4 ms·

[Edit: no longer relevant, see replies] No it doesn't? This is the only part of the post relevant to the headline: > The second and most complex problem is tha

[Edit: no longer relevant, see replies] No it doesn't? This is the only part of the post relevant to the headline: > The second and most complex problem is that certain kinds of people, like new entrepreneurs, innovators and many informal workers might not have enough hard data available. Even a well-paid expatriate moving to the United States can be caught in the conundrum of not getting a credit card for lack of credit record, and not having a credit record for lack of credit cards. > Fintech resolves the dilemma by tapping various nonfinancial data: the type of browser and hardware used to access the internet, the history of online searches and purchases. Recent research documents that, once powered by artificial intelligence and machine learning, these alternative data sources are often superior than traditional credit assessment methods, and can advance financial inclusion, by, for example, enabling more credit to informal workers and households and firms in rural areas.

dredmorbius 6y ago
Submission is clearly editorialised, but so too, lede is clearly buried. And exceedingly difficult to extract from content as written (HN offers guidelines on improving or clarifying titles, they just don't work here). Unfortunately, this also makes metadiscussion of the submission and title dominate the thread, at least until dang cleans up. I'm pinging dang.
dang 6y ago
Submitted title was "IMF says credit score should incorporate browsing history". That was egregious editorializing. Submitters: please don't do that! Cherry-picking the most sensational detail and making that the title is definitely not ok, and fabricating something the article doesn't say is right out! https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html When a title buries the lede in favor of bland corporate rhetoric, it's fine to replace it, but you should replace it with something accurate and neutral, using representative language from the article itself. I've taken a crack at that above. If anyone can suggest a better title by these criteria, we can change it again.
- da_big_ghey 6y ago
  That wasn't intended to be editorializing or picking a sensational detail. Rather, I found that to be the most relevant point and believed that it would be most salient to HN. I certainly wouldn't call it fabrication; it explicitly states that this data could be used to qualify many people for better credit, doubtless via some credit score system or similar. I think this quote best lays out that position: > Recent research documents that, once powered by artificial intelligence and machine learning, these alternative data sources are often superior than traditional credit assessment methods, and can advance financial inclusion, by, for example, enabling more credit to informal workers and households and firms in rural areas. Where "these alternative data sources" includes digital habits such as browsing history. Edit: I would suggest "IMF researchers find that digital footprint yields better credit assessment" as an alternative. These aren't fintech data sources inherently; they've been used for advertising for years.
  - pvg 6y ago
    Rather, I found that to be the most relevant point That's what editorializing is. You can point out the thing you found salient in a comment, you can find another piece that better represents the interesting thing, etc. You can't make up the title, though.
    - da_big_ghey 6y ago
      Without "making up" a headline, and were I to have used the original headline of "What is Really New in Fintech", I would not have considered this a useful submission due to the complete lack of information conveyed by the headline. The article contained important info but the headline was meaningless, so I did my best to come up with something. I guess my first attempt fell short.
    - anothernewdude 6y ago
      No, you have to allow the source to do the editorializing, because that's so much better.
    - dredmorbius 6y ago
jimbob45 6y ago
Shouldn’t credit scores be an incentive to become a more thrifty and financially conscientious citizen? I can hardly see how knowing the hardware of my browser is going to incentivize me to spend more responsibly. I can only see this serving in the interest of banks who can grade me as a marginally safer investment. This seems to be in need of regulation. Unfortunately, Liz Warren was the biggest advocate for consumer financial protection and her state’s governor is a Republican which means she can’t have a Cabinet position because her governor would appoint a Republican to her seat and upend the current Democratic Senate majority. Seems like we’ll be walking toward a social credit system like China after all.

dredmorbius 6y ago

Submission is clearly editorialised, but so too, lede is clearly buried. And exceedingly difficult to extract from content as written (HN offers guidelines on improving or clarifying titles, they just don't work here). Unfortunately, this also makes metadiscussion of the submission and title dominate the thread, at least until dang cleans up. I'm pinging dang.

dang 6y ago

Submitted title was "IMF says credit score should incorporate browsing history". That was egregious editorializing. Submitters: please don't do that! Cherry-picking the most sensational detail and making that the title is definitely not ok, and fabricating something the article doesn't say is right out! https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html When a title buries the lede in favor of bland corporate rhetoric, it's fine to replace it, but you should replace it with something accurate and neutral, using representative language from the article itself. I've taken a crack at that above. If anyone can suggest a better title by these criteria, we can change it again.

da_big_ghey 6y ago
That wasn't intended to be editorializing or picking a sensational detail. Rather, I found that to be the most relevant point and believed that it would be most salient to HN. I certainly wouldn't call it fabrication; it explicitly states that this data could be used to qualify many people for better credit, doubtless via some credit score system or similar. I think this quote best lays out that position: > Recent research documents that, once powered by artificial intelligence and machine learning, these alternative data sources are often superior than traditional credit assessment methods, and can advance financial inclusion, by, for example, enabling more credit to informal workers and households and firms in rural areas. Where "these alternative data sources" includes digital habits such as browsing history. Edit: I would suggest "IMF researchers find that digital footprint yields better credit assessment" as an alternative. These aren't fintech data sources inherently; they've been used for advertising for years.
- pvg 6y ago
  Rather, I found that to be the most relevant point That's what editorializing is. You can point out the thing you found salient in a comment, you can find another piece that better represents the interesting thing, etc. You can't make up the title, though.
  - da_big_ghey 6y ago
    Without "making up" a headline, and were I to have used the original headline of "What is Really New in Fintech", I would not have considered this a useful submission due to the complete lack of information conveyed by the headline. The article contained important info but the headline was meaningless, so I did my best to come up with something. I guess my first attempt fell short.
  - anothernewdude 6y ago
    No, you have to allow the source to do the editorializing, because that's so much better.
  - dredmorbius 6y ago

jimbob45 6y ago

Shouldn’t credit scores be an incentive to become a more thrifty and financially conscientious citizen? I can hardly see how knowing the hardware of my browser is going to incentivize me to spend more responsibly. I can only see this serving in the interest of banks who can grade me as a marginally safer investment. This seems to be in need of regulation. Unfortunately, Liz Warren was the biggest advocate for consumer financial protection and her state’s governor is a Republican which means she can’t have a Cabinet position because her governor would appoint a Republican to her seat and upend the current Democratic Senate majority. Seems like we’ll be walking toward a social credit system like China after all.