3 ms·
How is this not an edge case of discrimination? Isn't this saying you are guilty by association? I see this as an infringement on my civil liberties. This fa
by namank 15y ago
How is this not an edge case of discrimination?
Isn't this saying you are guilty by association? I see this as an infringement on my civil liberties.
This fails to take into account the element of CHANGE. Change that is as much a function of time as it is of a person's choice and circumstance.
The idea may succeed; hell, it WILL succeed given the nature of financial institutions and the online social infrastructure that exists today but it will be an aberration in the name of progress.
- sliverstorm 15y agoHow are your civil liberties infringed by receiving a different rate from someone else? Why are you not busy protesting car insurance? Also, it's not "guilty by association", it's "risk by association".
- namank 15y agoCar insurance applies to the skill of driving. And the part mandatory by law is third party insurance. So essentially, car insurance is not for your protection, its for the person you hit. The concept of owner's insurance is so you can also pay for your own car after running into a pole - this is optional. Withholding financial goods from a person based on their social interaction is different from suspending their driver's licence because money is a need and is directly related to the very survival of a person. Money, in our society, is a very fundamental requirement; driving licence is not. So this idea imposes a very real threat on my very existence. And thats why its an infringement on my civil liberty. Judging a person's financial aptitude based on their social actions is dangerous. Not to mention the fact that social interaction isn't currently scientifically quantifiable and so all the conclusions you draw from the data are essentially opinions of the experimenter, nothing more.