to hide...

There are a couple of ways this information may be applied. It can help creditors promote certain products, cutting down on marketing waste. Why sent pre-approval letters to people not interested, right?

Does this mean I can send one tweet that says "I do not want any credit card offers, unsolicited calls, spam, junk mail, etc." and be done with it? Sign me up!

I hate how opaque the whole idea of credit is.

There should be some kind of score for "general financial responsibility" (based on income, spending, investment, bank account info), not "borrows a bunch of money and pays it off reliably."

Right now, I have a little bit of debt, and about 10X that amount in savings, and everyone's told me to pay the debt off over time because it looks good. So that's what I'm doing, even though I hate the idea of having to pay interest.

My dad has even had trouble securing loans since he paid his mortgage off.

That's not what credit scores are for though.

Imagine that you're going to be lending money with interest. What does your ideal customer look like? Someone who just pays you back a month later? No, because you're not getting much interest from them. Someone who has trouble making payments? No, too much risk of losing what you lend. Ideally, you want someone who consistently carries debt and pays it off slowly.

There's also the matter of "handling debt well" not being the same thing as "general financial responsibility". While you might intend to pay it back quickly, that's not something the lender can just assume, and if you've never carried significant debt over a period of time they can't judge how you'll react if (for some reason) you can't pay it off quickly as you intended.

There's also the issue of wondering why someone who's rarely carried debt wants credit--what changed to make them need it, and how does that impact the risk of lending to them?

Short version: credit scores aren't really about you personally. They're about roughly estimating whether lending money to you would be profitable.

So what about real-life? If I'm hanging out in public with some shady characters can a credit agency ding my report or 'worthiness' based on that activity? It's in public just like my Twitter posts so what would be the difference?

This really should be illegal if it's true, and I'm not certain of even that based on this one article. Would be nice to see some sources/corroborating evidence.

Did you look at the company mentioned in the article, Rapleaf?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapleaf

http://www.rapleaf.com/offers/free_screening

While they don't come out and specifically say they offer credit screening services, it's certainly a short jump from what they do advertise.

Fake edit: In fact, I'm wrong, they do advertise it. Rapleaf directly links to a similar story from November:

http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/lucas-conley/advertising-bra...

If you look at their "products":

http://www.rapleaf.com/products

They're basically a data-mining company...

How do they know they have the right person?

Seems sort of like having a no-fly list based on name and putting someone named Ali on it... Even if it seemed legit to use this sort of info (which I don't), the potential for incorrect info seems significant.

The term "identity theft" now also includes having someone make a Facebook account with your name...

Sadly it's not too different from the current situation where the activities of people with similar names in your area can sometimes sneak into your credit report.

How do they know they have the right person?

What makes you think they necessarily care? If they're accurate enough most of the time, that's good enough for their purposes. Negative impacts on individuals isn't something they have any particular reason to care about.

Is this really surprising? Of course a bank is going to check up to see if it can get any easy-dirt on you, and if you have a half-dozen comments over the last year that you're barely making your existing card payments then it's really your own fault.

If people dislike this behaviour by banks, there are banking regulations that can regulate this behaviour. Alternatively, you could just maintain a good online-image like most people try in the real world.

I've been online since I can remember, and I knew from an early age to keep anonymity and privacy online. Why mature adults haven't figured this out is beyond me.

The article notes that your credit will be affected (negatively or positively) simply by facebook "friending" the right or wrong people.

That's hardly the same as having posted 'I am intending to default on my loan.'

You'd better hope that these automated scanners can detect quotes.

(S)He's doomed; (s)he used apostrophes instead of the proper double quotes. Now (s)he's both going to default and uses bad grammar, definitely bad for your rating.

Now (s)he's both going to default and uses bad grammar, definitely bad for your rating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphrys_law

Oh, I've long since given up on worrying about that.

Besides, this doesn't count. It's a humorous grammar correction.

I thought the error served only to add to the humor :-)

I probably have the best financial habits of any of my friends.

Which, by this logic, somehow makes me a credit risk.

If the statistical models show the diamonds in the rough who are responsible people in the midst of irresponsible people don't tend to default then no, not necessarily.

The article merely says the information is being looked at. What each credit rating agency will find to be significant predictors is an entirely separate decision.

Should your online comments affect your credit?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com