[Jaglavak]

Ah, vintage Lounsie. Although an acquired taste, I do miss it sometimes.

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

Outlaw what? Looking at publicly available data that is published in public and drawing conclusions? I am sure that this could not in any way be an irrationally stupid and impossible to implement idea.

Yes exactly, outlaw lending decisions based on information from online social networks. Enforcement would be simple by forcing banksters to state their lending criteria in writing, and their reasons for approving or rejecting each loan application in writing. This is a revolutionary concept for you? You have operated in the opaque economies for too long.

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

Or put more accurately "I normally despise [any financial activity] because I resent money."

No no my dear Lounsie. I don't resent money, I fucking hate it. So would you, if you put a hundredth as much effort into thinking about it as you spend chasing it.

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

State banks are the route to poverty and broken economic systems.

Sorry Smartie, I must agree with Lounsie on this point. Bureacrats and politicians simply cannot be trusted with this kind of power. Especially since those same politicians can greatly influence the money supply, and are in charge of issuing government bonds. That kind of temptation would try the principles of a saint. No, the only way is to keep the banksters on a short choker chain and under a bright spotlight. Roaches run from the light.

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

If you are publishing your social life, then it is not digging. Period. And if you want someone else's money to fund yourself, well then yes, you have to play by the persons lending requirements.

If the banksters want to play in my economy, well then yes, they will have to play by the legal requirements that we the people enact. I should think this is simple enough so even you can understand.

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

The use of social data is as old as lending itself. Unvetted, the average person is a terrible credit risk (as the failure of first iterations of "Peer to Peer" lending showed - people are lying thieves in general and happy to run away with other peoples money if there are limited consequences).

I am in no way suggesting that borrowers should not be vetted. Nor am I suggesting that there should be no consequences for not repaying loans. But the key point, you old fossil, is that now is different. Now we have nearly a billion people who are using Facebook as a significant part of their social lives. Party pictures, kid pictures, random ill considered rants, tasteless jokes, etc etc. Things that in the past might have gone by at a back yard BBQ and be gone forever. Banks have gotten by just fine til now without delving into people's scrapbooks and party conversations. None of that stuff should have any bearing on a loan decision.

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

Freedom as a concept includes no automatic right to you getting other people's money.

Nor have I suggested any such thing. Your knee-jerk emotional reaction seems to be clouding your reading comprehension. Perhaps heavy drinking might help you.

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

In the real world, for loans of importance, such references were double checked, and asked to provide themselves additional references that were not coming from you directly. In many ways, not only do you have not a clue as to the degree to which a lender may have "invaded" the privacy of the potential borrower.

Most amusing. I am quite familiar with borrower vetting practices, thank you. Nothing about it does or should involve snooping on casual conversations between friends.

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

Your idealised vision is at once factually weak and rather ignores that (i) reference checking effectively is pre-internet social media tracking (ii) that such checking has always existed and indeed in the past likely had greater discrimination to non-established borrowers - thus being a barrier to access to finance for the non-elite as a general matter.

(i) Ibid
(ii) Yes of course. But now (which, once again my dear dinosaur, is different) it is practically impossible to live a normal life without access to credit. I have my opinions about that, but there it is. So now (which is not then, do try to keep up you ossified curmudgeon) it is incumbent upon us to keep lending practices fair, relevant, and transparent. None of which involve Faceplant.

Take your time, we'll wait.