3 ms·

> You say that as if it already happening makes it okay. I'm not saying "it's okay". It is what it is. I'm saying we're applying a double standard. It's like c

> You say that as if it already happening makes it okay. I'm not saying "it's okay". It is what it is. I'm saying we're applying a double standard. It's like complaining about lighting a match in the middle of a wildfire. > Because if the FTC cracks down on them then it sets a precedent to crack down on the credit agencies. That makes no sense me. They can crack down on Libra for any number of reasons. They're clearly okay with what the credit bureaus are doing right now, why wait for Facebook to come along and do the same?

godelski 7y ago
> It's like complaining about lighting a match in the middle of a wildfire. It's like complaining about lighting a match in a dry area while there is a fire somewhere in California. FTFY The analogy is bad because the match in the middle of the forest fire won't affect the fire. You're already engulfed in flames. What we're taking about is two different sectors. They are disjoint (unlike your analogy). But you can be in Oregon while it is dry and see that someone started a fire in California with a match and say to your friend "hey be careful with that match. That's how the fire started in California. We don't want that to happen here." > That makes no sense me. 1) just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's incorrect. 2) law works highly off of precedence. So one ruling affects new ones that come in. They keep try to be consistent. 3) just because people/laws are "okay" with something now doesn't mean it can't or won't change. In fact, I'd argue that's why new laws get made.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > What we're taking about is two different sectors. They are disjoint (unlike your analogy). I obviously disagree. It's the essentially the same sector (consumer finance). Some of the involved companies (Visa, Mastercard, Paypal) are core players in that sector. > 1) just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's incorrect. Indeed, it just means you failed to connect premise, analysis and conclusion to meet my personal standards for a sound argument. It might be incorrect too, but I'm not in the position to demonstrate that. > 2) law works highly off of precedence. So one ruling affects new ones that come in. They keep try to be consistent. That argument works the other way around too: It would be inconsistent to turn a blind eye to credit bureaus for all this time, but now that Facebook comes along, suddenly it's a problem? Why? Just because it's Facebook? > 3) just because people/laws are "okay" with something now doesn't mean it can't or won't change. In fact, I'd argue that's why new laws get made. Again, this argument works both ways. Just because people aren't okay with something doesn't mean it can or will change. You are not adding any new information to your argument.

godelski 7y ago

> It's like complaining about lighting a match in the middle of a wildfire. It's like complaining about lighting a match in a dry area while there is a fire somewhere in California. FTFY The analogy is bad because the match in the middle of the forest fire won't affect the fire. You're already engulfed in flames. What we're taking about is two different sectors. They are disjoint (unlike your analogy). But you can be in Oregon while it is dry and see that someone started a fire in California with a match and say to your friend "hey be careful with that match. That's how the fire started in California. We don't want that to happen here." > That makes no sense me. 1) just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's incorrect. 2) law works highly off of precedence. So one ruling affects new ones that come in. They keep try to be consistent. 3) just because people/laws are "okay" with something now doesn't mean it can't or won't change. In fact, I'd argue that's why new laws get made.

gridlockd 7y ago
> What we're taking about is two different sectors. They are disjoint (unlike your analogy). I obviously disagree. It's the essentially the same sector (consumer finance). Some of the involved companies (Visa, Mastercard, Paypal) are core players in that sector. > 1) just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's incorrect. Indeed, it just means you failed to connect premise, analysis and conclusion to meet my personal standards for a sound argument. It might be incorrect too, but I'm not in the position to demonstrate that. > 2) law works highly off of precedence. So one ruling affects new ones that come in. They keep try to be consistent. That argument works the other way around too: It would be inconsistent to turn a blind eye to credit bureaus for all this time, but now that Facebook comes along, suddenly it's a problem? Why? Just because it's Facebook? > 3) just because people/laws are "okay" with something now doesn't mean it can't or won't change. In fact, I'd argue that's why new laws get made. Again, this argument works both ways. Just because people aren't okay with something doesn't mean it can or will change. You are not adding any new information to your argument.