Slashdot Mirror
Do Firefox Users Pay More For Car Loans?
RandyOo writes "Someone wrote in to The Consumerist to report an interesting discovery: while shopping online for a car loan, Capital One offered him different rates, depending on the browser he used! Firefox yielded the highest rate at 3.5%, Opera took second place with 3.1%, Safari was only 2.7%, and finally, Google's Chrome browser afforded him the best rate of all: 2.3%!
A commenter on the article claims to have been previously employed by Capital One, and writes: If you model the risk and revenue of applicants, the type of browser shows up as a significant variable. Browsers do predict an account's performance to some degree, and it will affect the rates you will view. It isn't a marketing test. I was still a bit dubious, but at least one of her previous comments backs up her claims to have worked for a credit card company.
Considering the outcry after it was discovered that Amazon was experimenting with variable pricing a few years back, it seems surprising that consumers would be punished (or rewarded), based solely on the browser they happen to be using at the time!"
Who's saying it is? Correlation is really all insurance rates need to be based on.
which is totally what she said
The phrase "correlation is not causation" is strongly correlated with stupidity.
Obviously you fail to understand how my superior browser makes me a better human being than you. As such, I will disregard the rest of your post. It is likely just to bore me, or possibly even lead to a headache. When you realize the error of your ways, and are willing to admit that I am right in this and all things, I will once again indulge you.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Installing fresh browser versions doesn't clear your existing cookies...
Only when used in idiotic contexts like the first post.
In this case, they are looking for patterns, and the actual cause is irrelevant, if they notice patterns that indicate higher risk, regardless of the root cause, they follow them.
Now, there are correlations (violent video game players have a higher incidence of violent activity) that, by themselves, do not imply causation (further tests are needed for causation). When someone tries to use these as an implication of causation, then the phrase "correlation does not imply causation" is quite intelligent.
And, I just implicitly defended Capital One. I feel morally dirty now. Thanks a lot.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Insurance companies don't care about causation. Correlation is all that really matters to them. If people with names beginning with 'A' have more accidents, insurance companies are going to give them higher premiums. The causation doesn't matter.
Or in the case of fields like marketing and insurance, causation is irrelevant if the correlation is strong enough.
If teenagers have a 1% chance of getting into an accident in their first year being insured with the company, but ones with red cars have a 3% rate, you don't have to prove any causal relationship between car color and ability to drive, you just play the numbers and raise rates accordingly. Business decisions don't have to be rational, they just need to be right 51% of the time to stay in business.
People who blindly yell 'Correlation is not causation' should be slapped with a trout.'
Yeah, but where would we get a trout? For me, fishing is NOT correlated with obtaining a trout, it's correlated with getting angry or drunk.