News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on ‘We buy ugly houses’ is code for ‘we steal vulnerable peoples’ homes’. Parent comment

Re:‘We buy ugly houses’ is code for ‘we steal vulnerable peo... by ftxbro on Thursday May 11, 2023 @08:55PM (#35910481)
> "Propublica reveals homeowners with advanced dementia who signed their shaky signatures to transfer their homes for a fraction of their market value. They show how Homevestor targets neighborhoods struck by hurricanes, or whose owners are recently divorced, or sick. One whistleblower tells of how the company uses the surveillance advertising industry to locate elderly people who've broken a hip: "a 60-day countdown to death — and, possibly, a deal.""

Indeed, they entered into the contract of their own volition.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:‘We buy ugly houses’ is code for ‘we steal vulnerable peo... by schainks on Thursday May 11, 2023 @09:06PM (#35910570)
There is a nuclear waste disposal site next to aboriginal villages on Orchid Island off the coast of Taiwan because someone handed a contract to a Chinese-illiterate person and said, "sign this and we will build a cannery and help your local economy, trust us."

What do you call volition without symmetrical information? What happens when other people's livelihoods rely on your volition? Should vulnerable people deserve additional protections?

Your comment suggests that _anyone_ has volition enough to decide whether to sign these contracts or not, and I don't see how that's the case here.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:‘We buy ugly houses’ is code for ‘we steal vulnerable peo... by AndrewKemendo on Thursday May 11, 2023 @09:08PM (#35910586)
In fact the op doesn’t even go as far as to discriminate on context!

So no matter what, if you signed on the dotted line, you’re liable case closed.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:‘We buy ugly houses’ is code for ‘we steal vulnerable peo... by MichaelZuo on Thursday May 11, 2023 @10:10PM (#35911065)
No contract has ever been signed with perfectly symmetrical information. So if that's the standard then no human being has ever had volition.

If you mean there's some maximum acceptable threshold of asymmetrical information then the obvious rejoinder is who gets to decide what that threshold is?

(And, philosophically, how is that decided when any possible deciders, or combination of deciders, are themselves asymmetrically informed?)

[ Parent | on HN ]