Back then, I tweeted[1] in utter disbelief when the CEO openly claimed that their app secretly downloads all your contacts to contact them when the borrower fails to pay. That seem like one of their under-writing clause.
Why would this be considered unethical, while not paying back would not be considered theft? If I were to lend someone some money, the deadline should be agreed upon and I would adjust it at the request of the borrower once or twice. I would also tolerate a delay of a few months, or a maybe a year, depending on the situation. But I would be pretty pissed off if they defaulted after that.
The idea that they pay back in social credit seems like a good solution to prevent this from happening again with others.
So you get that not paying it back is not theft, yet you think the behavior outlined in the article is ethical?
There's so many layers of unethicality it's insane.
The idea that these people's privacy is being invaded to such a degree their entire social graph is stored on these servers, the fact these people understand what they're doing is bad insofar as to say they stopped but continue anyways, the kinds of terms these loans provide with such flimsy "collateral", the use of intimidation to resolve a debt?, the psychological effects of treating people like these companies are?
> The idea that they pay back in social credit seems like a good solution to prevent this from happening again with others.
Did you read the article?
(Ignoring the ridiculous of acting like it's some altruistic endeavor to try and "save others" from getting taking advantage of...)
It doesn't even prevent it from happening to them let alone someone else!
They go through these people's contacts, start harassing them and their acquaintances, and the people still end up not paying, and in fact they end up inviting people who actively plan to game their "collateral" with false info.
Not paying back when you have the capacity to do so is theft.
I don't agree with the harassment this company is doing, that's unethical. I just agree with the general idea that social pressure can be an effective measure to make loans working. How to implement that in practice should take in consideration a lot of exceptions and corner cases.
No, it's breach of contract, not theft. The lenders gave the money voluntarily (expecting more money in return), it wasn't taken from them. It's obviously not theft.
I honestly don’t understand people who think it’s fair or right to ruin someone’s life just because you have power over them. It’s also possible to be kind, and generous, and those usually repay greater dividends than any interest rate.
I've also given away lage amounts of money - not as loans - over the years without the expectation of being repaid, so it's not a question of generosity.
Simply put, it is not OK to promise someone to payback within X time and not do it. If you are not sure you would be able to pay back, make it clear upfront. If something out of your control happens, it's OK. I agree with you that in that case we should be nice to each other and help each other.
Also I'm not considering interest rates here, just paying back the loan as is.
I would always expect myself to repay a loan, on or ahead of time.
I don’t expect the same of others, however - I think most people, when taking a loan, expect and intend to pay it back - but life is not predictable, and their circumstances change.
The thing is, being chased over a small amount of money is enough to ruin someone’s life, at least in the here and now - I’ve seen people in desperate situations due to debt, and I don’t mean penury, I mean guilt, remorse, feelings of failure.
So, for me, it’s just not worth it. If someone pays me back, which has happened, then I’m happy, but I’ll never pursue a debt. They know they owe me. That’s enough. Don’t need to go piling the guilt on.
In terms of how this is transferrable to reality, it’d be interesting to see how incentives rather than disincentives might work in a lending situation.
I haven't been in a desperate need for a loan, nor seen people feeling the guilt of failing to pay back, so it's hard for me to relate. It's helpful to learn about it.
> it’d be interesting to see how incentives rather than disincentives might work in a lending situation
What kind of incentives might work here? I thought about a public trust score (some kind of "karma") that is attributed to people if they pay back succussfully. Not sure how well it would work in practice.
I suppose the problem arises when you start trying to arbitrate good and bad, and who gets to be that arbiter. If you boil it away to purely a system for rewarding actions around financial credit, then you have... credit scores.
Riskier lenders are more likely to default so they get a higher interest rate to compensate for the risk. A lot of these people shouldn't be allowed to get a loan they can't pay back in the first place. If you are using an alternative form of collateral such as "social credit" then you are doing so with the intention of making it easier for people to get a loan even when it is certain they can't pay it back with money alone.
The shaming is no longer a result of personal failure. The shaming is now the cause of failure.
Think about it this way. The maximum amount of money you can pay back over 3 years is $3000 but you also have a reputation that is worth paying $500 for to preserve it. So the maximum you can borrow is $3500. The bank will accept the loan but you can't actually get the required amount. From a business perspective the bank is paying your debt in exchange for a very odd form of labor. It's just one step removed from indentured servitude.
If one believes in the free market, shouldn’t one also believe that bad lenders who give out risky loans should face the risk of not getting repaid?