5 ms·

> I agree with the concept and we definitely need this. The issue, generally speaking, is that there isn't much of a business model. This is similar to one of

• david_shi 3y ago
  I think a business model that mirrors a brokerage could work. Brokers are essentially a pure middleman with very little added value outside of connecting the owner with the tenant, so the audience here is definitely worth something.
• throwawaylinux 3y ago
  > I would like to perform actual, invasive background checks on landlords. Why would a landlord sign up for that though? A rating system or history is one thing, but what additional value would a tenant have in a landlord who passes these "invasive background checks"? > - A service for employees to drug-test their employers. What's the goal there? What are the incentives? Why would employers sign up to it and why would employees especially care? The system doesn't have your real or perceived injustices because there are a few evil fat-cat employers and landlords who just need to be shown the error of their ways and/or publicly shamed about their hypocrisy and driven off. It just happens as a consequence of the incentives involved. > - A neighborhood watch app to report suspected police activity in your community. What would be the goal? Every neighborhood group I've seen significantly features discussions about crimes and police activity. As far as I can see the most use people get out of them is being alerted to speed traps.
  • raincole 3y ago
    The goal is to satisfy someone's anti-authority fetish.
    • throwawaylinux 3y ago
      I don't know, people can have a genuine desire to improve things. I wasn't trying to call that out, just wondering what they expected might come of these ideas.
    • ResearchCode 3y ago
      How is an employer or landlord an "authority"? Having the same standards for employers and landlords as they have for employees and tenants sounds like a great idea. We'd get rid of many hostile anti-employee and tenant practices quickly.
      • SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
        Employers and landlords are authorities in that they legally have rights to something a person needs: housing and income/healthcare. A landlord or employer can choose to withhold those things(maybe with some extra steps like an eviction, or a layoff, but still).
        • ResearchCode 3y ago
          In good jurisdictions they can't legally withhold those things as evictions and layoffs are strictly regulated.
  • code_duck 3y ago
    >what additional value would a tenant have in a landlord who passes these "invasive background checks"? the question is more what disincentive would a prospective tenant have leading them to not sign up with a landlord who fails the background check. I also can't imagine there would be a system where the landlord is required to sign up.
• flangola7 3y ago
  It's hilarious that people think this is absurd and not the extremely generous compromise that it actually is. In history the penalty for being a landlord was often a sharp blade or hot lead.
  • s1artibartfast 3y ago
    As it was the penalty for being a bad tenant. Probability more often than being a bad landlord.
    • flangola7 3y ago
      [flagged]
      • s1artibartfast 3y ago
        Proudly so.
        • flangola7 3y ago
          >proud to be a bad person (￣(ｴ)￣)ﾉ
    • flangola7 3y ago
      Yes but only one of those was ethically correct. No decent person loses sleep over wealthy rent seekers.
• MattGaiser 3y ago
  I am surprised that there isn't a market for more invasive checks on a lot of things, from potential dates (especially from women) to landlords to employees in sensitive positions.
  • TheSpiceIsLife 3y ago
    A Social Credit System?
  • Broken_Hippo 3y ago
    I wouldn't trust anything that background checks potential dates. I've met folks that decide their exes are "theirs" - my sister's ex harassed her and her now husband for some years, for example. (He's still not an upstanding person, just has less harassment. They have a child together, so no getting away). Some folks are abusive. There is no real catch for that. Some of the abusers won't do it until living together or married: Understandably, not all victims want to talk to random services about their experience. And worse yet, the date in question might not have that many exes, so they are going to know it is you. Similar things can happen with mental illness: It might have made the relationship rocky and contributed to the end, but you also might have enough compassion to not really want to talk about this. After all, perhaps they'd do better without the baggage of your past relationship and might have found a combination of medicines/care that works for them. (I have this: I hate my ex, but I don't actually wish them suffering) We end up with vague information on-par with a 5-point system, one that folks aren't willing to answer in some circumstances.
    • MattGaiser 3y ago
      I was thinking more credit and fingerprint criminal checks, less so reviews.
• idiotsecant 3y ago
  The whole reason that employers can make you drug test or landlord can make you submit to background checks etc is that there is a power imbalance. The idea of make them do the annoying thing is great, but without the power imbalance in your favor how do you force that?