Talk:Criticism of credit scoring systems in the United States

Moved material from Credit score in the United States as the section was rather large. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 03:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pulling this into a separate article

On the one hand, I am pleased to see this "criticism" section pulled into a separate article. On the other hand, this helps to highlight some points of view that are on the dubious side.

However, I will just call out a few points rather than go deeply into that issue:

1. The claim that China's system was inspired by the U.S. credit scoring system gives the impression that FICO is somehow responsible for what China did. Perhaps so, but this ought to clarify that FICO had merely intended to evaluate risk, not to incentivize behavior (but in spite of what some critics say, it would be fair to say that it is designed to encourage people to do those things that enable them to pay their bills rather than something more nefarious).

2. I am dubious of the claim that (in some states) the use of credit information is mandated by law for the purchase of automobile insurance. I believe it would better be described as the opposite: Many states either prohibit or restrict the use of credit information with regard to the purchase of automobile insurance.

3. There is the implication that credit scores, which lead to accessible credit for some, cause people with "bad credit" to pay more for their loans. This strikes me as the most dangerous. If you don't mind my analogy, it's really akin to claiming that my decision to eat a well-balanced diet harms those who choose to eat a poor diet.

Sort of ironically, as the government attempts to address credit scoring issues that result in "systemic" problems in our capitalistic system (such as people generally being responsible for their own medical bills), it is likely to impact the predictive ability of the system. So from my point of view, this article argues from both sides, i.e. we should insist that it only considers things which are truly predictive, while we should also prohibit it from using information that is actually likely to be predictive.

(I understand the WP editor who did this split isn't responsible for its content, but I'm hopeful the split can lead to some improvements in the article.) Fabrickator (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Questionable source: Credlocity

I wonder about the credibility about the "report" from a company named "Credlocity" in the following bullet point: "2023 expert report and study by Credlocity titled: "The Dark Side of Credit Scores: How Racial Bias and Injustice Affect Millions of Americans", found that the major credit bureaus are giving greater weight to the disputes submitted by white Americans than by Black, brown and Hispanic Americans, citing several whistleblower reports, lawsuits, and public studies."

The "report" itself doesn't really read like an actual report, and reads more like an op-ed. Maybe we should remove this. 174.3.207.69 (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Removed. That site is being spamming by several IPs into a bunch of articles. DMacks (talk) 06:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)