[karaterobot]

People have been falling for these scams forever. Naturally a generation which lives online will be more vulnerable to attacks coming through platforms they pay more attention to. Is there anything fundamentally new, though?

[NoPicklez]

I think the challenge with these online services now is that their barrier to entry is minimal.

You can sign up to these services at the click of a button and they're also heavily promoted next to payment providers such as Visa. As opposed to them being a separate service you would sign up for, they're integrated into the checkout process as easily as PayPal.

I even saw a service similar to this here in Australia called "My pay now", where they say you can access a portion of your pay early. When in reality you're just borrowing an amount that is a portion of your upcoming pay, with the expectation that you will pay it back when you get paid. The way it was marketed I thought it was a government scheme where you would actually access a portion of your pay early, but no.

[denkmoon]

>The way it was marketed I thought it was a government scheme where you would actually access a portion of your pay early, but no.

I don't want to be insulting or make this a flamewar, but really? c'mon. It's not like they're putting the coat of arms in their logo, there is _zero_ indication this is a government run scheme.

If a presumably fairly well educated and tech literate person thinks "MyPayNow" button next to their latest order of trendy clothing/smartphone accessories/whatever is a government scheme, I'm not sure how much anyone can do to prevent less well educated and tech literate people being taken advantage of...

[NoPicklez]

My thoughts when I first heard the radio commercials was that it was a government scheme, having said that their website and their other visual marketing doesn't give me that indication at all. However I was never interested in using it to do any research.

My point being that the wording "My pay now" and the description of it allowing you access upto a quarter of your pay early, is fairly misleading. You aren't accessing your pay, you're obtaining a loan, of which the amount is a percentage of your salary/wage, which you will pay back with your pay.

Forget the idea of it being a government scheme, that was irrelevant to my argument.

[mr_toad]

> I even saw a service similar to this here in Australia called "My pay now"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payday_loan

This sort of behaviour is why “money lenders” became a pejorative term.

[LigmaYC]

"Buy now, pay later" isn't a scam.

[Melting_Harps]

> "Buy now, pay later" isn't a scam.

Prime example of the 'I'm not a rent-seeker, I'm a disruptor' if anyone wants to know what it looks like.

It is a scam if you know you've been bombarding them with algo-targeted ads and have been subjecting them to the endless amount of influencer-porn these kids seemingly cannot do without anymore due to a horrible data driven diet that people who work for FAANG work on almost exclusively.

It's a scam, just admit it, we all know what it is: you're targeting people who cannot and will not be able to afford much, and make them think this is what is missing in their life so you can lock them in debt and keep the consumerist cycle going.

You're the 21st century perversion of a Marketing con-man, but unlike the 20th century version with all the glamour, sex and booze you guys play fortnite, watch furry porn and get doordash sent to you while you suck on a vape in your empty apartment.

The real question is: why do so many think you guys are anything remotely close to being successful? And why does tech seem to set such low standards for what can be construed as success?

Next we're going to hear about how Robinhood was the great emancipator of the Millennial and Gen Z, and not really just a front-running racket for hedgefunds, too.

[LigmaYC]

Still not a scam, although I agree that it's not ethical to push this on impressionable kids who would probably choose to go in debt for some new clothes.

[shakna]

Whilst it may not strictly be fraud, another common usage of the word 'scam', is 'to deprive of by deceit'. If it's unethical, then it's likely misleading - a form of deceit. You don't necessarily need to meet some legal line for it to be a scam or not. It just needs to be misleading, and capable of causing harm.

[baisq]

If you sign a contract and then can't abide by the terms of the contract, you haven't been scammed.

[shakna]

This is specifically not the case - loan sharks are frequently punished for creating contracts that are not reasonable, and cannot be upheld by law as it violates consumer protections. One of which is that contracts are required to be reasonably understood by all participating parties.

[LigmaYC]

But it's not misleading or deceitful.

[shakna]

If it's not misleading, then it wouldn't be impacting "impressionable kids". They're misled to believe that there won't be a negative consequence.