SURVEY COMPANIES ALREADY KNOW WHAT THEY WANT YOUR ANSWERS TO BE

[emmanueljarrell]

this is just my opinion.

DICRIMINATION BASED ON RACE, GENDER, RELIGION... 

they don't want honest answers. the survey companies clients have products they want to support. in order to convince their sponsors to pay them, the survey companies must tailor the survey results to get the answer they want. the companies who sponsor will be glad to get the results they want to hear, so they pay for more surveys. essentially the survey companies whisper "sweet nothings" in their sponsors ears. aroused by the idea of making more profits (regardless of the info being inaccurarate), they THEMSELVES get addicted to hearing this good news, "people love our new product ideas". so they keep paying. it trickles down to FusionCash and (A BIG MAYBE) a few pennies for you.

to sum up. the survey starts with the desired results already. the objective of the surveys are to weed out member survey takers who are not providing the desired answers.

why they keep asking for your race and gender in the same survey is not really known, yet. but it creates an expression by the survey companies and their affiliate companies that race and gender is a factor in what products their sponsors have or will create for particular races or for a particular gender. the assumption is that all will not be equal as to price, quality and availability, depending on the race, gender or religion. kind of the opposite of what anti-discrimination laws require. just done in such a way that it goes unnoticed.

it is a well-established fact that women get charged more than men for receiving credit, and they get charged higher interest rates. different scoring systems and criteria which is proprietary information makes it effortless for companies, manufacturers, financial institutions,... to discriminate. can't establish discrimination because their scoring and decision-making system is proprietary. women get paid less at jobs than men...non-caucasians follow suit.

by showing your hand that race and gender is so important that you have to ask it a bunch of times in the same survey, you are trying to get the message accross that what you receive from the survey company and their sponsors will vary depending on your race and gender. FusionCash is also opening the door to speculation that they may be discriminating based  on race, gender, religion and a myriad of other factors, as well as their big-spender sponsors.

[falcon9]

DICRIMINATION BASED ON RACE, GENDER, RELIGION...

Your premise is flawed because it is speculative and lacks evidence to support your accusations.

they don't want honest answers. the survey companies clients have products they want to support. in order to convince their sponsors to pay them, the survey companies must tailor the survey results to get the answer they want.

The arguement is based upon a dubious premise. Getting predetermined answers instead of a polled-sampling would not accurately reflect the market pool.  Inaccurate answers would provide a false database upon which to base spending millions of dollars in advertising.

to sum up. the survey starts with the desired results already. the objective of the surveys are to weed out member survey takers who are not providing the desired answers.

Were the objective to receive predetermined results, (rather than a broader sampling criteria than such predetermination would allow), such companies could avoid paying for anyone to take surveys and 'manufacture' the survey results desired.  This would still give inaccurate results to base advertising spending on however, they'd save money by faking results.  Alternatively, advertisers might have a genuine interest in more accurate survey sampling so that they don't waste advertising money.

why they keep asking for your race and gender in the same survey is not really known, yet. by showing your hand that race and gender is so important that you have to ask it a bunch of times in the same survey, you are trying to get the message accross that what you receive from the survey company and their sponsors will vary depending on your race and gender.

Another possible "message" is that the survey companies are attempting to sample various criteria-points in their surveys and once one or more of these criteria-points have reached the sampling limit, further samples are redundant.  That is, if the survey is intended to sample 2,000 people for example and 500 are "caucasian, male, $35000 income, have purchased a beer" then more of these answers would weight the sample too much.  A more accurate sample would include "Asian, female, $30000 income, haven't purchased beer" survey taker.  

Further, once the prescreening survey process begins, a few basic survey criteria questions are posed.  If the survey taker matches these, the survey proceeds.  If the survey-taker matches only a few of the criteria for a particular survey, another level of prescreening may occur in which some of the same questions previously asked are asked again, (especially if those questions pertain to another survey which the survey taker may qualify for).  If the potential survey taker does not qualify during this prescreening process, (which may continue trying to match the survey taker with other surveys than the one initially attempted), they get screened-out.

FusionCash is also opening the door to speculation that they may be discriminating based  on race, gender, religion and a myriad of other factors, as well as their big-spender sponsors.

Speculations do not constitute evidence however, FC's legal council may determine that they may constitute libel.  To recover in a libel  suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication.

[falcon9]

or my premise could be correct. or i could be wrong. i think i'm right.

Thinking, (or believing), that a flawed premise is correct does not equate to being factually-accurate.

that lawsuit you speak of would cost FusionCash over $10,000 in legal fees.

Possibly or, FC could have legal council on retainer and they'd be the ones to determine whether or not your posts are worth libel litigation; not you or I.

i could turn that into $75,000 easy with motions, countersuit, removing it to federal court, or filing multi-plaintiff litigation against FusionCash. that's not the same as class-action.

Such motions and attempts to change venue would result in your incurring substantial legal fees yourself.  Any countersuit or multi-plantiff litigation would require a substantive legal basis for the counterclaim.  Speculations are insuffient as evidence.

 

[falcon9]

no legal fees for me.

Not counting on the ACLU or, some pro bono paralegal to take a case on such a flimsy basis, are you?

[emmanueljarrell]

the more attention FusionCash brings to it, the more of a chance a lawsuit mill will file on FusionCash. then its bye bye business.

[falcon9]

the more attention FusionCash brings to it, the more of a chance a lawsuit mill will file on FusionCash. then its bye bye business.

Such a scenario remains unlikely as long as a valid basis for litigation remains speculative and lacks evidence.

[falcon9]

no legal fees for me. i will handle the defense. in my motion to dismiss hearing, FusionCash will have to explain why they simply did not delete the posts that were not favorable to them. also, the judge may inquire why FusionCash did not simply cancel my membership if they did not like what i had to say about them on their own forums.

First, you may or may not be familar with the saying regarding representing oneself however, the basis for such a motion to dismiss libel litigation against you is not substantive.  The reason being is that, while online posts may or may not be deleted from any forum, once posted publically in an open forum, they are considered to be "published", (and latter deletion has no bearing upon initial publication or, retraction).

Secondly, FC reserves the right to cancel the membership of any member who is in violation of their Terms of Service.  This is for FC to determine and is unrelated to 'liking' or 'disliking' the content of posts which do not violate ToS.

the forum is an open invitation to members to tell what you think about FusionCash and related things. there is a reasonable expectation that when you directly or indirectly asked for feedback, that the answers will not always be positive.

There mere fact that volumes of posted evidence can be presented which contain both positive and negative feedback likely constitutes sufficient evidence would speak volumes against your hypothetical 'countersuit'.

it would make a statement, however, that members of FusionCash must only praise them, and never question FusionCash's ethics, on their own forum.

Since there is quite a bit of poste evidence to the contrary, such a situation does not obtain.  Why don't you continue 'speculating' and see what happens?

[emmanueljarrell]

ok. i will do whatever you tell me to do, falcon9. thank you for the guidance.