261 karma · joined August 15, 2018
I mean, what was it?
Was it a test?
Then why make it so public and high profile?
I mean; what the heck was Jack thinking? The whole thing was a confusing mess that at best will be forgotten.
It's very strange to see a CEO of a 11 digit public company put something out there like that.
Got it. Or do you mean spelling out what a debt trap is? Is that 'scientific literacy'.
The arrogance of those who want to restrict others is so obvious: You think people are incapable of taking care of themselves. Then you think yourself capable of knowing whats best for them. While simultaneously talking about science. And disregarding people who actually were poor and went through those things. And ignoring the points being made, without giving counter points.
You didn't answer what happens when you remove this lender of last resort? I thought a 'scientifically' minded person such as yourself would be interested in digging for the truth.
LOL if you think that fly's in today's legal landscape. I'm sure every VC will be happy to host a place where underage kids can hook up for underage sex. lol
But your post is filled with vague notions of what other people should do and no real word things like cost, except for measuring it as 'not unreasonable'... based off your own ideas. With no cost benefit.
Whatever down sides that has apparently can be brushed aside because "there are already laws and courts for that" - Can you please tell me more about that? Like, there are people who are terrified their sexuality is revealed and they might be killed for it. So when it does, exactly how do those courts work? Or do you mean to punish people once the leak has happens and the person is killed. If so, can you please make an estimate of how much damage your system will create vs the 15 cases reported in the news article?
Also, like for someone who was being unfaithful, when her abusive husband finds out and kills her, exactly how did the courts prevent that info from getting leaked? Like all the leaks that happen?
You also seem to suggest this should not happen on say, instagram or facebook, only tinder and grinder. But the article specifically states instagram (unless you didn't read it). So, should instagram be free of this requirement? And if so, what answer do you have for people on your band (who want ID) but who want ALSO it for instagram also. I'm sure they use the 'not unreasonable' argument too. After all, putting in all this stuff to save 7/15 kids over the last 5 years... well, is the cost/benefit change?
I'm truly interested in well thought out solutions. Yours, while having good intentions, seems to fail that test.
But it was lacking any depth.
It seemed one sided. But I can't even call it that. It didn't even give a side. It was more like... hearsay with a single interview, probably on the phone, with 1 person on the ground. Even then, they could have published the interview for some depth. But not even that. Hell, probably browsing local facebook groups/reddits or calling their local municipality/college associations you could find more information with a few hours of free time. It's... surreal in terms of how shallow it was.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I'd fully expect a tabloid to publish trash rag stuff, but... I'm seeing it more now in major publications, and even oddly shared on sites like this.
I'm just... I just find it odd.
Exactly what do you define as 'dating site'? Craigslist has a dating section.
Please, you have suggestions, I'll be glad to reconsider my position in favor of reasonable suggestions that are based on a well thought out position.
Also, please let me know about how we are going to deal with leaks.
Like, when X person's sexuality is leaked and he/she is beaten to death for it or maybe for an infidelity (and you know those things get hacked/leaked), who do we apply for remuneration to? How many people do you think that will be? And why do those people not count vs the 15 kids in 5 years?
I'm truly open to solutions. I don't think they could possibly justify the tiny issue (statistically) that would probably not be fully mitigated by the solution anyway, but... I'm open. The burden is on you, who wishes to make changes, to prove that the change that you wish is preferable than the situation we have.
And that is great; there are clearly good things that will come.
But there are also bad things will come with that.
Ignoring that second part makes your post seem shallow and not very well thought out.
This parent isn't understanding that there are cost benefits and diminishing returns. We already filter kids from such platforms and it works to 99.999%, so exactly where should it be? And at what cost?
This parent is also filled with innuendo, seemingly unable to make points that stand on their own with actual dialectics.
The thing is, logical people when they read about 3 deaths per year don't propose applying the same social burden as to avoid 100,000.
You ask questions, but don't answer. How about addressing the fact that a comparison of something that costs 88,000 lives to 3/year is grossly out of line? How about you write out exactly what you propose instead of innuendos? Maybe include pros and cons without any hand waving? You know, dealing with those details you seem to support.
Using reason means understanding 3 < 88,000. It's not opinion. That's logic.
I didn't say you were inferior. I said you were emotive and didn't use reason: if you can't handle such a call out, then you might not have a place in a serious discussion. We've all been there; having taken unreasonable stances. Whether you choose to stay there is your choice.
How about addressing privacy concerns for LGBT?
How about you answering questions on margin of error improvement based on the proposed changes? After all, you are the one proposing new things; the burden to prove your new solutions good is on you. Not that you have shown any desire of understanding this burden of proof thing. Asking for changes WHILE requesting others prove your numbers... it shows such a lack of understanding of how dialectics work. Reverse burden of proof isn't opinion, again, that is fact; you are wanting a change that you are asking others to prove/disprove.
Your opinion on inappropriate behavior is, as you used to put my perspective down, just that, your opinion. Last, you telling me what to do is... laughably authoritarian.
From my understanding it's an article about a family owned business supplying coal for a newly launched coal power plant in a remote Alaskan college town.
There were 4 quotes from the article: 1- From a representative of the college (good) 2- From an analyst who did not participate in this situation making a report that is totally unrelated to this news piece 3- From an analyst commenting on the news piece 4- From the company's website
There were no interviews with the residents. Nothing about the business supplying the coal. No comments from students. No mention of town halls or different sides.
Am I just becoming an old crabby guy or was this... lacking something?
They reverse the burden of proof.
If they find an issue, they point it out and imply that there is a solution that people don't want to take.
They don't consider any nuances: magnitude, scale, proportions, cost/benefit, margins of error, the concept of diminishing returns, game theory, etc. Hell, half the time they will comment without even reading an article. They just read title and then pull out a speech based on the topic of the title.
Instead of them having to advocate for their position with pros and cons and facts, they put you on the defensive with innuendo, distorted comparisons and other sophist techniques.
Don't take the loan shark desperate option, accept homelessness/bankruptcy instead of trying to stay afloat. Then you can try and work up from there because it is easier.
I honestly can't believe you want to make the lender of last resort worse for poor people in an effort to get them to hit rock bottom so they can then climb.
I might have had a hard time in life (I've actually taken out short term loans to stay afloat) and I might have an attitude from it, but I can tell you have little compassion for those who were in my situation; so you'll have to excuse the fact that this is personal. A 19 year old me would have been homeless with people like you. I actually am happy I wasn't. I'm happy there are 'exploitative capitalists' and not just 'warm hearted well wishers' up on high horses.
The chip will hold all our info.
Then when we want to do something on the internet or IRL, a computer will read our chip and we will use the system.
It will have... no abuse or secondary consequences.
But it will perfectly protect minors from getting on dating sites.
I wonder what other historical characters/political systems would love such a system?
Alcohol is responsible 88,000 deaths per year.
You are literally comparing something with 0-10 deaths per year (if that) to almost 100,000 deaths per year. That type of grotesquely disproportionate comparison is part of 'outrage' culture. It's something I dislike and have no trouble calling people out on.
Not a single cost/benefit analysis. No consideration of the cost, just a wave of the hand (they will bear it). No discussion even of what type of age verification should be or any pros and cons.
The fact that tinder has revolutionized sexuality for a generation is... or made dating safer for women... or made dating safer for LGBT in places where it can be dangerous to date as an LGBT... better bury that in bureaucracy.
No care about privacy.
Doesn't matter if over regulation just pushes people to less regulated platforms like online classifieds, maybe hosted in a non-us country.
If you don't seem to consider the consequences of laws, or even the fact that the logic you use is based on grotesquely unbalanced comparisons, I see little possibility for dialectics.
Put on today's news/put up today's newspaper/generate a unique, time sensitive code the person needs to write down and display, have them take a picture while holding up ID and the date proof using a live webcam.
But when authoritarian people want other people to do things, they generally don't think about how much effort it takes, or if it does take effort it is brushed off as if nothing with no concept of cost benefit. It's easy when you just shift the burden of proof by making vague insinuating statements to appeal to the majority of the population which is highly emotive.
It clearly states that tinder and grinder already monitor for minors. They state that they spend, and I'm guessing this wouldn't be an exaggeration given their volume, millions of dollars on this effort.
What lawmakers want is ID required.
This is an extremely burdensome requirement. To have every new user of any online platform have to verify photo ID against a webcam is... very onerous. And even then whats to stop a kid from using his parents confirmed account?
Alcohol is a transaction for a substance that is deadly and purchased in public. Comparing it to creating an online profile in the privacy of your home is a big stretch. It would be more like creating an account with... I don't know, maybe buying a can of figs off amazon.
Can a child buy a can of figs without ID? Not easily, but he could. Could he hurt himself with it? Yes. Should we require ID for this: I'd say not.
The article seems to not mention any of the age verification things the kids forged and their parents computer. But don't worry, if it was convenient for the powers that be, they would have framed this as: "Evil kids get into banking system by HACKING."
Funny how I'm sure they won't be asking Amazon to verify ID everytime a purchase is made. I mean, plenty of kids have ordered down right dangerous things this way, probably even caused a death.
The worst part of the authoritarian inclined who use the 'what about the children?' argument is that many times they ironically make it less safe for children since the solutions aren't particularly well thought through (see drinking age in the US) - all while making it worse for the rest of us.
The thing about the outrage crowd is they point to a problem with while implicitly saying 'anyone who doesn't support 'the solution' is in favor of the problem'. I'm not in favor of the problem. I'm in favor of fixing the problem IF it can be fixed in a cost effective way. Many people can't accept that there aren't widespread easy and simple solutions to giant complex social problems. Accepting that this behavior is an emergent quality from our individual actions and pruning one's own actions is very hard. Most people shy from this and look for externalizations.
But that doesn't stop making them a service.
Listen, if you could figure out how to charge even 40% yearly interest on a $100 one week loan (i.e. you'll make $0.7 gross) then you should do it and offer a better service.
Restricting people from accessing the service because you read some outrage entertainment (the news) is not good. To be clear, that is what this law did.
It's like lottery. It's basically a tax on the poor. I hate it. But if it was overly regulated, we'd see the numbers racket come up again. And personally, I prefer regulated markets over black markets.
And to be clear; I think lottery should be further regulated by limiting advertising, and even creating an opt out system for problem gamblers. But if a legislation was passed that had those elements WITH elements that would drive the industry underground, I'd 100% be against it.
Quote by someone.
I support one part of the legislation (limiting debits to user accounts).
I don't support another part of the legislation that would basically create a regulatory burden that would make payday lending more akin to credit cards.
As a thinking person, I research what I support and don't.
I look into whether what I support will actually help. This should apply doubly if I'm supporting congress to limit someone else's freedom to associate and engage in 'in state commerce'.
I'm supporting something based on my own personal experience.
Details matter. Let's not keep it at the level some people seem to not be able to get past: "pay day loan bad, people suffer, make illegal, people not suffer". This requires two assumptions: 1- all/the vast majority of pay day users are suffering because of they are stupid and NEED your smart help and 2: no one will offer pay day loans illegally and collect with a bat.
The new laws would have removed 90% of the industry, including my ability to have participated.
I fully supported the limitation of debiting end user accounts, which was part of the legislation.
I'm completely against the need to 'verify someone can pay'... which I read as basically requiring credit scores. Which again, don't really protect people as they have little to do with your ability to pay (just your previous history of payment)
I'm seeing this as filled with details that need to be considered and making decisions to support or oppose based on that.
But please, don't let details or getting to know what you are talking about get in the way of your decision to support something or not.
So tell me, oh wise one; how do you deal with people who need a lender of last resort?
I mean, in your kind, humanitarian and knowledgeable opinion that takes into consideration the reality of people with cash flow issues?
I think you need to look up the word scam. Then use words based on the dictionary definition of them the way the rest of us do. It helps in communicating when people use a dictionary to define words instead of the thoughts in their head.
Even IF that is true.
What do you get by regulating out of existence?
It stops?
Or it goes underground.
Think marijuana. What happened when legal? What happened when illegal?
I'm not saying don't regulate. I'm saying don't regulate it to death where only 3-4 big companies can operate in the space and then play oligopoly games.
Paying $200 in fees and stuff over 12 months on a $50 loan IS 400%. Just like an overdraft fee of $50 on a $10 charge could be touted in the papers as 500% interest.
Is there stuff to be cleaned up? Absolutely. Did this bill do it? No. It was restrictive.
I actually think this is something better suited for states to decide. And that is what is happening now.
Hmm... what guarantees mob option will stop existing? That's what's happened with drugs. Drugs are easily available.
Or are you suggesting creating another lender of last resort?
I'm sorry, I'm not sure your offering a solution. It seems what is offered is a blind restriction to satiate your own feelings of 'protecting others'. Like we've done with drugs. It doesn't work because it doesn't address the problem, just the symptom. It's arrogant and short sighted.
OMG. Ok. Personally I'm happy my payday lender wouldn't murder me like a drug dealer would. But.. I guess that's preferable? I'm at such a loss.
BTW, Don Vitto says thank you from the deepest part of his heart.
Let's see, who else does that... banks.
How? a credit score. Which has nothing to do with being able to pay truly pay long term or be sustainable. Some poor people have good credit. Some rich people have bad. It's... messy.
But please don't let the details of what you support actually alter what you support in name.
BTW, if the rules were only targeting continuation fees (i.e. multiple debit restriction part), I'd 100% support them. Remember, your talking to someone who has been there, done that.
I'm not against all legislation. I'm against privileged people sitting on a high horse, looking down on 'the commoners' and telling them what they need.
I personally would not have qualified under the new regulations when I took the loans.
I feel like I'm talking to someone who has good health wanting to ban sneezing instead of helping the sick. And you are talking to someone who has been sick.
Some people just don't listen to those who suffer: they only have an ear for authority.
I don't drink. Drunk people act stupid. Let's ban alcohol. It'll be great. Prove to me it won't!
Oh, you enjoy alcohol responsibly? That's just anecdotal. Not like MY anecdotal evidence, I see drunks everywhere... everyone knows that. And they are all alcoholics who are depraved by predatory beer companies.
My anecdotal evidence is good and corroborated by my tribe. And you must prove me wrong, despite the fact that I'm the one making statements like we need to regulate something.
Oh, and of course, once we ban it, no mafia guy is going to start offering it in a sketchy way... there's NO WAY that will happen in a low class neighborhood because we really take care of our poor. I have this all planned out. Going with my gut to make emotive detached decisions instead of dealing with the grit of reality is so nice. /s
I grew up poor in the 3rd world. Loan sharks, prostitutes, druggies... that's part of life there.
Honestly, your judging something from a certain position that's pretty obviously removed from ever really being needing money (in poor areas there are a options to get money, restricting those would be blessing to the illegal loan sharks that already operate in most desperate places)
I have to say, if you really ever were in such a situation, you'd be advocating not for restrictions, but for options.
Saying we should restrict it because it can be bad... well you should be arguing about restricting alcohol then... there are plenty of alcoholics. Maybe also restrict driving. And fatty foods. And salt. Maybe sugar? Keep at it.
The critics are 100% right. Sorry to say, but it seems you are annoyed at the sneezing, not REALLY caring about the sick.
It saved me.
If it wasn't there, if it was regulated out of existence; I'd have gone to a shark. I was not going to let cash flow cause me failing.
Having said that, I'm very happy there was a lender of last resort that won't break my legs. Despite them screwing me in fees.
Honestly, I've never understood people who suffer from legislitis:
They see a population suffering so bad they get desperate and do something bad to get relief from their suffering.
The population that isn't suffering then decides that it's too horrible to watch the population that suffers do desperate bad things to get relief.
So then they decide to: Ban the bad thing people do for relief when they are desperate. All while not ameliorating the suffering that cause the desperate bad relief efforts.
Whether it's drugs, bad lending, prostitution, whatever. If someone is desperate enough to want to get into that, why make it harder? History has shown these consenting adults are going to do it in their private property (despite the horror of those who are well off enough to not feel desperate enough to engage in such situations)
I mean, no where do they seem to be hinting at creating a government agency for lending of last resort. We already basically create money out of thin air. We COULD be lending it out at whatever usury rates, but by the government, and given equally to the whole population maybe? This could create a floor and a large enough competitor to drive the worst offenders out of business. I don't know. Just seems like there could be things done to help people. But the efforts seem focused on restricting people.