3 ms·

To me it's insane how popular surveillance pricing is in discussions on HN. I think that so far it is the pinnacle of useless rent-seeking from the tech-finance

by tavavex 3mo ago

To me it's insane how popular surveillance pricing is in discussions on HN. I think that so far it is the pinnacle of useless rent-seeking from the tech-finance alliance. Bit by bit eliminating the 'inefficiency' of people not giving companies the last few cents they have remaining. Evil. At first I was quick to assume that the proponents of these schemes work in adtech, data harvesting and processing companies, or are just extremely rich and poised to become the beneficiaries of all the surveillance. But so many people are bringing up things like regional pricing for poor countries, coupons or other types of discount that it makes me feel like they think this will benefit them. Are we really about to fall for the 'if you just let us track you, you will be rewarded!' scheme all over again? Did we forget when credit scores were promised to provide anything positive to the customers, but instead became exclusively a way to punish the worst offenders? You don't get anything from a good credit score anymore. Or what about letting your car insurance company track your movements under the promise of discounts which quickly turned into the promise of a lack of a punitive rate hike if you drive well? Giving you a good deal is not profitable. Whatever mind tricks you think you'll be able to play under a surveillance pricing regime will not work. They will always be three steps ahead of you.

pc86 3mo ago
Let's take your credit score example for a second. There's a similar argument elsewhere here but why do you think the 800+ credit score loan rate (let's say $500/mo for the sake of argument) is the base rate, and anyone paying more than $500/mo is getting screwed? Is it not equally likely that the default is the highest payment there is? Obviously reality is probably somewhere in the middle.
- tavavex 3mo ago
  I think that because I've not seen anything that requires an 800+ credit score anywhere. I'm not saying it doesn't exist whatsoever, but by far the most common way to set credit score-based incentives that I see is that there's a really low bar, probably in the 600s or the low 700s, where you get the 'standard' rate or are allowed to apply for some service, etc. Having a better score doesn't improve the deal for you, all you need is to just clear the extremely low bar. You're either OK and get treated like everyone else, or you're not and you get penalized. That's what makes me think that this rate is the default, there's no rewards for getting a higher score anymore. And it makes sense from the lender perspective too - credit scores are ubiquitous now, you don't need to lose money by giving your customers sweet deals and rewards to get them into the credit scheme. Everyone must have a credit score now to exist in society, so why would they spend money on these loss-leaders?
- tancop 3mo ago
  credit scores reflect default risk to the lender, at least in theory. it might not be the best possible model but people with a history of paying on time will probably keep doing it. in retail the only risk is stealing or bad behavior inside the store, and there is no way to estimate that risk for an individual person who never had an incident before. all a store can do is use population models that are effectively open race/sex/ethnic/wealth discrimination, as in "Black customers steal more on average so we charge them more to compensate" or "East Asian women are willing to spend more on cosmetics so we raise the price for them". if you believe that should be legal then you support the most harmful form of racism that exist today.

by tavavex 3mo ago

pc86 3mo ago

Let's take your credit score example for a second. There's a similar argument elsewhere here but why do you think the 800+ credit score loan rate (let's say $500/mo for the sake of argument) is the base rate, and anyone paying more than $500/mo is getting screwed? Is it not equally likely that the default is the highest payment there is? Obviously reality is probably somewhere in the middle.

tavavex 3mo ago
I think that because I've not seen anything that requires an 800+ credit score anywhere. I'm not saying it doesn't exist whatsoever, but by far the most common way to set credit score-based incentives that I see is that there's a really low bar, probably in the 600s or the low 700s, where you get the 'standard' rate or are allowed to apply for some service, etc. Having a better score doesn't improve the deal for you, all you need is to just clear the extremely low bar. You're either OK and get treated like everyone else, or you're not and you get penalized. That's what makes me think that this rate is the default, there's no rewards for getting a higher score anymore. And it makes sense from the lender perspective too - credit scores are ubiquitous now, you don't need to lose money by giving your customers sweet deals and rewards to get them into the credit scheme. Everyone must have a credit score now to exist in society, so why would they spend money on these loss-leaders?
tancop 3mo ago
credit scores reflect default risk to the lender, at least in theory. it might not be the best possible model but people with a history of paying on time will probably keep doing it. in retail the only risk is stealing or bad behavior inside the store, and there is no way to estimate that risk for an individual person who never had an incident before. all a store can do is use population models that are effectively open race/sex/ethnic/wealth discrimination, as in "Black customers steal more on average so we charge them more to compensate" or "East Asian women are willing to spend more on cosmetics so we raise the price for them". if you believe that should be legal then you support the most harmful form of racism that exist today.