A certain social score has progressively been rolled out over the past few millennium. It began in the granaries of Mesopotamia and the Yellow River, and nowadays only a few tribal people aren't part of it. It's known as "money" and currently measures how well people work, sell, save, invest, not get caught, and other such characteristics. It's stacked because people's opening balances are fixed by birth rite. Because of the existence of different currencies and asset classes, it's been controlled by a loose consortium of various central banks and regulatory authorities. This Social Credit Score in China to supplement its People's Currency (Renmin Bi) merely changes the ranking criteria and governing authorities involved. There's no new paradigm here.
Though I enjoy your example, and see your point, claiming that money is the same as China's social credit score is disingenuous. Money is not entirely centralized, you can spend it as you like, negotiate prices without government interference, and move it between people without the government deeming it acceptable. Other people can make you rich, the government doesn't get to tell them they cannot give you money.
Your analogy dovetails nicely with arguments against cashless societies though, as it would be easy to implement a centralized authority over currency clearing using a social rating system and centralized authority over banks.
The ranking criteria is literally everything. To dismiss this as "merely" changing the ranking criteria is a false oversimplification.
If no ranking criteria exists then everyone would literally treat everyone else exactly the same and the world would be a boring and informationless place.
You are welcome to propose non-linear (e.g. multidimensional) ranking criteria however. But even with money, it is not literally the be-all-and-end-all of life, there are many things where you need more than just money, to be able to achieve.
Brasil by Terry Gilliam already predicted this. As the main character, Sam Lowry, is being brought in to be tortured, a guard tells him, "Don't fight it son. Confess quickly! If you hold out too long you could jeopardize your credit rating."
It's amazing to me to see the dystopian comedies of the 70's and 80's becoming all too true. Another good example is Network from 1976 based on the farcical premise that a news organization would be taken over by the network's entertainment division.
"Earlier this year, I noticed something in China that really surprised me. I realized I felt more comfortable discussing controversial ideas in Beijing than in San Francisco. I didn’t feel completely comfortable—this was China, after all—just more comfortable than at home." ~Sam Altman 12/14/2017
China is systematizing, really appifying, inequality and privilege. The public in the US is starting to push back on that same privilege. To me, Sam's quote, this article, and Erin Griffith's other recent piece[0] all make sense together in a way that really concerns me.
> I felt more comfortable discussing controversial ideas in Beijing
You're reading too much into Sam's quote. This is almost certainly because East Asia has zero PC culture (homogenous populations; nothing in history), so he doesn't feel those particular pressures there that he's reacting against here. That's all.
I think I read it pretty much at the surface level. I'm not interested in reading into what he meant, his choice of words is plenty to interpret.
'PC culture' is not a thing. what you call PC culture is free speech working as designed...everyone has an equal right to free speech, free action, and free thought. What you call PC culture is in reality nothing more than a group with power demanding their thinking be privileged above critique.
The fact that a person with extreme financial and social power feels 'freer' expressing their point of view in a totalitarian regime than in a place where someone with lesser power might have their own free speech rights is a demonstration of how free speech fails not how it thrives.
Fetishizing rights, as is becoming common in the US, is an impediment to equitable access to the power those rights give. It confuses the issue and is nothing more than a recuperative act[0] designed to reinforce existing structures of power.
Ya. I mean, Trump has far more overt supporters in Zhongguangcun than Silicon Valley. Nothing is off the table for discussion, though you only talk about Chinese politics in smaller groups.
With regards to Sam Altman, he is a clear Chinaphile, based on his essay before: http://blog.samaltman.com/china. He ignores the facts that China is a bad actor in the world, rules its citizens with iron fist, disregards human rights and freedom, and is a possible threat to jeopardize the future progress of democracy and freedom we have around the world.
People like Sam Altman are concerning, since he holds the top spot in the world's best startup accelerator. He alone can give China unlimited power in accomplishing their goals: silencing dictatorship critics, bankrupt other countries, etc.
I think more concerning is the underlying perspective rather than his specific views on China. What you see is the assumption that one's experience generalizes and is the experience of all. The internet in many ways has made this worse rather than better because it removes some of the few remaining structures that force you to regularly and meaningfully interact with people of different life experiences (and no...your uber driver doesn't count).
His views on China, based on his experiences in China, are no different than the critiques of silicon valley startup culture as a whole. THey beleive their experience generalizes.
I talked about this in a class I taught once where we were trying to engage students in seeing the limits of their understanding of the user's they were designing for. I had them read an article from fortune/Inc....some magazine I can't remember or find... that was about startups related to pregnancy. The decidedly white-male founder base really stood out. If I remember, there were only 3 of the 10 startups that existed a year after the article...2 of those 3 were the 2 of 10 with female cofounders.
No, they saw that and thought it'd be a great idea to introduce a broken system with a centrally managed algorithm they'll never be able to get to work.
No, they thought that the credit score system where every institution that I freely and voluntarily transact with gives me a score between 1 to 5, and is used to determine my employment, whether or not I am allowed to live in an apartment, how much I have to pay for bail, how long I am sentenced for if I commit a crime, whether or not I can buy a house... Is a good idea.
Whattaboutism doesn’t argue against the fact that the Chinese plan includes social measures, like your expressed political thought. They are both alarming- this one more so.
There are many reasons, but for one, it’s because free speech is how people who are harmed by something can peacefully argue to change the system, and without it, the power structure ossifies and becomes inflexible to the needs of political minorities.
No, but you can be denied a place to live or a means to make a living. [1]
Not to mention the life-long mark of Cain that you get if you, heaven forbid, are convicted of a crime. Sorry, but we don't hire/lend to/do business with ex-cons.
[1] You can also be arbitrarily denied boarding an airplane in the United States because your name ended up on a no-fly list. You have practically no legal recourse for getting yourself removed from it.
And this is the point where I just check out of the internet except for perfunctory interactions.
I think this will be a growth area for AI, where we will have bots running pretending to be us so they can properly minmax all of the measures showing us as model participants in a system that "... will forge a public opinion environment where keeping trust is glorious. It will strengthen sincerity in government affairs, commercial sincerity, social sincerity and the construction of judicial credibility."
What really frightens me is how Tim Cook and Zuckerberg swoon head-over-heels for a country that implements such an aggressive top down control of their citizens as this program.
I have already become acutely aware of self censorship, especially with posts associated with my name, out of expectation of something similar making its way into the US. Heck, I would not be remotely surprised to find out Facebook already has a working prototype to associate and score people based on their connections.
Would this fly in the United States? Is there a near-future where this will happen in the U.S. as well?
I think it would not. Americans value their individuality too much. I think "trustworthiness" is not really a characteristic that Americans would want to rate each other on.
Hmm. The cultural revolution may have attempted to wipe out the traditional Chinese culture, yet this idea is very much aligned with Chinese sensibilities (such as Confucian ideas).
To expand on the sibling comment, if the article is accurate the social credit score is based on some of the same factors as the FICO score (e.g., do you pay your bills on time) and has some of the same implications (how easily you can get a loan). However, it also has broader scope (e.g., it also includes social and behavioral input that isn't used in FICO scores AFAIK) and broader implications (e.g., "at [a score of] 750, they get fast-tracked application to a coveted pan-European Schengen visa").
To add to what jdale27 said, here's another quote from a related article- "Hong Kong-based Lenddo takes it one step further by using a debtor’s social connections to exert pressure if he or she defaults on payments, according to the Journal. For example, the start-up will tell customers’ Facebook friends if they haven’t paid, and the friends’ Lenddo scores could suffer if the customer fails to repay the loan. "
"rate its citizens": The 'that black mirror episode!' clickbait
"The Chinese government plans to launch its Social Credit System in 2020. The aim? To judge the trustworthiness – or otherwise – of its 1.3 billion residents": The more accurate subtitle, which you can now see since you gave us your click. Gotcha!
Credit rating is nothing new, be it for people, corporations or even countries.
This is much, much more than a credit score, and it is disingenuous to claim otherwise.
FTA:
“Friends matter, too. The fifth category is interpersonal relationships. What does their choice of online friends and their interactions say about the person being assessed? Sharing what Sesame Credit refers to as "positive energy" online, nice messages about the government or how well the country's economy is doing, will make your score go up.”
the goal is to promote isolating and ostracizing dissidents since having one in your circles influences your rating... the goal basically is self censorship at massicve scale and unprecedented granularity. stop circulating certain ideas even offline.
I think the level of stratification is unique to North Korea. They did this with a traditional bureaucracy too. Imagine what they could do with modern tech. Well, that's what China will do...
