You say that as if it already happening makes it okay. Libra is getting hounded because the flaws are visible, frankly because people are suspicious of Facebook now. But the credit agencies doing similar things that we consider unethical, but operating in the background and hidden, doesn't make it right. I remember my mother telling me as a child "just because someone else does something doesn't mean you should." I'm pretty sure many mothers told many children that, but it seems many forgot.

What is happening to Facebook can be good for everyone. Because if the FTC cracks down on them then it sets a precedent to crack down on the credit agencies. Clearly people will go after them if that happens.

Sure, this should never have been an issue, but just because someone else is currently doing something doesn't mean that it ever was the right thing to do. Even if legal. Let's stop this BS "but they do it" and change the conversation to "they're doing it to, let's make sure they also are stopped."

> You say that as if it already happening makes it okay.

I'm not saying "it's okay". It is what it is. I'm saying we're applying a double standard. It's like complaining about lighting a match in the middle of a wildfire.

> Because if the FTC cracks down on them then it sets a precedent to crack down on the credit agencies.

That makes no sense me. They can crack down on Libra for any number of reasons. They're clearly okay with what the credit bureaus are doing right now, why wait for Facebook to come along and do the same?

> It's like complaining about lighting a match in the middle of a wildfire.

It's like complaining about lighting a match in a dry area while there is a fire somewhere in California.

FTFY

The analogy is bad because the match in the middle of the forest fire won't affect the fire. You're already engulfed in flames. What we're taking about is two different sectors. They are disjoint (unlike your analogy). But you can be in Oregon while it is dry and see that someone started a fire in California with a match and say to your friend "hey be careful with that match. That's how the fire started in California. We don't want that to happen here."

> That makes no sense me.

1) just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's incorrect.

2) law works highly off of precedence. So one ruling affects new ones that come in. They keep try to be consistent.

3) just because people/laws are "okay" with something now doesn't mean it can't or won't change. In fact, I'd argue that's why new laws get made.

> What we're taking about is two different sectors. They are disjoint (unlike your analogy).

I obviously disagree. It's the essentially the same sector (consumer finance). Some of the involved companies (Visa, Mastercard, Paypal) are core players in that sector.

> 1) just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's incorrect.

Indeed, it just means you failed to connect premise, analysis and conclusion to meet my personal standards for a sound argument. It might be incorrect too, but I'm not in the position to demonstrate that.

> 2) law works highly off of precedence. So one ruling affects new ones that come in. They keep try to be consistent.

That argument works the other way around too: It would be inconsistent to turn a blind eye to credit bureaus for all this time, but now that Facebook comes along, suddenly it's a problem? Why? Just because it's Facebook?

> 3) just because people/laws are "okay" with something now doesn't mean it can't or won't change. In fact, I'd argue that's why new laws get made.

Again, this argument works both ways. Just because people aren't okay with something doesn't mean it can or will change. You are not adding any new information to your argument.

>You did give them explicit permission by participating in the modern financial system.

That sounds like implicit permission at best.

This has the same flavor as the folks who say, "If you don't like some law XYZ, just move to a different country!"

If you don't want Equifax to have your private information, just don't participate in the modern financial system!

> You did give them explicit permission by participating in the modern financial system.

This at best would qualify as implicit consent. Which is very different and not sufficient. There should at the very least be a big button you have to press for every agreement you enter into that shares data with credit bureaus that clearly states that you: 1) consent to sharing all of your transaction data with credit bureaus 2) are aware of the various ways the credit bureaus might use your information 3) are aware of the potential consequences in practical terms of how this usage might impact your life 4) are informed about the way the data is stored/who has access to it/what your rights are surrounding it

I would also like to see GDPR-style "right to be forgotten" laws that apply to this data.

Coincidentally, since you brought up Libra: I actually think one of the biggest bull cases for crypto in general (not necessarily Libra) is solving this exact problem. You have an immutable record of all of your transactions that is not explicitly tied to your identity (just a public key). The role of a credit bureau when you apply for credit then would be to ask you to prove ownership of (one or many) public key(s) that they can then run algorithms over to assess your creditworthiness. They don't have to custodian the data at any point. They can be compelled to forget that you are the owner of a particular public key. The end user has full control over how their data is used. And creditors are still able to assess creditworthiness. Win-win-win-win.