4 ms·

It is not even close to reasonable to conclude that the Apple Card thing had anything to do with gender. There is no reason to believe that the end result was b

It is not even close to reasonable to conclude that the Apple Card thing had anything to do with gender. There is no reason to believe that the end result was because of this. Especially given all of the reports of women getting higher limits than their male spouse. This is almost as logical as concluding that vaccines cause autism.

kevingadd 7y ago
Why is gender discrimination equivalent to autism and vaccines here? There's lots of standing evidence for gender/race discrimination in finance and zero reliable evidence to support vaccines causing autism. You can come up with a better equivalence than that... People assumed gender discrimination because you had a couple with good credit scores and the woman was discriminated against by the algorithm. The only data we have indicates that it was gender. Of course there could be some other reason, but the obvious conclusion we have based on the information we've got is gender.
- givinguflac 7y ago
  My wife has a 3x higher limit on her Apple Card and better credit than I. Gender has nothing to do with it, it's just a new hate on Apple train.
- lawnchair_larry 7y ago
  It’s ridiculous because there is no evidence, just misinformed anecdotes. There is no field for gender on the application. The “equivalent” factors cited (income, credit score) are all irrelevant for credit limit decisions, which are primarily based on previous revolving credit usage. Given that DHH owns basecamp as an LLC, and not a corporation - known as a disregard entity for tax purposes - means he is likely putting all business expenses on revolving credit cards, which would create a massive disparity. That’s just one of many plausible explanations. DHH didn’t even understand that he is not in fact in a community property state - although this wouldn’t have been relevant either. And there are many counter-examples that our confirmation bias doesn’t seem to be interested in: https://mobile.twitter.com/jimcopus/status/1193733746614128640 https://mobile.twitter.com/jimcopus/status/11937337466141286... Furthermore, Goldman issued a public statement confirming that they reviewed the complaints and they are not using gender as a parameter. This would be trivial for an investigator to confirm, so it’s unlikely that they’d be stupid enough to outright lie about it. Jumping to the worst possible conclusion based on a twitter anecdote is not helpful to anybody.

kevingadd 7y ago

Why is gender discrimination equivalent to autism and vaccines here? There's lots of standing evidence for gender/race discrimination in finance and zero reliable evidence to support vaccines causing autism. You can come up with a better equivalence than that... People assumed gender discrimination because you had a couple with good credit scores and the woman was discriminated against by the algorithm. The only data we have indicates that it was gender. Of course there could be some other reason, but the obvious conclusion we have based on the information we've got is gender.

givinguflac 7y ago
My wife has a 3x higher limit on her Apple Card and better credit than I. Gender has nothing to do with it, it's just a new hate on Apple train.
lawnchair_larry 7y ago
It’s ridiculous because there is no evidence, just misinformed anecdotes. There is no field for gender on the application. The “equivalent” factors cited (income, credit score) are all irrelevant for credit limit decisions, which are primarily based on previous revolving credit usage. Given that DHH owns basecamp as an LLC, and not a corporation - known as a disregard entity for tax purposes - means he is likely putting all business expenses on revolving credit cards, which would create a massive disparity. That’s just one of many plausible explanations. DHH didn’t even understand that he is not in fact in a community property state - although this wouldn’t have been relevant either. And there are many counter-examples that our confirmation bias doesn’t seem to be interested in: https://mobile.twitter.com/jimcopus/status/1193733746614128640 https://mobile.twitter.com/jimcopus/status/11937337466141286... Furthermore, Goldman issued a public statement confirming that they reviewed the complaints and they are not using gender as a parameter. This would be trivial for an investigator to confirm, so it’s unlikely that they’d be stupid enough to outright lie about it. Jumping to the worst possible conclusion based on a twitter anecdote is not helpful to anybody.