4 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

Houshalter 10y ago
But as he said, there is no reason for them to do such policies. They just hurt the bottom line and benefit their competitors. Statistical algorithms are not prejudiced. They just want to make the most accurate predictions possible.
wyager 10y ago
Yes, this was a viable solution back in the day because there was a 90% chance (made up number, but you get the idea) that denying someone from a redlined district was a good financial choice, and it was too expensive to do a detailed analysis to determine if an applicant was in the other 10%. With the automated credit checking and statistical analysis available these days, this isn't really an issue anymore. Banks can afford to do a more detailed check of each applicant, and they will, because failing to do so would be an economic disadvantage.
- joshkpeterson 10y ago
  The example of redlining is actually a perfect rebuttal to "private individuals ought not to be accountable to anyone for their decisions." Biases can be encoded in algorithms. For example, what if data they used to build their models was biased? It's conceivable that a bank's algorithm could be racist, and still be okay for their bottom line. Just letting the market decide is not enough.
- jonathankoren 10y ago
  > Yes, this was a viable solution back in the day because there was a 90% chance (made up number, but you get the idea) that denying someone from a redlined district was a good financial choice, No That wasn't the reason why redlining existed. It existed because it was explicitly racist policy enabled directly from the National Housing Act of 1934[0] -- which was basically just codifying the existing racist attitudes of the day.[1] It stemmed from the racist idea that blacks were inherently bad neighbors in all ways you can imagine. To say this was merely a good enough heuristic, or even the result of government over reach is grossly misunderstand the historical context of these policies. These policies were not any more controversial than saying, we should not zone a preschool next to a oil refinery. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining#History [1] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case...
  - wyager 10y ago
    Your first link indicates that, as I said, the purpose of redlining was to direct wise economic decisions. Some researched (linked from wikipedia) suggests that the data may have been biased against black neighborhoods due to bias of the appraisers. It does not suggest that the purpose was to specifically screw over black people.

But as he said, there is no reason for them to do such policies. They just hurt the bottom line and benefit their competitors. Statistical algorithms are not prejudiced. They just want to make the most accurate predictions possible.

wyager 10y ago

Yes, this was a viable solution back in the day because there was a 90% chance (made up number, but you get the idea) that denying someone from a redlined district was a good financial choice, and it was too expensive to do a detailed analysis to determine if an applicant was in the other 10%. With the automated credit checking and statistical analysis available these days, this isn't really an issue anymore. Banks can afford to do a more detailed check of each applicant, and they will, because failing to do so would be an economic disadvantage.

joshkpeterson 10y ago
The example of redlining is actually a perfect rebuttal to "private individuals ought not to be accountable to anyone for their decisions." Biases can be encoded in algorithms. For example, what if data they used to build their models was biased? It's conceivable that a bank's algorithm could be racist, and still be okay for their bottom line. Just letting the market decide is not enough.
jonathankoren 10y ago
> Yes, this was a viable solution back in the day because there was a 90% chance (made up number, but you get the idea) that denying someone from a redlined district was a good financial choice, No That wasn't the reason why redlining existed. It existed because it was explicitly racist policy enabled directly from the National Housing Act of 1934[0] -- which was basically just codifying the existing racist attitudes of the day.[1] It stemmed from the racist idea that blacks were inherently bad neighbors in all ways you can imagine. To say this was merely a good enough heuristic, or even the result of government over reach is grossly misunderstand the historical context of these policies. These policies were not any more controversial than saying, we should not zone a preschool next to a oil refinery. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining#History [1] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case...
- wyager 10y ago
  Your first link indicates that, as I said, the purpose of redlining was to direct wise economic decisions. Some researched (linked from wikipedia) suggests that the data may have been biased against black neighborhoods due to bias of the appraisers. It does not suggest that the purpose was to specifically screw over black people.