I mean, what was it?

Was it a test?

Then why make it so public and high profile?

I mean; what the heck was Jack thinking? The whole thing was a confusing mess that at best will be forgotten.

It's very strange to see a CEO of a 11 digit public company put something out there like that.

And that is great; there are clearly good things that will come.

But there are also bad things will come with that.

Ignoring that second part makes your post seem shallow and not very well thought out.

Exactly what do you define as 'dating site'? Craigslist has a dating section.

Please, you have suggestions, I'll be glad to reconsider my position in favor of reasonable suggestions that are based on a well thought out position.

Also, please let me know about how we are going to deal with leaks.

Like, when X person's sexuality is leaked and he/she is beaten to death for it or maybe for an infidelity (and you know those things get hacked/leaked), who do we apply for remuneration to? How many people do you think that will be? And why do those people not count vs the 15 kids in 5 years?

I'm truly open to solutions. I don't think they could possibly justify the tiny issue (statistically) that would probably not be fully mitigated by the solution anyway, but... I'm open. The burden is on you, who wishes to make changes, to prove that the change that you wish is preferable than the situation we have.

There are applications expressly for dating (tinder, bumble, pof, etc...), some also mentioned in the article. It's not an unreasonable expectation for such an app to be connected to an actual, verifiable person.

Aside: It also wouldn't be unreasonable to simply allow minors on a given platform, and give a visible indicator of minor (or under 21 for that matter) status. Other walls may also be appropriate.

As for leaks, abuse or other reactions to peoples behavior, there are already laws and courts for that. It's impractical to solve for every problem. All solutions have gaps, that's no reason not to try. It's up to individuals to reasonably protect their own identity when communicating semi-anonymously. And frankly, I'm not a fan of a lot of the association of real names to online accounts in a number of social platforms in general. My main counterpoint was that cost is NOT a real counter-argument to having a more thorough onboarding as it could be part of signing up for such platforms.

LOL if you think that fly's in today's legal landscape. I'm sure every VC will be happy to host a place where underage kids can hook up for underage sex. lol

But your post is filled with vague notions of what other people should do and no real word things like cost, except for measuring it as 'not unreasonable'... based off your own ideas. With no cost benefit.

Whatever down sides that has apparently can be brushed aside because "there are already laws and courts for that" - Can you please tell me more about that? Like, there are people who are terrified their sexuality is revealed and they might be killed for it. So when it does, exactly how do those courts work? Or do you mean to punish people once the leak has happens and the person is killed. If so, can you please make an estimate of how much damage your system will create vs the 15 cases reported in the news article?

Also, like for someone who was being unfaithful, when her abusive husband finds out and kills her, exactly how did the courts prevent that info from getting leaked? Like all the leaks that happen?

You also seem to suggest this should not happen on say, instagram or facebook, only tinder and grinder. But the article specifically states instagram (unless you didn't read it). So, should instagram be free of this requirement? And if so, what answer do you have for people on your band (who want ID) but who want ALSO it for instagram also. I'm sure they use the 'not unreasonable' argument too. After all, putting in all this stuff to save 7/15 kids over the last 5 years... well, is the cost/benefit change?

I'm truly interested in well thought out solutions. Yours, while having good intentions, seems to fail that test.

This parent isn't understanding that there are cost benefits and diminishing returns. We already filter kids from such platforms and it works to 99.999%, so exactly where should it be? And at what cost?

This parent is also filled with innuendo, seemingly unable to make points that stand on their own with actual dialectics.

From my understanding it's an article about a family owned business supplying coal for a newly launched coal power plant in a remote Alaskan college town.

There were 4 quotes from the article: 1- From a representative of the college (good) 2- From an analyst who did not participate in this situation making a report that is totally unrelated to this news piece 3- From an analyst commenting on the news piece 4- From the company's website

There were no interviews with the residents. Nothing about the business supplying the coal. No comments from students. No mention of town halls or different sides.

Am I just becoming an old crabby guy or was this... lacking something?

But it was lacking any depth.

It seemed one sided. But I can't even call it that. It didn't even give a side. It was more like... hearsay with a single interview, probably on the phone, with 1 person on the ground. Even then, they could have published the interview for some depth. But not even that. Hell, probably browsing local facebook groups/reddits or calling their local municipality/college associations you could find more information with a few hours of free time. It's... surreal in terms of how shallow it was.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'd fully expect a tabloid to publish trash rag stuff, but... I'm seeing it more now in major publications, and even oddly shared on sites like this.

I'm just... I just find it odd.

Could be that an overloaded author, sitting at a Bloomberg desk, was assigned the story ... with no experience in energy, and given nothing to to work with but a couple of local Alaskan newpaper clips. Maybe muttering to himself while he typed.

Put on today's news/put up today's newspaper/generate a unique, time sensitive code the person needs to write down and display, have them take a picture while holding up ID and the date proof using a live webcam.

But when authoritarian people want other people to do things, they generally don't think about how much effort it takes, or if it does take effort it is brushed off as if nothing with no concept of cost benefit. It's easy when you just shift the burden of proof by making vague insinuating statements to appeal to the majority of the population which is highly emotive.

It clearly states that tinder and grinder already monitor for minors. They state that they spend, and I'm guessing this wouldn't be an exaggeration given their volume, millions of dollars on this effort.

What lawmakers want is ID required.

This is an extremely burdensome requirement. To have every new user of any online platform have to verify photo ID against a webcam is... very onerous. And even then whats to stop a kid from using his parents confirmed account?

Alcohol is a transaction for a substance that is deadly and purchased in public. Comparing it to creating an online profile in the privacy of your home is a big stretch. It would be more like creating an account with... I don't know, maybe buying a can of figs off amazon.

Can a child buy a can of figs without ID? Not easily, but he could. Could he hurt himself with it? Yes. Should we require ID for this: I'd say not.

The article seems to not mention any of the age verification things the kids forged and their parents computer. But don't worry, if it was convenient for the powers that be, they would have framed this as: "Evil kids get into banking system by HACKING."

Funny how I'm sure they won't be asking Amazon to verify ID everytime a purchase is made. I mean, plenty of kids have ordered down right dangerous things this way, probably even caused a death.

The worst part of the authoritarian inclined who use the 'what about the children?' argument is that many times they ironically make it less safe for children since the solutions aren't particularly well thought through (see drinking age in the US) - all while making it worse for the rest of us.

The thing about the outrage crowd is they point to a problem with while implicitly saying 'anyone who doesn't support 'the solution' is in favor of the problem'. I'm not in favor of the problem. I'm in favor of fixing the problem IF it can be fixed in a cost effective way. Many people can't accept that there aren't widespread easy and simple solutions to giant complex social problems. Accepting that this behavior is an emergent quality from our individual actions and pruning one's own actions is very hard. Most people shy from this and look for externalizations.

If you don't have ID, a matching CC or debit card and $5, then maybe you should have other priorities other than getting onto DATING-APP

The chip will hold all our info.

Then when we want to do something on the internet or IRL, a computer will read our chip and we will use the system.

It will have... no abuse or secondary consequences.

But it will perfectly protect minors from getting on dating sites.

I wonder what other historical characters/political systems would love such a system?

That's an inappropriate response. Don't respond that way in the future.

> What lawmakers want is ID required.

Yes, like for alcohol.

> This is an extremely burdensome requirement. To have every new user of any online platform have to verify photo ID against a webcam is... very onerous.

New regulations are regularly called "extremely burdensome". I would say that alcohol regulations are extremely burdensome in most parts of the country where I live (USA). This is why I used alcohol as a comparison point. The government regulates how many alcohol licenses are given, sometimes operates liquor stores themselves, conducts enforcement operations including "sting" type operations with underage informers. The hours and days when alcohol can be sold are regulated and in most places, minors are not allowed to serve alcohol or work the register for alcohol sales. In some states, most types of alcohol can only legally be sold in state-licensed liquor stores. In NY, for example, each liquor store must be owned and operated by an individual living within a certain physical radius of the store's location.

The question here is about weighing the burden against harm reduction.

> And even then whats to stop a kid from using his parents confirmed account?

Condoms aren't 100% effective. Why should laws be 100% effective?

> The worst part of the authoritarian inclined who use the 'what about the children?' argument is that many times they ironically make it less safe for children since the solutions aren't particularly well thought through (see drinking age in the US) - all while making it worse for the rest of us.

The effects of raising the drinking age in the US have been well-studied, and provide a wealth of data because laws were passed at a state-level and at different times. From a harm-reduction versus cost perspective, I am in favor of the 21 year drinking age in the US. Based on the studies.

> The thing about the outrage crowd is they point to a problem with while implicitly saying 'anyone who doesn't support 'the solution' is in favor of the problem'. I'm not in favor of the problem. I'm in favor of fixing the problem IF it can be fixed in a cost effective way.

I think you might be directing your comment at some kind of nebulous "authoritarian" or "outrage crowd" and I'm not a part of that, so if that's the case, I'd appreciate it if, when you respond to my comment, you respond to the content of the comment itself and not some third party.

You seem to believe that the burden to verify age is too onerous for online dating apps. I think that we should require age verification for dating services across the board, and it should be up to the online apps to compete with offline dating services on equal footing.

If it turns out that the reason why online dating services succeed is only because they don't have to bear the cost of age verification, then I'd be shocked.

Alcohol is responsible 88,000 deaths per year.

You are literally comparing something with 0-10 deaths per year (if that) to almost 100,000 deaths per year. That type of grotesquely disproportionate comparison is part of 'outrage' culture. It's something I dislike and have no trouble calling people out on.

Not a single cost/benefit analysis. No consideration of the cost, just a wave of the hand (they will bear it). No discussion even of what type of age verification should be or any pros and cons.

The fact that tinder has revolutionized sexuality for a generation is... or made dating safer for women... or made dating safer for LGBT in places where it can be dangerous to date as an LGBT... better bury that in bureaucracy.

No care about privacy.

Doesn't matter if over regulation just pushes people to less regulated platforms like online classifieds, maybe hosted in a non-us country.

If you don't seem to consider the consequences of laws, or even the fact that the logic you use is based on grotesquely unbalanced comparisons, I see little possibility for dialectics.

The thing is, logical people when they read about 3 deaths per year don't propose applying the same social burden as to avoid 100,000.

You ask questions, but don't answer. How about addressing the fact that a comparison of something that costs 88,000 lives to 3/year is grossly out of line? How about you write out exactly what you propose instead of innuendos? Maybe include pros and cons without any hand waving? You know, dealing with those details you seem to support.

Using reason means understanding 3 < 88,000. It's not opinion. That's logic.

I didn't say you were inferior. I said you were emotive and didn't use reason: if you can't handle such a call out, then you might not have a place in a serious discussion. We've all been there; having taken unreasonable stances. Whether you choose to stay there is your choice.

How about addressing privacy concerns for LGBT?

How about you answering questions on margin of error improvement based on the proposed changes? After all, you are the one proposing new things; the burden to prove your new solutions good is on you. Not that you have shown any desire of understanding this burden of proof thing. Asking for changes WHILE requesting others prove your numbers... it shows such a lack of understanding of how dialectics work. Reverse burden of proof isn't opinion, again, that is fact; you are wanting a change that you are asking others to prove/disprove.

Your opinion on inappropriate behavior is, as you used to put my perspective down, just that, your opinion. Last, you telling me what to do is... laughably authoritarian.

It is a burden for the apps themselves but it's not something they can't overcome. The real issue is end-users wanting some degree of privacy and not wanting to submit their real identity to who knows what's on the other end. For example, a gay dating app, or an app for people into BDSM or whatever the thing might be that they're into, or someone who is already in a relationship but wants to see what's out there - a significant percentage of those people will never submit their ID and won't use the app. Even if it’s just some vanilla dating app, how do you know the operators aren’t just in it to easily skim tons of IDs in some vast identity fraud scheme? I certainly wouldnt submit my ID to such services. It also doesn't solve the original issue, since teens will find a way to get around the ID check - use someone else's account, use photoshop to alter an ID, get a fake ID, etc etc.

> Condoms aren't 100% effective. Why should laws be 100% effective?

Yes, nothing is 100% effective. Yet proponents of these laws try to push things to 100% without stopping to check how we're doing so far. The article says 60 cases of child sex offenses since 2015. So 15 / year, about 1 a month, out of how many hundreds of millions/billions of people using these apps? Also, the article counts 16/17 year olds as children, despite them being above the age of consent in the UK and in many states in the US, so who knows how many of those 60 are actually under 16 and not just 16 or 17. Sounds like we have this issue 99% solved with current enforcement methods. Do we really need to institute onerous burdens on apps and end-users for the sake of that last 1%? We can eliminate automobile accident deaths by instituting a nationwide speed limit of 10 MPH on all roads at all times but we don't do that because of the obvious cost/benefit concerns.

If you're concerned about your child going on these apps, give them a feature phone until they're of age. That's what I'd do.

Quote by someone.

It saved me.

If it wasn't there, if it was regulated out of existence; I'd have gone to a shark. I was not going to let cash flow cause me failing.

Having said that, I'm very happy there was a lender of last resort that won't break my legs. Despite them screwing me in fees.

Honestly, I've never understood people who suffer from legislitis:

They see a population suffering so bad they get desperate and do something bad to get relief from their suffering.

The population that isn't suffering then decides that it's too horrible to watch the population that suffers do desperate bad things to get relief.

So then they decide to: Ban the bad thing people do for relief when they are desperate. All while not ameliorating the suffering that cause the desperate bad relief efforts.

Whether it's drugs, bad lending, prostitution, whatever. If someone is desperate enough to want to get into that, why make it harder? History has shown these consenting adults are going to do it in their private property (despite the horror of those who are well off enough to not feel desperate enough to engage in such situations)

I mean, no where do they seem to be hinting at creating a government agency for lending of last resort. We already basically create money out of thin air. We COULD be lending it out at whatever usury rates, but by the government, and given equally to the whole population maybe? This could create a floor and a large enough competitor to drive the worst offenders out of business. I don't know. Just seems like there could be things done to help people. But the efforts seem focused on restricting people.

When I had my first real job out of college, I didn't manage my money well and ran out of cash well before my next payday. I went to a check-cashing type of place to try and get a payday loan, but the state had outlawed them a couple of years prior. Had I been granted a payday loan, there's a good chance I'd still be in a cycle of debt stemming from that.

If you have no access to better credit, payday loans are often the least-worst option. If your car breaks down and you have no other means of getting to work, borrowing a few hundred bucks at usurious rates is probably better than losing your job. If you've received a parking ticket and don't have the cash, paying $18 to borrow $80 for two weeks might be better than going to court and paying a $160 fine plus costs.

The situation is analogous to drug prohibition - banning payday loans just pushes people towards criminal lenders, who charge even higher interest rates and enforce payment with baseball bats. The only credible solution is to improve access to credit for the poor, whether that's through the expansion and promotion of credit unions or some kind of state-subsidised emergency lending facility.

Some people just don't listen to those who suffer: they only have an ear for authority.

Just isn't a very relevant argument. The reason you regulate things are because they provide, often strong, value to one or multiple parties but overall negative effects. Either eventually to the parties themselves or society at large. It is essentially a way to control externalities. So you would have to argue that these benefits are greater than the negatives.

> The only credible solution is to improve access to credit for the poor [...]

If payday loans are legitimate there is unlikely to be a need for such a solution.

Payday loans are often the least-worst option, but that doesn't prevent us from creating a better option. The best available option is not the same as the best possible option.

I'm not opposed to regulation if it is sensible and proportionate, but there is a huge knee-jerk reaction against payday lending that strikes me as paternalistic and mean-spirited. Assuming that poor people are being suckered by exploitative lenders is not a helpful starting point for what is a relatively complex social issue. I made my position clear in my original post - if you want to help poor people, then you should offer them more affordable credit rather than simply further restricting their ability to access what little credit is available to them.

If payday lenders really are ripping off the poor, then it shouldn't be difficult to outcompete them with a more affordable product; if it turns out that it's just expensive in percentage terms to lend small amounts of money for short periods of time to people who might not pay you back, then it may be necessary to provide subsidized loans.

It does. It isn't a realistic assumption that you as a society aren't going to regulate payday loans and at the same time be concerned about the well-being of those in need of them. Nations who care about peoples well being, also restrict access to things that hurt them. Because anything else would be working against that interest.

You do realize that there are any number of ways to have a bad time in the US. Payday loans aren't unique in any regard. It isn't therefor likely that this would be fixed sooner than anything else. The people who need payday loans already suffer from injustice. That payday loans themselves would also be unjust wouldn't be surprising, at all.

Why do you think people who can get fired, evicted, don't have health care or even die giving birth would suddenly be cared for when it comes to affordable credit, especially after legalizing unaffordable credit? Is the government is going to come in an fix this one issue in competition of the companies operating in the market?

Got it. Or do you mean spelling out what a debt trap is? Is that 'scientific literacy'.

The arrogance of those who want to restrict others is so obvious: You think people are incapable of taking care of themselves. Then you think yourself capable of knowing whats best for them. While simultaneously talking about science. And disregarding people who actually were poor and went through those things. And ignoring the points being made, without giving counter points.

You didn't answer what happens when you remove this lender of last resort? I thought a 'scientifically' minded person such as yourself would be interested in digging for the truth.

I grew up poor in the 3rd world. Loan sharks, prostitutes, druggies... that's part of life there.

Honestly, your judging something from a certain position that's pretty obviously removed from ever really being needing money (in poor areas there are a options to get money, restricting those would be blessing to the illegal loan sharks that already operate in most desperate places)

I have to say, if you really ever were in such a situation, you'd be advocating not for restrictions, but for options.

Saying we should restrict it because it can be bad... well you should be arguing about restricting alcohol then... there are plenty of alcoholics. Maybe also restrict driving. And fatty foods. And salt. Maybe sugar? Keep at it.

The critics are 100% right. Sorry to say, but it seems you are annoyed at the sneezing, not REALLY caring about the sick.

Just saying as someone who grew up poor here in the (???) "first world" (I guess?), those things are part of life here. And our police are generally very aggressive in reminding us that all of them are illegal.

Payday loans are like the drug dealers. There really is no difference. They happily give you access to their product as long as you pay them, and then when you can't pay them, you're left in a worse situation than you were at the start. And worse, a lot of people start committing their own crimes to be able to afford those things again. Because they are hooked.

(Actually, nowadays I guess with the drug of choice being opioids a lot of the people just overdose eventually and die so they never get to that point of committing other crimes to get the drugs. So maybe the loan sharking is not quite as bad as the drugs? But it's still pretty bad.)

OMG. Ok. Personally I'm happy my payday lender wouldn't murder me like a drug dealer would. But.. I guess that's preferable? I'm at such a loss.

BTW, Don Vitto says thank you from the deepest part of his heart.

Even IF that is true.

What do you get by regulating out of existence?

It stops?

Or it goes underground.

Think marijuana. What happened when legal? What happened when illegal?

I'm not saying don't regulate. I'm saying don't regulate it to death where only 3-4 big companies can operate in the space and then play oligopoly games.

Paying $200 in fees and stuff over 12 months on a $50 loan IS 400%. Just like an overdraft fee of $50 on a $10 charge could be touted in the papers as 500% interest.

Is there stuff to be cleaned up? Absolutely. Did this bill do it? No. It was restrictive.

I actually think this is something better suited for states to decide. And that is what is happening now.

Fees arent bad if you have your shit together. But I did the math ahead of time.

When you ban these things, you're imposing your value judgement on others, because you think you know better than "them poor folk".

I am fine with some regulation to make it clear what the cost is, something like: "you are borrowing $100, if you pay it back in 1 month, you will have to pay back $130. If you pay it back in 2 months, touch will pay back a total of $170 etc. ..."

Hey, it's great that a pawn shop helped you out in your case, where you didn't have a credit card or apparently any other option. That doesn't even a little bit offset the predatory nature of payday loan outfits, and they are predatory. I have no problem with people who want to loan money to other people who have trouble getting loans. I do have a problem with turning it into a business practice that brazenly targets poorer communities and levies fees and interest rates that ensure that poor people stay poor.

But, if it helps make this a more black-and-white issue in your mind, sure, keep believing that people like me are in favor of payday loan regulation just because of our moral superiority complex.

There's another option, of course: create regulations to limit only the harmful effects of the thing.

It's not like there's some law of economics that says we can't find a way to make loans accessible to people who need money without also enabling predatory lending.

The new laws would have removed 90% of the industry, including my ability to have participated.

I fully supported the limitation of debiting end user accounts, which was part of the legislation.

I'm completely against the need to 'verify someone can pay'... which I read as basically requiring credit scores. Which again, don't really protect people as they have little to do with your ability to pay (just your previous history of payment)

I'm seeing this as filled with details that need to be considered and making decisions to support or oppose based on that.

But please, don't let details or getting to know what you are talking about get in the way of your decision to support something or not.

But that doesn't stop making them a service.

Listen, if you could figure out how to charge even 40% yearly interest on a $100 one week loan (i.e. you'll make $0.7 gross) then you should do it and offer a better service.

Restricting people from accessing the service because you read some outrage entertainment (the news) is not good. To be clear, that is what this law did.

It's like lottery. It's basically a tax on the poor. I hate it. But if it was overly regulated, we'd see the numbers racket come up again. And personally, I prefer regulated markets over black markets.

And to be clear; I think lottery should be further regulated by limiting advertising, and even creating an opt out system for problem gamblers. But if a legislation was passed that had those elements WITH elements that would drive the industry underground, I'd 100% be against it.

So has Google, when it started out. (Servers bought on the founder's overstretched credit cards.)

I think it was acceptable in the past when credit cards had a hard limit on the interest percentages (I recall maybe 12%?).

I was kind of appalled when the percentages were relaxed years back and when 24% and 36% became possible, they were immediately the norm.

Availability of capital is great, but not at the expense of perpetual indentured servitude.

Fees are also why payday loans can be attractive over real banks - a payday loan is likely cheaper than a checking account overdraft.

I don't drink. Drunk people act stupid. Let's ban alcohol. It'll be great. Prove to me it won't!

Oh, you enjoy alcohol responsibly? That's just anecdotal. Not like MY anecdotal evidence, I see drunks everywhere... everyone knows that. And they are all alcoholics who are depraved by predatory beer companies.

My anecdotal evidence is good and corroborated by my tribe. And you must prove me wrong, despite the fact that I'm the one making statements like we need to regulate something.

Oh, and of course, once we ban it, no mafia guy is going to start offering it in a sketchy way... there's NO WAY that will happen in a low class neighborhood because we really take care of our poor. I have this all planned out. Going with my gut to make emotive detached decisions instead of dealing with the grit of reality is so nice. /s

Your argument is essentially 'I don't drive drunk, therefore we don't need any laws against drunk driving' since the expectation is that people will behave rationally. Or that we don't need regulations against things like cigarettes because people know the harm already.

Obviously there's room to debate on how socially dangerous something is and whether it warrents regulation; hence the ongoing debate on marijuana legalization; but in general he's right: relying on anecdotal evidence and extrapolating that is bad form. It provides context and reason for your arguments, but is not an argument in itself.

Let's see, who else does that... banks.

How? a credit score. Which has nothing to do with being able to pay truly pay long term or be sustainable. Some poor people have good credit. Some rich people have bad. It's... messy.

But please don't let the details of what you support actually alter what you support in name.

BTW, if the rules were only targeting continuation fees (i.e. multiple debit restriction part), I'd 100% support them. Remember, your talking to someone who has been there, done that.

I'm not against all legislation. I'm against privileged people sitting on a high horse, looking down on 'the commoners' and telling them what they need.

I personally would not have qualified under the new regulations when I took the loans.

I feel like I'm talking to someone who has good health wanting to ban sneezing instead of helping the sick. And you are talking to someone who has been sick.

But to make an actual argument here instead of solely an appeal to my history: I know exactly how companies will behave when untethered from regulations. A great example is that banks would deliberately delay checks my parents would receive so that they could collect overdraft fees.

I don't have much sympathy for payday lenders given one of the regulations in the article was to prevent payday lenders constantly trying to withdraw money from accounts in order to collect on fees. And the regulations would've prevented payday lenders from deliberately giving poor people incredibly large loans that they could never pay back and be effectively stuck in debt with due to high fees. Acting like these regulations would've somehow stopped lenders is wrong at best and fearmongering at worst.

States have wildly different liquor laws they all claim are “rational”, which may be true but they certainly aren’t rational to protect people. They are just designed to exploit moralizers to protect (liquor stores, grocery stores, bars, legal firms, etc).

These laws are so stupid that there are only a few cities in the entire United States where you can consume a beer in public despite there being separate laws banning public intoxication! WTF!?

People are far from “rational” when getting on the moralizing icky feelings bandwagon.

I think you need to look up the word scam. Then use words based on the dictionary definition of them the way the rest of us do. It helps in communicating when people use a dictionary to define words instead of the thoughts in their head.

If you want to be on the road when people are trying to get home from the bar, you should seek market solutions instead of ridiculous prohibition.

A.k.a the assumption that people should have agency

And so you get the central question: in what cases should you protect people from themselves? It's a hard question to answer. Given that financial education in the US is nearly nonexistent, I would personally err on the side of protections in the financial sphere. Does that mean that some legitimate cases get denied? Probably. Is that a worse outcome? I don't know the answer to that.

Hmm... what guarantees mob option will stop existing? That's what's happened with drugs. Drugs are easily available.

Or are you suggesting creating another lender of last resort?

I'm sorry, I'm not sure your offering a solution. It seems what is offered is a blind restriction to satiate your own feelings of 'protecting others'. Like we've done with drugs. It doesn't work because it doesn't address the problem, just the symptom. It's arrogant and short sighted.

I suggest you calm your anger and finger pointing and avoid reading things that I did not write.

I too agree that the War on Drugs is a boondoggle and has caused more harm and created more criminals (legitimate and otherwise) than we'd have without it. But I think we can agree that having a lot of people (for example) suffering and dying from opioid abuse isn't great either. Rehabilitation programs are the obvious answer, not just jailing people.

Payday lending is a totally different beast. I'm not sure what a great solution might be. While it's physically safer to take a loan from a payday lender than from an illegal, shady, mob-run loan shark, payday lending can still be incredibly harmful. Outright banning probably isn't the answer, but allowing them to run as they have been isn't great either.

So tell me, oh wise one; how do you deal with people who need a lender of last resort?

I mean, in your kind, humanitarian and knowledgeable opinion that takes into consideration the reality of people with cash flow issues?

Why are you so interested in getting the vulnerable category even more indebted?

>"oh wise one"

You'll have a hard time in life with that attitude.

Don't take the loan shark desperate option, accept homelessness/bankruptcy instead of trying to stay afloat. Then you can try and work up from there because it is easier.

I honestly can't believe you want to make the lender of last resort worse for poor people in an effort to get them to hit rock bottom so they can then climb.

I might have had a hard time in life (I've actually taken out short term loans to stay afloat) and I might have an attitude from it, but I can tell you have little compassion for those who were in my situation; so you'll have to excuse the fact that this is personal. A 19 year old me would have been homeless with people like you. I actually am happy I wasn't. I'm happy there are 'exploitative capitalists' and not just 'warm hearted well wishers' up on high horses.

"deceptive tipping policies"

Huh...

Somehow I think if I set up a tipping jar for the government and kept the majority of the funds, it would be quickly called 'stealing'. Actually, I think in California since the amount is over $10k, it's grand theft.

Welcome to the era of legislative capture, when the criminal activities of a corporation are discovered, "journalists" frame the situation as "big company make mistake, people get upset, people should figure it out and want transparency" and then seem to want to compare this to our outrage culture.

lol

What transparency could you trust from someone who stole from you?

Outrage seems to carry a connotation of being a bit of an overreaction. And a strong reaction.

People aren't hurling insults because of this.

They are angry. And rightfully so. They were stolen from. The article makes no sense unless you believe it was a 'mistake of deceptive practices'.

There's not even a single mention of restitution or ANYTHING that wouldn't have been approved by a corporate PR team in an effort to appear 'unbiased'.

If crack dealers had this type of coverage, we'd be hearing about 'Possible loud sounds that could be confused with guns that happen when certain issues arise. Maybe we should ask for transparency to see what is going on?'