Hacker News Reader

Comment by proc0 | Hacker News Reader

> That will allow companies to black list you across the internet

Thus giving full control of people to private entities that are increasingly not held accountable by anything or anyone.

Why would we want a private entity, not elected by the people, to decide our morality? Enforcing morality is dangerous and arguably immoral since it uses force to align people's thinking, which treats everyone like children that are learning instead of adults with freewill.

View on HN

Like the credit bureaus? Seems like they've been doing this for decades already.

Yeah pretty much I think. We're definitely there as far as financial institutions, I just hope we're not on our way there with the communication and social institutions (increasingly dominated by the Internet).

Credit bureaus are also highly regulated

Yes. I don't like how people make credit bureaus into some kind of magical demon because they collect credit history. In many (most?) countries, there are legislated monopolies (or oligopoly) for credit histories. This is intentional. And they are strictly regulated to provide essential information to banks and other institutions that provide credit.

This is very different. Credit bureaus are amoral. They're just gathering data and doing math.

GP is talking about a world where you can't shop on Amazon because you committed wrongthink on Twitter.

Oh Amazon will take your money, you just won’t be able to write product reviews

That's a naive view of credit bureaus. There are value judgments in there throughout the stack. You can't get a job because you didn't pay off a medical debt. You can't get a mortgage because you don't have the right history of past debt (for example, if you're too young).

The judgement happens from the employer or banker, not the credit bureau.

No, as long as you are paying I don't see that problem. Its only when you are getting "free" services were you are a product and not a costumer. People forget that corporations are there to make money and nothing else. All the rest is little more than theater. The reason that Twitter, Facebook, etc. bans you is because advertisers don't want to put money on the places you are because you are problematic. What's the use of you for YouTube as a content creator if they have to demonetize your channel because add buyers don't like you? Say Alex Jones for example. He is nothing but a cost to them, and on top of that, it gives them bad publicity all over the place. This is the bottom line, these are private corporations managing a private business trying to make money, the rest is just a lot of hot air and click bait created by other business that want to push outrage and controversy because it's what gets the more clicks.

How do credit bureaus "enforce morality"? I think the point is that the effect of a bad credit rating is much more limited than a universal blackout on the internet. In fact strictly more limited, to the extent that many creditors rely on social media in making their decisions.

I strongly disagree. Bad credit (sometimes even wrongly attributed) can block you from jobs, mobile plans, bank accounts, credit/debit cards, renting, etc. I'd rather be blocked from Facebook than be told I can't rent an apartment or be disqualified from a job.

This is a symptom of society thinking that social media is a necessity and somehow equivalent to the real world. It's not.

This seems like it was a defensible statement in 2001 or maybe even 2011, but in 2021 I think it's hard to defend.

Is it necessary?

Well - for many people literally the only way they communicate with their friends is in group chats on social media platforms. Losing that leads to social isolation.

Is it equivalent to the real world?

Of course it isn't equivalent - as in "the same as" the real world. For many people it is much much more important since most of their life is lived via online mechanisms.

Each time I am offered a job, I go through extensive background checks, including my credit history. You wrote: "Bad credit (sometimes even wrongly attributed) can block you from jobs..." Is this really true? I have see this phrasing a few times on the Internet, but I have never once read a blog post about someone specifically being denied a job due to poor credit history.

My point: They can "check" all they like. In many places, various personal background issues are protected by labour laws.

Also, your post makes it sounds like being denied a rental apartment contract is unreasonable for someone with poor credit history. Would you rent to that person? Again: Some jurisdictions do not allow credit checks or do not allow /discrimination/ due to credit checks when renting.

I know someone who was denied a job as a luggage handler at an airline due to a failed background check (though not a credit check). But I think the credit checks may matter more for people hired in positions of power, where being in debt is something you can be blackmailed for. If there's no use of the credit check, then why do companies pay money and impose extra process?

Thank you to share your anecdata. If I might speculate... perhaps the person's background check showed a previous trust issue. Example: Recently (last 3-5 years) convicted of theft. Or dismissed from a job for theft. If the person was convicted of something unrelated to trust -- had a fight at a bar or drink driving -- it could be overlooked. (Or more charitably, if the trust issue [theft] was related to a drug addiction many years ago, and the person had received treatment, it could be overlooked.)

I agree: Many items in the background check are ridiculous. Many years ago, I worked at a company where many of the Big Shots were regular, recreational cocaine users (confirmed by juniors who went bar hopping with them once a week). All new employees were required to pass drug tests. It was absurd. In that era, even marijuana was enough to have a job offer withdrawn.

What's the alternative to a credit bureau? Determining the loan amount you are qualified for by a magic 8 ball or a person looking at how nicely you're dressed (and your gender, religion and ethnicity) and guessing? Or the second option, but they also take into account your paystubs, which makes it better but has similar issues.

That is called society. Have you ever worked in a private company? Went to a private business, like a restaurant or a shopping mall? What happens if you start insulting people and been rude and un-polite like people are in social media? You get fired or you are asked to leave. This is the reason why when you go to a new job they ask for references and call your old employers to inquire about you. The internet is going to be the same. You are going to have a reputation to protect or you are going to pay a price.

> Went to a private business, like a restaurant or a shopping mall? What happens if you start insulting people and been rude and un-polite like people are in social media?

People say "it's not worth potentially getting shot or otherwise attacked to try to get that asshole to put on a mask"

> Why would we want a private entity, not elected by the people, to decide our morality?

i got the impression from the separation of church and state that we don't generally want elected officials deciding what is or is not moral.

merely what is legal.

The separation of church and state is precisely because we DO want state laws to enforce morals.

We also want that enforcement to apply no matter what religion you have.

At least, I do.

> The separation of church and state is precisely because we DO want state laws to enforce morals.

i look forward to your support for making the tithe mandatory.

How much does your government charge you for income tax?

Right, ideally it would work that way, however shifting that over to non-elected and private entities with zero accountability is even worse. At least if government is babysitting it's partially people's fault for voting that way, but I agree even elected officials should know not to force morality on the people.

I assumed that the GP poster wasn't endorsing this...but perhaps they were?

I meant it as an observation, I'm not sure if OP was condoning it or not. Either way, that would be the reality of it, with such entities wielding so much control.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com