The Apple Card’s new feature tackles one of credit’s biggest problems

At its Spring Loaded event held virtually on Tuesday, the very first thing Apple announced was a new Apple Card feature called Apple Card Family. Available in the U.S. in May, Apple Card Family allows two people to co-own an Apple Card credit card, merging their credit lines while building credit together equally. Apple Card Family also lets parents share an Apple Card with their children. This comes almost a month after the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS)  released  a report that cleared Apple and Goldman Sachs of gender-based discrimination. That followed an investigation initiated by online complaints shared shortly after the card’s initial launch in 2019. At the time, tech entrepreneur David Heinemeier Hansson tweeted that he had received a credit limit that was 20 times higher than what his wife Jamie was offered despite her higher credit score . The path to women’s credit independence started with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974. In its investigation, NYDFS found that gender was not a factor influencing Apple Card eligibility. Still, spouses’ credit scores, debt, income, missed payments, how they used their credit, and other credit history elements were considered. In the end, NYDFS concluded that none of the factors identified was an “unlawful basis” for a credit determination.   Despite this finding, there’s still a need for more transparency regarding the current credit score system. In Apple’s press release about Apple Pay Family, Jennifer Bailey, the company’s VP of Apple Pay, acknowledged that issue saying, “we designed Apple Card Family because we saw an opportunity to reinvent how spouses, partners, and the people you trust most share credit cards and build credit together. There’s been a lack of transparency and consumer understanding in the way credit scores are calculated when there are two users of the same credit card since the primary account holder receives the benefit of building a strong credit history while the other does not.” The path to women’s credit independence started with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974, which put an end to lenders requiring women to have male cosigners on loans. Before then, women might have also been required to make larger down payments on homes than men with similar credit profiles. [Photo: Apple] While these practices became illegal, other factors also impacted women’s ability to access credit. Income is usually a primary qualifier for creditors, and considering the income gap between women and men, it is easy to see how that would negatively impact women’s credit. According to Payscale, as of March 2021, women earned 82¢ for every dollar a man makes. That pay gap does not affect credit alone. It also impacts the ability to repay debt such as student loans, which in return negatively impacts credit. Read More …

How U.S. schools proved Jonas Salk’s polio vaccine was safe

When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized the use of Pfizer and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines last December—a year after the coronavirus was first identified in Wuhan, China—it was a dramatic piece of good news after one of the most disruptive years the country has ever experienced. Now consider the thrill people felt in April 1955 when Dr. Jonas Salk’s new polio vaccine was officially declared to be “safe, effective, and potent.” That came more than 60 years after the first known polio outbreak in the U.S., which took place in rural Rutland County, Vermont in 1894. It killed 18—mostly children below the age of 12–and left 123 permanently paralyzed. From there, polio became an enduring, mysterious scourge. In 1916, it hit New York City, killing 2,343 out of a total of 6,000 nationwide that year. In the 1940s and early 1950s, the number of incidents in the U.S. grew eightfold, reaching 37 per 100,000 population by 1952. The fact that children were most susceptible to the disease made it only more terrifying. The Salk vaccine was approved only after going through the largest clinical trial in history. Rather than being a government project, this test was overseen and paid for by a nonprofit organization founded by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1938: The National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, better known as the March of Dimes. (Roosevelt himself had contracted polio at the unusually advanced age of 39.) More than 1.3 million children participated; some got either the vaccine, which required three shots over a five-week period, or a placebo, while others underwent observation for polio. The only logical way to reach so many children was through schools. The result was an unprecedented national effort built atop public-education infrastructure Read More …

A Trump social network could get sued out of existence

Donald Trump is “holding high-powered meetings” to start his own social network in the next two to three months, according to the ex-president’s adviser Jason Miller, who appeared on the Fox News show Media Buzz on Sunday. The former president was, of course, booted from Twitter and suspended from YouTube and Facebook (pending review), after spewing misinformation about the 2020 election and, arguably, inciting a riot at the Capitol on January 6. Sunday night, many on the right were joyous about the idea of a Trump social networking site. “BarYohai,” a commenter on FoxNews.com, summed up the sentiment nicely : This is how the free market works. People “vote” with their wallets. Trump’s social media platform will be widely successful and, additionally, it will create an incentive for people to close their Twitter (and perhaps even Facebook) accounts. Amazon and other self-appointed “speech police” will also feel the economic pain as dissatisfied customers seek substitutes for, and then “cancel” the “cancel culture” businesses. But running a social network is hard, as Trump may soon find out if Miller is right. People post untrue, defamatory, threatening, and conspiratorial things on social networks, requiring a major investment in content moderation staff and systems. It might get even harder this year if Congress decides to scale back or repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields social networks from civil suits arising from hosting (or removing) user content. Actually, repealing Section 230 was one of Trump’s go-to threats against the Big Tech companies that run social networks, especially Twitter. Days after Twitter began applying truth labels to his tweets, Trump released an executive order directing Congress to remove the 230 protections. #BREAKING : President Trump signs executive order strip liability protection from companies that censure content: “Companies that engage in censoring or any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield.” https://t.co/D5ooUw1fNz pic.twitter.com/FHs7kUvJH1 — The Hill (@thehill) May 28, 2020 Many of Trump’s executive orders had little effect, but that one spurred some of his GOP devotees in Congress, such as Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, to introduce bills restricting the Section 230 protections. Hawley’s 2019 Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act reserves Section 230 protections only for content removals the social network can prove were “politically neutral.” A House bill from Arizona Republican Paul Gosar proposed revoking Section 230’s legal exemptions for social networks that remove content they deem “objectionable.” Other bills condition the legal protections on more transparent content monitoring and faster removal of toxic content. Reforming Section 230 is one of the few issues in Congress that’s garnered support from both Democrats and Republicans, if for different reasons Read More …

Google’s former ad chief is challenging its search engine monopoly

The government is getting its antitrust game on this year after leaving it mostly dormant for the better part of two decades, and its sights are set squarely on Big Tech. Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota is leading Congress’s powerful Senate Judiciary antitrust committee. “We’ve got to look at everything when it comes to putting rules in for tech,” she says Read More …

The CDC’s program to track vaccine effectiveness over time leaves out 60 million Americans

The digital divide can be deadly. That has been the stark lesson of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has revealed how decades of underinvestment in digital infrastructure have left millions of Americans cut off from help during COVID-19. This has prevented many from finding vaccine appointments, it has thwarted efforts to release contact-tracing apps, and now it’s undermining the safety of the vaccine. The COVID-19 vaccines have been widely heralded as incredibly safe and effective, far exceeding even the most optimistic hopes for how quickly and effectively we could develop the jab. But given the historic speed with which the vaccines were rolled out, more data is needed. This is why the CDC developed v-safe , a long-term vaccine surveillance program. Post-injection surveillance is crucial, not only to monitor for side effects (which are quite rare and mild), but also to remind users about their second dose and monitor how long the vaccines remain effective. The problem is that the CDC made a crucial error, one that could undermine v-safe and lead to blind spots in the data it collects. You see, v-safe requires a smartphone. That may not sound like a big hurdle, but the truth is that at least one in five Americans lacks access to a smartphone. Read More …