I moved from Canada to California for a new job with a mid six figure salary.
I had a very difficult time finding a place to rent as I had no credit score. Only places that were available without credit score was a room to share. That was not an option with a cat, wife and kids.
Finally, I found a place that was willing to accept the entire year's rent up front. Moving such a large amount of money from Canada to US had its own set of hurdles.
Once that was sorted out, I had to deal with yet more craziness to buy a vehicle. I decided to buy a CPO Mazda from the dealer in cash (using a cheque, of course). Once I signed all the papers, they ran a credit check on my newly created SSN. The system could not find my SSN. So, they denied letting me buy the car because they couldn't accept such a large amount from a person they could not verify. My passport and Canadian driver's license were not acceptable proof of ID for the dealer.
On the flip side, my long history with Amex in Canada was ported over. So, they quickly set me up with very high limit credit cards.
We already live in social credit but I fear the ones maintained by companies might be better for the consumer.
mettamage · 56m ago
Holy moly the US is kafkaesque. Gee.
Duly noted. I might be in your position one day in the far future. Will prep for it.
Thanks :)
Bukhmanizer · 4h ago
The issue is that American media/discourse paints a very distorted view of what life under authoritarian rule is like. The truth is in many countries, unless you’re some kind of minority, politically active, or in legal trouble, day-to-day life is mostly similar to life in the west. But people don’t want to hear that, because we want to feel better than them. Like we wouldn’t tolerate that kind of life.
Of course the most frustrating part about that is as the US and other western countries start sliding into authoritarianism, people deny it because they don’t feel like it’s authoritarian.
Edit: To clarify, I don’t think life is exactly the same - just that the consequences of authoritarianism are much more insidious than they’re portrayed.
mattnewton · 2h ago
> unless you’re some kind of minority, politically active, or in legal trouble, day-to-day life is mostly similar to life in the west
Okay but that is exactly why I would prefer a western liberal government. It is better and that is ideal is worth criticizing authoritarians for, and fighting to keep in the west.
gipp · 2h ago
Sure; I think his point was that people much less likely to even notice/acknowledge the slide towards authoritarianism when their own individual experience isn't changing much. Not that it changes authoritarianism's moral standing.
danny_codes · 2h ago
I mean I live in the US and people are getting persecuted right now for being a minority, being politically active, or being in legal trouble.
So not seeing a huge difference between liberal democracies and authoritarians.
freeone3000 · 1h ago
Perhaps the US is no longer a liberal democracy?
No comments yet
mattnewton · 17m ago
Yes, because we’re sliding into authoritarianism and we need to criticize and correct course
hax0ron3 · 1h ago
I think it's pretty easy to tell the difference. Just imagine the difference in the level of fear that you would feel about 1) getting up in a public square in the US and yelling that Trump is a terrible person who should be removed from power, vs. 2) getting up in a public square in Russia and yelling that Putin is a terrible person who should be removed from power.
pharrington · 55m ago
Have you heard of what ICE has been doing for the last six months? And that Trump has militarized Washington DC?
hax0ron3 · 49m ago
Yes, but ICE is not deporting, denaturalizing, or imprisoning US citizens for their political opinions, and I would have very little to no fear about going to Washington DC right now, standing up on a podium, and yelling that Trump sucks while there are 100 National Guardsmen across the street from me.
This is very different from what things are like in places like Russia.
treyd · 35m ago
See Mahmoud Khalil's case. They're trying to and would continue to have done so if they weren't blocked. What is there stopping them from changing the rules and doing it again?
hax0ron3 · 23m ago
I disagree with what has been done in the Mahmoud Khalil matter. But it is a far distance between that on the one hand and what happens in places like Russia on the other.
I'm not trying to minimize the dangers of Trump. My point is that there is a huge difference in the level of authoritarianism between today's US and what I consider to be actual authoritarian countries. Today's US is one of the freest countries on the entire planet. We should keep it that way. I don't see what good it does to act as if today's US is anywhere close to actual authoritarian countries.
Capricorn2481 · 32m ago
It's exactly these comments the OP is talking about. This is what they are trying to do, what they said they would do, and it's the kind of authoritarian shit that Trump has publicly praised and envied Putin for.
Bukhmanizer · 1h ago
Yes, I agree
graemep · 4h ago
Not entirely true. People living authoritarian worry about what they say, they self-censor out of fear, they defer to those in power (even at a local level), they accept a hierarchy of power rather than rights.
I do not entirely disagree without, but lack of freedom does intrude into day to day life to some extent.
int_19h · 1h ago
It depends a lot on what kind of authoritarian society it is. It's not a binary, and many are "soft authoritarian" meaning that citizens don't have any effective control over their government, but it doesn't actively try to suppress even minute dissent DPRK-style. In most of those countries, people don't actually worry that much about what they say because it doesn't matter at their level. It only matters if you're a public person saying things in a very public way.
No comments yet
yachad · 4h ago
Even if you live in a western country you do all of that anyway. Self-censor at work and online so I don’t get fired or banned from w/e.
Accept elected officials whose policies don’t match up with popular opinion and accept standard employment hierarchy.
Rover222 · 1h ago
That's very different than worrying about going to jail for life or getting disappeared.
ryandv · 1h ago
But this is in fact happening every day in the west, with people getting extrajudicially deported to El Salvador, or the ongoing trans and LGBTQ+ genocide [0].
I'm against extrajudicial deportations to El Salvador, but those people are not being deported for their political opinions.
As for trans/LGBTQ+ genocide, it does not exist in the West.
ryandv · 1h ago
> As for trans/LGBTQ+ genocide, it does not exist in the West.
Feel free to set the record straight and edit the Wikipedia article to correct this fact, or even suggest its deletion.
United States
Sue E. Spivey and Christine Robinson have argued that
the ex-gay movement, which encourages transgender as
well as other LGBTQ people to renounce their identities,
advocates social death and therefore could meet some
legal definitions of genocide. [...]
Transgender journalist Emily St. James has described
some US laws as meeting criteria mentioned in the United
Nations definition of genocide [...]
blitzar · 1h ago
> worry about what they say, they self-censor out of fear, they defer to those in power
Sounds a lot like having a job.
SalmoShalazar · 3h ago
I live in the free and morally righteous West and I self censor all the time. Every single day. My beliefs would have me ostracized from communities and fired from my job.
graemep · 2h ago
> My beliefs would have me ostracized from communities and fired from my job.
but not landed you in prison or disappeared, I take it?
syndeo · 2h ago
True, but at least in prison you're (usually) fed… which may NOT be the case if you're fired from your job, put on a list, and blocked from the industry.
trenchpilgrim · 1h ago
> True, but at least in prison you're (usually) fed…
This is kind of a pointless statement when you make it that broadly. Are you talking about life in North Korea or in China?
And do you think American media really distorts the "other" side more than Chinese or Russian media distorts what life in the west is like?
mensetmanusman · 45m ago
This is a naive view. Life under the Soviet Union was horrible. Talk to nearly everyone who lived in fear that their neighbors would rat on them.
That affects everyone.
lanfeust6 · 36m ago
They're probably referring to modern day countries that remain controlled by Communist parties officially. However, these went through a decades long process of privatisation to get where they are today, and there is no guarantee they won't backpeddle.
platevoltage · 3h ago
I think this is a big reason why Americans (and other "Westerners") tend to say "Look at them, they're Communist!!!", instead of "Look at them, They're Authoritarian!!!".
If you call it what it actually is, too many Americans might actually connect the dots.
corimaith · 4h ago
Well, day to day life is similar until it isn't, then you realize you have no options. Your life is nothing more than bubbles in the pond.
dijit · 26m ago
Thats exactly the parents point.
You only realise you can’t do something when you come into contact with trying to do it. Otherwise you live your life blissfully unaware of how free you arent.
Its like how you feel that driving is safer than flying, despite driving being the most dangerous thing most people do… you only realise how dangerous it is when its too late.
gruez · 5h ago
There was a comment that appeared for a few minutes before getting deleted, that vaguely lined up with what I wanted to say. It didn't reappear, so I'll just repost it:
>real life also has social credit. were you an asshole to the bartender last week? that goes to your reputation at that bar. did you volunteer with a local non-profit? that goes to your reputation with that organization. even without an algorithm, people remember.
wvenable · 5h ago
You can always move to new town and start again. The problem with all these social credit systems is that they're designed to follow you wherever you go forever. There is also zero recourse if a mistake was made; at least you can try and smooth things over with a bartender.
card_zero · 5h ago
Yeah, automation and information sharing prevents people slipping through the cracks, and that also prevents leniency, diversity, and reason.
I was musing over something, though. We have creeping Orwellian things like face recognition and the policing of chat histories. But some of this is private, as in, not done by the state. Even when done by the state, it isn't in most places to prop up the regime and prevent dissent. It's big brother mechanisms without a Big Brother. I speculate that it's genuinely motivated by preventing disorder, because (is this true?) over the last couple of decades people have got more disorderly in petty ways to do with thieving and harassing and scamming one another. Then the people don't like it, and so the people politically demand heavy-handed policing of the people.
mlinhares · 4h ago
Nah, there's no increase in disorder, crime in most developed countries is trending down, but we do have a bunch of people that have collected unimaginable wealth and are definitely afraid something will happen to them like the last couple times this has happened. They definitely don't want to repeat history and will use the coercion tools they have to clamp down on the peasants.
card_zero · 4h ago
> afraid something will happen to them
Because of what, the decrease in crime?
treyd · 33m ago
Because of the increase in wealth inequality and increase in peoples' desperation.
finalarbiter · 2h ago
Massive wealth aside, I would argue that any decrease in crime is nullified in recent years by the increase in sensationalization of specific crimes. That is, reading "crime rates in <city> drop to historic lows in 2025" does not have as much emotional weight as seeing a social media video of a violent crime happening near one's home, even if the statistic is true.
Consider how many children were terrified to swim in the ocean after seeing Jaws for the first time... statistics do very little to allay existing (irrational) fears for most people.
watwut · 1h ago
Imo, what is actually happening is fear of crime far away - like rural people being almost terrified of cities and entirely on board with sending army there.
People are not afraid of sensational crime next door. They want crime to be happening where political opponents live, so that they can feel good about punishing them.
int_19h · 1h ago
E.g. if you genuinely believe that AI will result in mass unemployment, it's not a stretch to believe that at least some of those newly unemployed will not take it kindly.
mlinhares · 4h ago
Who knows, you'll have to go to their leaked private chats to see the madness they're conjuring there.
card_zero · 3h ago
OK, a second theory: the situation is messy and complex. Society tolerates the use of physical force less, and has higher standards of health and safety, and more suing and seeking compensation. The police and security then favor electronic methods over potentially injuring themselves or anybody else. Then there's more potential to be bad in small ways because nobody's going to grab you by the collar. Meanwhile, there's opportunities for internet crime, or electronic organized crime, or just mobs and riots. Then the shift in emphasis to electronic control spills over into the private sphere, and the public kind of support it while resenting it at the same time.
In summary, everybody has started liking doing everything in a hands-off way via the internet, but also everybody hates it.
asgraham · 2h ago
It’s partially that for sure, but I think it’s also a kind of “common sense” feeling of the public that if people use technology to commit a crime, there must therefore be a record of that crime and therefore the police should be able to use that record to easily stop technology-crime. See: every police show ever.
That was never possible before. Historically, conversations didn’t leave records, and when they did, they were trivially burned. There was no sense that the police should have access to the records because there were no records.
The technical and ethical problems of this “common sense” are far from obvious to most whose primary exposure to and mode of thinking about policing and technology is what we see on TV.
KerrAvon · 1h ago
It's not logical; this is why "deranged" has become a necessary prefix to "billionaire" in most cases.
eastbound · 3h ago
> there is no increase in disorder
The mobile phone created an occupation for people who would otherwise be on the street committing crime. It paced people, even common kids, adults, we commit much, much less crime than the previous generation, and even less in unreported crime (bar fights, revenge against a neighbor, etc.). The boomers used their hands!
But the problem is: If you follow the average strength and fight training of citizen from 1970 to today, violence should have been practically zero. It is much higher because some subsets have abnormally high rates.
You claim the average is going down. OP claims it’s going up. Both are right. Violence wins.
KerrAvon · 1h ago
This is total, unadulterated nonsense. Violent crime is down since 1970. There's no "who is to know" on this one. Look it up!
TacticalCoder · 3h ago
> Nah, there's no increase in disorder, crime in most developed countries is trending down,
I don't know in which world you're living so here are officials, likely downplayed, numbers for the EU, from an official EU website to get you back to earth:
"In 2023, sexual violence offences, including rape, continued to rise in the EU."
Thefts and violent thefts are on the rise all across the EU. When I was young I didn't hear about being stabbed to death so that their Rolex could be stolen.
In the city were I grew up in now people firing full-auto AK-47 is a weekly occurrence.
Someone who walks into a major EU city and tells me its safer than it was 20 years is very blind.
Meanwhile the risk of my daughter getting raped is very real. And the fault is as much on the rapists as on the ones who try to refute irrefutable numbers.
Lammy · 2h ago
> It's big brother mechanisms without a Big Brother.
Big Brother does exist: it's money. If there were some single named entity, people would rebel against it, so it's diluted and realized through financialization of one's interactions with other humans. Big Brother is invisible to individuals because it's us, and no individual thinks “I'm Big Brother” when it's their point of view looking out. It's an illusion that creates and enforces scarcity but only works if everyone else also believes (power word: “Full Faith and Credit”).
It also ignores context or interpretation, and forces one perspective on incentives that doesn't necessarily reflect reality.
otterley · 5h ago
> You can always move to new town and start again.
Contra: "Wherever you go, there you are." (i.e., you don't stop being an asshole just because you move.)
wvenable · 5h ago
Of course, you are exactly the same person you were in your 20s and didn't improve one bit. Did you make mistakes? Too bad. That's you forever. Learning from mistakes is impossible.
charcircuit · 3h ago
Like credit scores events can be made to decay overtime.
wvenable · 3h ago
What I've seen with these large services like Google is that once they deem you undesirable (either on purpose or by accident) then they're just done with you forever. They have so many customers and so many bad actors that it's just not worth it to give anyone a second chance. It's pretty horrible for people caught in that situation.
We would need some kind of legislation around this. No company is looking to decay scores over time unless there is some profit motive to be exploited (like there is with credit scores).
otterley · 2h ago
What's the tangible financial impact to someone who's been deemed undesirable by Google?
Bear in mind that you can mitigate a lot of risk by operating as a business instead of establishing a relationship in an individual capacity.
And people, much like businesses, need disaster recovery plans. We advise people to have escape plans from their homes; similarly, they should have escape plans for their critical information. Almost nothing in this world is risk-free.
otterley · 5h ago
You're telling on yourself.
Majestic121 · 5h ago
They are surely not the only one to have make mistakes in their life.
It's literally a lesson from the Bible: "Let him who is without sin among you, cast the first stone at her."
I'm telling on myself too, yeah.
otterley · 5h ago
Of course people should learn from their mistakes and constantly improve.
But if you respond like an asshole to a comment, it means you haven't learned the lessons you should have. IOW, the commenter is proving my point.
argomo · 4h ago
If we're assessing the assholeyness of comments, yours aren't coming across all that favorably IMO, but perhaps this conversation is victim to the loss of context and inflection that other commenters have lamented.
otterley · 4h ago
I admit I could have been more eloquent in my response.
Dylan16807 · 4h ago
Their comment was fine. Also, nothing says they were talking about themselves, so no they didn't prove your point.
otterley · 4h ago
I'm not sure how responding sarcastically is "fine." I've found that in real life, people don't respond well to sarcastic responses to ordinary conversation.
entropicdrifter · 4h ago
>But if you respond like an asshole to a comment, it means you haven't learned the lessons you should have. IOW, the commenter is proving my point.
The irony here is palpable. Buy a mirror.
otterley · 4h ago
I appreciate the feedback.
bigstrat2003 · 5h ago
Of course that's the case, but the point is that if you change for the better you have a chance to start with a clean slate. You do not have such a chance when everything is in a centrally managed database.
maxerickson · 27m ago
And also, many places are big enough that you don't need to move, just go to the place a few blocks over.
Swenrekcah · 5h ago
The larger problem is that the owner of the credit scheme, whether a corporation or a government, can use it to punish people and depending on the scheme effectively making people social outcasts, without any due process.
potato3732842 · 1h ago
Due process isn't some silver bullet. Jim crow, witch trials, they all followed due process.
But yeah it's better than some capricious bureaucrat just pulling decisions out their ass with no serious recourse, except all those cases there the process is just that.
Swenrekcah · 35m ago
Nothing in the world is perfect.
Breathing and eating are no silver bullets for staying alive because sometimes people choke on their food and they could also breath toxic fumes.
Still it's a pretty solid choice to keep doing both.
everdrive · 5h ago
That's modern technology; the worst of both worlds. The moralistic tyranny of the small town, but the crowded, violent, and lonely social environment of a major city.
corimaith · 4h ago
That's what the mainstream chose, not what technology was by itself.
int_19h · 1h ago
The "moralistic tyranny" is arguably the natural consequence of how humans are, but technology is what allowed it to scale.
corimaith · 58m ago
No. The old internet had it's problems, but they maintained the boundary between the net and reality. The mainstream didn't, and I believe the attitudes of that larger society are circumstancial and shaped by certain forces.
chuckadams · 5h ago
The bartender also doesn't sell your behavioral profile to every other bar in town. I mean, unless you're a total asshole and it's a small town, but then they tend to volunteer it.
That feels like an exception that proves the rule, though - i.e. this is something requiring effort and thus reserved for egregious offenders, not a routine thing.
stretchwithme · 2h ago
Good. If the legal system won't do it, people SHOULD.
No comments yet
gizmo686 · 3h ago
Most of our social credit systems let you start over.
The big ones (credit score and criminal history) are strongly tied to you, but have recourse to challenge mistakes and remove strikes from your record. The sufficiency of those recourses is open for debate though.
However, all of the private company's social credit systems have a much looser coupling to your actual ID. Often you can just make a new account. If you first get a new credit card, phone, phone number, internet connection, and address, most companies would completely fail to correlate you to their previous profile of you.
coro_1 · 2h ago
> You can always move to new town and start again.
This is accurate. And taken for granted in the US.
Someone once remarked to me: "I think it's cool you can just pick up and go anywhere (on a huge scale)" - They were from the Netherlands.
eloisant · 2h ago
Well they can move anywhere in the EU, visa free.
eldaisfish · 2h ago
Legally, yes. Practically, the EU still has borders and barriers. Language, pension systems, degree equivalence, etc.
Oh and also remember that the EU has freedom of movement for labour, not necessarily people. If you don’t have enough money, you can’t just move to another EU country and hope things work out.
bigcat12345678 · 4h ago
> at least you can try and smooth things over with a bartender.
Hahah...
You never offended a bartender for sure.
No comments yet
rendaw · 4h ago
Isn't being able to move to a new town and start again also a kind of new thing though too? Cars, moving companies, open borders, globalism, English as a standard language, no serfdom, etc.
I mean, I think you could pick up and move but it was much harder, and how far you could reasonably move when you did move was limited pre-modern era. If you can't move that far, the likelihood of someone knowing you or word spreading is probably higher.
Although I remember seeing an article here on movement of serfs a while back, I think the conclusion was that they were more mobile than one might think.
alexpotato · 3h ago
In the book Fingerprints[0], they mention how, prior to fingerprints, much easier it was to just move to another town/county/state and just start over or even pretend to be somebody else. This was because there was no way to establish your identity with near 100% certainty.
This had pros and cons depending on who you were. For example, thieves loved it as you could drop you criminal record simply by moving somewhere that no one recognized you. On the other hand, there were documented cases of mistaken identity and people being prosecuted just because they looked like someone else. Then there is the case of William West which is better understood by looking at the pictures of two men names William West [1]
Contrast that to today where it doesn't matter which town in the US you live in, there is always a credit record that is tied to you.
What happens if in one town you lose your job, and get evicted from your apartment, or default on your mortgage? You're going to have trouble with housing in that next town.
lovich · 5h ago
The following you everywhere is a major problem with these systems imo, mostly because it removed the equivalent of bankruptcy for your reputation.
If you had to move across the country to leave your bad name behind, you used to be able to. And just like bankruptcy you’d start with nothing so it wasn’t exactly easy but it was at least an option. Now what recourse do people have?
grues-dinner · 5h ago
Also people turning up in a town one day with no one to vouch for them were assumed to be up to no good as it could be assumed that you'd do just that if you were escaping your previous reputation. You could start with less than nothing by default, and may never shake it, and that's before race or religion.
Much like bankrupcy - which isn't just a wiping of the blank slate, it's actually a last resort situation - there is the option of changing your name, opening new bank accounts, and creating new digital accounts under the new identity.
Is it easy? No, but neither is declaring bankruptcy or moving across the country.
vel0city · 4h ago
The Music Man would have been a very different story in the post-internet world.
anigbrowl · 48m ago
I'm not so sure about that. Turns out if you lie blatantly and entertainingly enough, a lot of people don't care if you're a criminal. Enough that you can be elected to high office.
shadowgovt · 5h ago
Therapy and rehabilitation within the society, paying your dues and making amends.
pimlottc · 2h ago
Real world social credit is soft and squishy and local and fades or changes over time.
Digital social credit is (potentially) an automatically calculated number with strict and unyielding consequences that follows you around for your entire life.
themafia · 5h ago
The difference is the relationship between the bartender, the non-profit or the barista all revolve around physical locations where cash transactions or real work occur. There's actual direct value to be measured in the interaction.
Further my interactions with the bartender aren't likely to be measured or even known about by the non-profit and vice versa. To the extent my "credit" is a factor it doesn't travel with me from location to location.
gruez · 5h ago
>the non-profit or the barista all revolve around physical locations where cash transactions or real work occur. There's actual direct value to be measured in the interaction.
I don't see how this is a relevant factor. If you're a karen at a restaurant who constantly sends your food back for the tiniest of issues, how is that any different than if the interaction happened online, such as if amazon gave you a bad customer credit score for your excessive returns?
>Further my interactions with the bartender aren't likely to be measured or even known about by the non-profit and vice versa. To the extent my "credit" is a factor it doesn't travel with me from location to location.
Word travels around, does it not? Moreover why is it relevant whether it's a number sitting on a database somewhere, compared to some vibes sitting in some guy's head?
themafia · 4h ago
> such as if amazon gave you a bad customer credit score for your excessive returns?
Is amazon going to tell me that up front? In the restaurant case the manager can explain the issue to the customer and ask them not to come in again. It becomes immediately resolvable whereas in your example I have no idea what just happened to me.
> Word travels around, does it not?
The difference between the analog word and the digital word is extreme.
> compared to some vibes sitting in some guy's head?
I live in a town of 2 million people. These vibes have zero impact. Add them to a database that can be tied to my credit card number? Now they have real impact. I don't think that's a reasonable or desirable outcome.
The problem with these systems isn't their mere existence it's their draconian implementations.
gruez · 4h ago
>Is amazon going to tell me that up front? In the restaurant case the manager can explain [...]
In either case they can explain, it's entirely orthogonal to the question of whether it's in-person or not. There's no technical reason why Amazon can't send you a email saying that you were banned for excessive returns, for instance. Moreover I can imagine plenty of reasons why a restaurant manager might not want to explain the precise reason, such as the threat of lawsuits, or not wanting to create an argument/scene. See also, why some HR/hiring managers are cagey about why you were turned down for a job.
>The difference between the analog word and the digital word is extreme.
The difference between a hyper-connected metropolises of today, and a random village in the 1800s is also extreme.
ozim · 2h ago
I think that comment overestimated how much people really remember.
That bartender most likely has 3 to 5 worse assholes every shift and dozen usual assholes . He is not going to remember he doesn’t care.
Local non profit after 2 years most likely won’t have the same people and top guys won’t remember all one off volunteers.
Believing any of it having more significance would be attributed to “spotlight effect” in my opinion.
kace91 · 3h ago
That heavily depends on where you live.
In large, dense cities you’re pretty much anonymous; I could dance naked in a main street today and (provided no one’s recording) carry on with my life with zero repercussions.
Some people make a living out of that fact. Tourist traps do not exactly engage recurring customers, every purchase is a customer’s first.
jollyllama · 4h ago
Sure, but without a credit score, the only way people can be prejudiced against you is through your appearance or through gossip. A credit score carries with it a weight that approximates official statements - news coverage, legal judgements - that others are much less likely to take with a grain of salt, as they would a casual hearsay accusation.
poszlem · 3h ago
True, reputation has always existed. But after a certain scale, quantity becomes a quality of its own. There’s a big difference between word-of-mouth at a single bar and a centralized, algorithmic reputation score that can follow you across dozens of services. If one bartender thinks you’re rude, you can go to another bar. If one nonprofit doesn’t like you, you can still volunteer elsewhere. But when a social media company or platform blacklists you, it can ripple through your professional, social, and even financial life, because their influence extends far beyond one community. That’s the leap from local memory to systemic gatekeeping.
slowhadoken · 4h ago
That’s a subjective mess. How do you objectively weight the value of those experiences? It also won’t stop gossip, PR, and propaganda. Just look at the state of Rotten Tomatoes. Now imagine Fandango buying your social credit website and making Harvey Weinstein a 10/10 good person.
2OEH8eoCRo0 · 4h ago
I wish this type of social credit existed online.
al_borland · 4h ago
This is what karma scores on site like this or Reddit try to replicate.
gruez · 4h ago
Not really, because such sites really only use upvotes/downvotes as a ranking mechanism. There's theoretically a lifetime upvote/downvote counter (ie. your karma), but other than a number that shows up on your profile, it doesn't have any real impact. You don't really develop a "reputation", for instance your comments get more or less visibility based on your previous commenting history.
al_borland · 4h ago
There were a couple occasions on Reddit where someone replied to me in seemingly bad faith. I looked and they had negative karma. As a result, I didn’t engage.
But I will agree that it’s far from perfect. It’s also similar to the bar example. A reputation is built one person at a time. It takes a while, with repeated bad behavior, to build a bad reputation with the entire staff or regulars.
randycupertino · 2h ago
> other than a number that shows up on your profile, it doesn't have any real impact.
Certain subreddits you can't comment on until you have a minimum # of karma, some other subs auto-ban you if you contribute or subscribe to other subs.
2OEH8eoCRo0 · 4h ago
Yes. And fails. Trolls don't care about karma and can run about being a dick until they're finally banned (possibly years later) rinse and repeat with a new account.
wtbdbrrr · 3h ago
yep.
and people don't just remember. sometimes they set you up to test you and or to give you a chance.
some other times they set someone else up to test you and or to give you a chance.
and sometimes people poison others to increase their and or your social credit.
as Austin Powers (or was it Ali G?) said quite eloquently: "behave".
Natsu · 5h ago
I think there's some difference between distributed reputation among many different groups for different purposes and a top-down, centralized reputation from the government that controls most of what you can do in life.
One is more distributed and not controlled by any single entity, the other puts all the power over your life into the hands of a few oligarchs.
seydor · 5h ago
No there is a major difference when social credit is centralized to a single authority , and people cannot use the law to protect from that authority.
otherwise, people have always judged each other with any way they could
themafia · 5h ago
Of course individual people judge each other.
In this case a corporation is judging me and then offering those judgments as a service.
Quite a difference.
darthoctopus · 5h ago
Did you even read the article? Here is the situation in China:
> Here's what's actually happening. As of 2024, there's still no nationwide social credit score in China. Most private scoring systems have been shut down, and local government pilots have largely ended. It’s mainly a fragmented collection of regulatory compliance tools, mostly focused on financial behavior and business oversight. While well over 33 million businesses have been scored under corporate social credit systems, individual scoring remains limited to small pilot cities like Rongcheng. Even there, scoring systems have had "very limited impact" since they've never been elevated to provincial or national levels.
Compare that to the situation with, say, credit scores in the US --- wholly run by an oligopoly of three private companies, but fully ingrained into how personal finances work here. At least a publicly run credit score would be held accountable, however indirectly, to voters and the law; and its safety might be treated as a matter of national security, rather than having Equifax and Experian leaking data like clockwork.
torginus · 1h ago
I've always told people that social credit as used by China was unsed to track dishonest businesses who scammed people and/or other businesses by breaking agreements and not delivering as promised.
The fact there's a credit system that protects banks from the people makes it painfully obvious who is in charge of Western society - consider this:
You take out a loan to contract the company to build you a house. The company defaults and disappears overnight. The bank is protected automatically but it's up to you have to run after your money yourself.
Animats · 4h ago
Overview from 2022. One city really did set up a full social credit system, but that was a pilot project and didn't work out.[1] There are some private "social credit" systems, like the one from Ant, but that's more like a rewards program - buy stuff, get points.
China has had a lot of official social control for centuries, but it was local and managed by local cops.[2] As the population became more mobile, that wasn't enough.
But a single national system never emerged.
There was a work record history, the Dang'an, created by the Party but to some extent pre-dating communism. This, again, was handled locally, by Party officials. This system didn't cope well with employee mobility. But it didn't get built into a comprehensive national system, either.
China is authoritarian, but most of the mechanisms of coercion are local. Local political bullies are a constant low-level problem.
You are conflating "social credit score", which hasn't been built out in China (although blacklisting, imprisonment, and torture for wrongthink has been built out), with "financial credit score" which exists in USA via private companies working togther, and "credit reports" which exist in both USA and China. China's is run by the unelected, dictatorial government.
darthoctopus · 4h ago
perhaps read the actual first paragraph of the article? the whole point of it is that, whether we call it that or not, our privately run reputation scores (including but not limited to credit scores) functionally are social credit scores --- except we've been boiled frogs, and should take some time for self-reflection before engaging in knee-jerk reactions to China's other failings (which I'm not denying btw) whenever social credit is brought up.
throwawayq3423 · 4h ago
Your credit score in America will never be used to deny your freedom of movement within America or go against you or any of your family members when applying for higher education.
It is a fundamentally flawed comparison.
scarmig · 3h ago
It will, however, be used to determine whether you can rent or buy a home or increasingly even get a job. Freedom: same outcomes, but modulated through the market!
AnimalMuppet · 3h ago
It might be used to deny your kid a college loan, though - which might work out the same as denying them higher education.
platevoltage · 3h ago
It absolutely works the same way. There are would be doctors everywhere who never got the chance because of their parent's mistakes, or misfortunes, because we've made higher education a privilege in the country.
corimaith · 1h ago
At this point of extrapolating from second-order/third-order effects, what dosen't count as "social credit" to you? It seems that if society dosen't give everything you want, that's seen as coercion.
The actual distinction here is between positive/negative rights. In OP's case, it's if even if you do have the money to do X thing, you are artifically not allowed to do so. That's a violation of negative rights.
In your case, you're positing that if you couldn't afford it anyways, it's "social credit" if private lenders don't give you help because you have a history of not paying loans back. That's an appeal to positive rights, that people have a active obligation to you, and it's not even from the government but from private lenders. That's a far more contentious assumption that ironically isn't held by the Chinese or the CCP or most of the world for that matter outside of a spoilt corner of the West. And it's a critique that dosen't even land in reality when the Fed does provide easy student loans at a far greater scale than the Chinese Government. A policy that has worked out swimmingly well!
anigbrowl · 36m ago
In your case, you're positing that if you couldn't afford it anyways, it's "social credit" if private lenders don't give you help because you have a history of not paying loans back.
Please read it again. It was hypothesized that you could have a hard time getting a college loan if your parents had bad credit. Now, you could construct an argument for why that policy makes sense for credit issuers, such as 'statistics show that 87% of debtors' children go on to become debtors themselves'. But the underlying objection was that you shouldn't need to go into debt to get access to higher education in the first place, ie college should not be insanely expensive and you should be able to manage the academic and financial demands with a part time job.
corimaith · 6m ago
>But the underlying objection was that you shouldn't need to go into debt to get access to higher education in the first place, ie college should not be insanely expensive and you should be able to manage the academic and financial demands with a part time job.
But we're conflating social credit with credit scores are we? A highly contentious normative claim has little to do with OP's argument and is obviously not a basis for a rebuttal for distinctiying the two systems. Which I would imagine there is a certain intentionality in reaching for highly contrived arguments based on literal hypotheticals rather than accurate description of reality.
timeon · 52m ago
In US they have just one more party than in China. Also 1 person is not automatically 1 vote.
corimaith · 1m ago
So you believe there is no difference between what Trump is doing today and what Kamala/Biden might have been doing?
Democracy is about balancing different interests. So yeah, it is hard when the change you want isn't neccessairly what others believe in. You do need to compromise with other groups. Which means that large, coaliation parties that emerge will naturally regress to the mean. But ironically, that also is the suremost sign of plurality that things very much are different from authoritarianism where it pretty is just one interest group trampling over all the others. Well, some here might prefer that, but they are almost definetly not going to be the ones in charge.
bonestamp2 · 5h ago
Exactly. Amazon might approve my returns (or not cancel my account) because I buy more than someone else, but they don't share my purchase/return ratio with any third parties.
bobsmooth · 5h ago
Exactly. Unless all these companies are sharing trustworthiness data I can make a new account and start fresh. The centralization of "worthiness" is what concerns me.
DrillShopper · 5h ago
How do I make new Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax account to reset my credit score?
bobsmooth · 1h ago
Declare bankruptcy and wait 5 or 10 years.
abdullahkhalids · 4h ago
If you are doing any sort of financial transactions you will likely need a new debit/credit card.
SalmoShalazar · 3h ago
You didn’t read the article. There is no single authority social credit system in China.
fmnxl · 5h ago
Those "single authorities" you fear already exist in western countries, the mega-corporations that monopolise entire markets.
The western system creates an illusion of choice, which those in power have found ways to manipulate. It has become merely a convenient tool for them to exploit the rest of the population, while the "free market" and "democracy" keep them oblivious to it.
But whatever people like me say, it will be too hard for most of you to accept the reality.
Swenrekcah · 5h ago
You describe a real problem and an attack vector on democracy that is being used.
However you make it sound like everything is already lost when it certainly isn’t.
fmnxl · 4h ago
Thinking of it as an attack vector is the problem with people. I'm saying what you have isn't democracy. Your market isn't free. Voting between the same 2 parties or choosing to buy/rent from the same few mega corporations aren't real choices.
Unless you guys start accepting that and find an alternative solution or system, you'll keep digging yourself deeper into the hole you're in. More debt, more wars, more homelessness, more crime, and no future.
taffer · 4h ago
I don't know where you are from (I'm really curious though), but where I live there are more than two political parties and more than a few mega corporations to buy or rent from. You seem to have an extremely distorted idea of what live is like in "western countries".
lnsru · 3h ago
Can you please share your country of residence? Because in Germany I really don’t feel the choice. There are few political parties, but I don’t feel this variety helps in any way. There are few mega corporations for everything else, just check the list of richest germans.
Edit: I might be another troll, but from last few elections I don’t feel any progress. As an engineer I see continuous offshoring of well paid positions to cheaper EU countries. As self employed electrician I see regulatory and tax madness.
fmnxl · 3h ago
I lived in the UK for 10 years, I've also lived in a number of other countries, from democracies, communist (Vietnam), and varying degrees of democratic and economic freedoms.
I'm aware there are more than exactly 2 parties in the ballots in many western countries. It's not about the numbers, but whether any of those choices really give the people real alternatives, or just different ways to screw the majority of the people.
As you can probably can see from the above interaction, people resort very quickly to ad hominem attacks.
ch4s3 · 4h ago
> But whatever people like me say, it will be too hard for most of you to accept the reality.
You seem to think awfully highly of your ability to reason about the world, but I find your claim to be fairly lacking. This all reads like the ramblings of a 19 year old who just discovered Chomsky.
propagandist · 4h ago
> You seem to think awfully highly of your ability to reason about the world, but I find your claim to be fairly lacking. This all reads like the ramblings of a 19 year old who just discovered Chomsky.
Address the argument rather than engaging in ad hominem.
ch4s3 · 1h ago
It really isn't an argument.
You have tons of meaningful economic choices everywhere in American life. You can bank with any bank and look for competing offers for credit to do useful things. For example you can buy a home and shop for a better interest rate by taking an offer for a loan from one lender to another and 9 times out of 10 you'll come away with a better offer. But you can easily not take on a loan and choose to preference flexibility and therefore rent. This housing choice involves a myriad of sub choices about lifestyle, commuting preferences, school adjacency, and other elements you may want to balance. Because US state are often quite different in character and economic and social opportunity you have a ton of dimension along which you can exercise choice.
Someone posting here likely has access to remote work and can meaningfully choose to live in a quite mountain town in West Virginia with satellite internet where you never see more than a few people every week, or you could live in a mid sized city like I do and get involved in neighborhood organizations. Similarly you could move to NYC and live in a small apartment an spend all of your time going out to bars and restaurants. These are SUPER meaningful choices on an individual level.
2OEH8eoCRo0 · 4h ago
Show me the Americans stuck in a black hole where nobody processes their payment, banks won't handle their money, they can't vote, they can't travel, etc. because of their deviations?
There are total nutjobs of all walks that are living just fine. There are actual Nazis and commies living just fine.
It's a big country. If our whole society already has dystopian social credit it should be easy to find examples.
esseph · 2h ago
Go into a busy gas station in the US. Ask "Hey, is anybody here a felon?" (Doesn't matter if customer or if they're working there)
ch4s3 · 1h ago
Only about 6% of Americans have felony records as of 2023.
anigbrowl · 30m ago
That's a lot, about 2025 million people! And while many felons deserve their prison terms, those who have been released have an extremely steep hill to climb to get functional in society again. I feel like there's probably some correlation with recidivism rates.
fmnxl · 2h ago
> Show me the Americans stuck in a black hole
Stop right there, then you'll see them :) Millions of them
janalsncm · 5h ago
> Citizens are tracked for every jaywalking incident, points are deducted for buying too much alcohol
The first time I visited China I was under 21 but I had heard the drinking age was 18 so I went to a convenience store to buy a beer. Person running the till was probably 12 and didn’t say a word or ask for ID. Unbelievably lax compared to the US sometimes.
I generally think it’s easier and more effective to track the outputs rather than the inputs: you don’t need to track how many beers they buy, just outlaw public intoxication. And enforce that law.
ecshafer · 4h ago
I am not Chinese, my wife is though.
I think, at least from my interpretation of it from being in China and having Chinese family, that something like underage drinking is seen more as a family issue, than a legal issue. What stops the 16 year old from drinking? The fact that their friends / family will see them being drunk, and think less of the person and their family. A 16 year old being drunk in public is family issue. Sure, the cops will intervene at some point, but China has very little drunken / raucous public behavior than the west does.
ChrisMarshallNY · 1h ago
I come across as rather "stuffy," here, but you won't find instances of me fighting with others (a mild exchange is the most I'll do), or harassing folks.
There's a reason: I used to be a real asshole troll, in the UseNet days (Don't listen to the folks with rose-colored glasses, telling you that things were better in those days; it was really bad).
I feel that I need to atone for that. I'm not particularly concerned whether anyone else gives me credit (indeed, it seems to have actually earned me more enemies, here, than when I was a combative jerk).
I do it because I need to do it for myself. I feel that we are best able to be "Productive members of Society," when we do things because we have developed a model of personal Integrity.
exabrial · 5h ago
Why do you think sms "2fa" is suddenly so popular with banks and other fintechs, despite things like passkeys and u2f, you know things that _actually_ prevent people from breaking into accounts, have existed forever?
gruez · 5h ago
Any business vaguely money related knows exactly who you are because of KYC requirements. They don't need to ask for you phone number when they already have your full name, address, birthday, and SSN.
inetknght · 5h ago
> Any business vaguely money related knows exactly who you are because of KYC requirements.
They also will happily give your money to any thief pretending to be you, and then blame you for their mistake.
odo1242 · 4h ago
The bank would be responsible for getting the user their money back under US law, actually - even if it was the user’s fault due to bad security
drozycki · 3h ago
Victims can spend hundreds of hours over the course of years navigating corporate and legal bureaucracies before their account balances and credit scores are restored. The system absolutely makes a bank error the victim’s problem to solve. Guilty until proven innocent.
multjoy · 5h ago
Unless you’re in a jurisdiction in which they’re liable for that mistake.
gruez · 4h ago
I don't think there's any jurisdiction that puts the identity theft victim on the hook for fraud. Yes, you might get threatening letters or dings on your credit report/score while the issue gets sorted out, but that's not the same as being "blamed" for the identity theft, any more than someone wrongly accused of a crime is "blamed" for the mistaken identity.
sealeck · 5h ago
Try convincing your customers to all get a YubiKey... it's not fun. The majority of internet users are able to read an SMS on their phone and copy a code, however.
int_19h · 53m ago
They could at least have it as an option. But, for some mysterious reason, of all the services I need a login for, banks tend to be the only ones at this point that don't support it at all.
mahmoudhossam · 5h ago
HSBC used to distribute hardware keys to its retail customers just a few years ago
supportengineer · 5h ago
These keys eventually stop working, need a new battery, etc. Instead of the onus being on the customer to "pull" a new one of these keys, it would be better if you "push" them ( mail a new one proactively every January 1st, give a $20 one-time service credit for activating it, and $5 a month credit for continuing to use it )
dec0dedab0de · 5h ago
I had a hardware token for paypal 20 years ago
exabrial · 3h ago
seems like a small price to pay to prevent coughing up literal millions in fraud payments every year
jacobr1 · 5h ago
Passkeys are pretty new - most the major platforms didn't gain support until 2023.
mathiaspoint · 5h ago
TOTP was definitely common decades ago. E-Trade for example supported it before KYC was mandated.
myhf · 5h ago
2023 was fifty years ago
patmcc · 2h ago
SMS 2FA is good enough for most people most of the time. It's very bad at preventing high-skill targeted attacks against individuals, but it's perfectly good at preventing mass brute-force attacks.
It's popular because it solves the problem (not ALL problems, but the one they're trying to solve) and it's easy and low-barrier to implement and use.
treve · 4h ago
SMS 2FA stops enough would-be criminals and checks the compliance box. They don't lose enough money to sophisticated thefts to do something better.
ok123456 · 5h ago
"Social Credit" doesn't exist in China the way it's portrayed in Western media. It's really just a way of enforcing civil judgments, so you aren't living high on the hog after telling your creditors that you're broke.
Depending on the type of bankruptcy declared, debtor exams happen here.
Lammy · 3h ago
While I broadly agree with the article's point, this part stood out to me as the author not really knowing that much about Utah:
> the image [of overt social-credit tech in public] is so powerful that Utah's House passed a law banning social credit systems, despite none existing in America.
More like the LDS Church banned social credit systems that would compete with theirs lol
valiant55 · 1h ago
I never understood why employers do credit checks, seems like that's an overreach and should be illegal.
p0w3n3d · 5h ago
The article sounds like a damage control
pavel_lishin · 5h ago
How do you mean?
stego-tech · 3h ago
Basically what I was saying a week ago about the rise of China as an empire: we already have this at home, and it’s worse because we don’t bother regulating it.
Look, social credit is neither a new concept nor is it destined to be some Orwellian/Black Mirror/Authoritarian tool that keeps undesirables enslaved in low-wage work or targeted for “reeducation” - that’s a decision we allow Governments or Corporations to make on our behalf by refusing to bother regulating these systems or holding bad actors accountable.
The sooner we accept that this is possible, that it’s already here in many cases, the sooner we can begin negotiating regulations in good faith with one another. Maybe it’s placing limits on the data corporations can gather and retain, or maybe it’s preventing the government from acquiring private data without transparent judicial warrants tied to crimes. Maybe it’s something else entirely!
All I know is the current status quo enriches Capital while harming people, governments, and Democracy. I think that’s bullshit, and we should do something about it.
gspencley · 3h ago
> The only difference between your phone and China's social credit system is that China tells you what they're doing. We pretend our algorithmic reputation scores are just “user experience features.” At least Beijing admits they're gamifying human behavior.
Um no. That is not the only difference by a LONG SHOT.
If I want to evaluate whether or not I want to involve myself with you, in any capacity, then that negotiation is between you and me. I can ask for references. I can ask for a credit check. I can go pay for a police background check. I can read public review sites. Or, I might decide that because you listen to country & western music you're not a real person and I can't know you and leave the vetting at that.
Consequentially, however, that dealing impacts our relationship and none other. You might find other people who don't care about the same "social credit criteria" that I do and you might find yourself dealing with them instead.
That's kind of the beauty of this thing we call "freedom." Anyone gets to choose who they want to deal with (or not) and make their own individual choices. The "systems" they opt in are always opt in (or at least they should be).
The difference between a government "social credit" system and individuals (businesses or people) vetting other individuals based on their own chosen requirements is force.
A government system mandates this across society in a broad authoritarian sweep. Get on the bad side of "the party" and now you are a social pariah and will not have any luck finding anyone who wants to deal with you, country music lovers be damned, because it is forced upon everyone. A business has no choice but to apply "the" system because if they don't they get punished. It is not opt-in, it is a one-sized-fits-all mandated by force of law system that removes individual discretion and choice from the equation.
That's a LOT different than just "we're upfront about it."
Furthermore, while I appreciate when authoritarians are honest about their violations of basic human rights and freedoms, that doesn't suddenly make what they are doing OK. I don't want to deal with a thief who is honest about their thievery any more than I want to deal with one who tries to hide it.
timeon · 44m ago
> individuals (businesses or people)
I think here is the difference between your and authors optics. You count businesses (does this include large corporations/organizations?) as individuals.
nattsu · 1h ago
illogical, you are confusing quality assessment with the concept of dictatorship
NitpickLawyer · 5h ago
Interesting article. On the one hand, it provides insides into how the project actually worked in china, which I didn't know. That's interesting.
But it misses a huge nuance on the whole "dystopian" thing. The main thing about "social score bad" takes is that the government will use that scoring. It's not private <-> private. Everything the author mentions about the various scoring in the US (and EU for that matter, although to a lesser extent in some cases) is between you and private institutions. The government does not "track" or "access" or "use" those 3rd party scores.
It's a bit like 1st amendment in the US. You have the right of free speech with regards to the government. That means the government cannot punish you for your speech. But that says nothing about your relationship with private parties. If you go to a government institution and tell them their boss sux, in theory you shouldn't be punished for that, and they'll keep serving you. But the same does not extend to a private bakery. Or a bar. Or any private property. Tell them their boss sux, and you might not get service.
So yeah, there are lots of 3rd party rating services. But they're mainly between you and those 3rd parties. The government mainly stays out.
crazygringo · 5h ago
You're right that the private vs. public is a very important distinction here.
On the other hand, "private" has the downside of falling into unaccountable monopolies/duopolies. You don't have a individual choice about having a credit score, or whether banks can use it, or with which companies. You have no control, there's no accountability.
If credit scores were run by the government, then in theory democratic processes could regulate them in terms of accuracy, privacy, who was allowed to access them, for what purposes, etc. There would be actual accountability to the people, in what that there isn't when it comes to private companies.
While you say "lots of 3rd party rating services... are mainly between you and those 3rd parties", many are not. They're between one 3rd party (a bank, a landlord), and another (Equifax, Experian).
The ones that are, they're eBay, Uber, etc. Which seem more obviously defensible as being privately run.
krupan · 2h ago
Your "in theory" is doing a lot of work there. So much work. Have you heard about no-fly lists? The latest ICE actions? The Red Scare? Giving the government MORE power is almost never the answer.
crazygringo · 1h ago
> Giving the government MORE power is almost never the answer.
I've also heard of food safety regulation, airline safety, public schools, libraries, science funding, workplace safety regulation, building safety regulation, the list goes on.
Giving the government more power is quite often the answer. Sometimes it's the best solution, sometimes it isn't. But it's definitely not "almost never", that much we can be sure of.
Terr_ · 5h ago
> The main thing about "social score bad" takes is that the government will use that scoring. It's not private <-> private.
No: The dystopia comes from helplessness and inability to appeal injustice, regardless of who/what manages the system or how it is legally constructed.
We must take care to distinguish between the problem we want to avoid versus the mechanism we hope will avoid it... especially when there are reasons to believe that mechanism is not a reliable defense.
> But the same does not extend to a private bakery. Or a bar. Or any private property. Tell them their boss sux, and you might not get service.
The difference here isn't because they're "private", but because you implicitly assume you will have alternatives, other local bakeries or bars which are reliably neutral to the spat.
Things become very different if they're all owned by Omni Consumer Products or subscribed to Blacklist as a Service.
idle_zealot · 5h ago
> parties. If you go to a government institution and tell them their boss sux, in theory you shouldn't be punished for that, and they'll keep serving you. But the same does not extend to a private bakery. Or a bar. Or any private property. Tell them their boss sux, and you might not get service
Except, of course, it's not that simple. There are a host of behaviors and traits that private businesses are not allowed to consider when choosing whether or not to provide you products or services. These carve-outs to free association exist because at any given time a large enough portion of the population exists of bigots who choose their associations based on characteristics that the rest of society has decided are not acceptable grounds for refusing service. So we compel service if we think not providing it is sufficiently shitty and harmful. Something similar happens when a private institution, or class of institution, is so critical to life or participation in society that exclusion serves as a form of semi-banishment. Such institutions are put under even stricter standards for association.
The idea that social credit or similar are totally fine and peachy so long as it's "only" private institutions using it is a fantasy entertained by rugged individualists who naively narrow their analysis of power dynamics to "big government bad" and discount their dependency on extremely powerful private organizations.
arcane23 · 5h ago
>But the same does not extend to a private bakery. Or a bar.
I always found it strange that they are not allowed to discriminate based on gender/religion etc but they are allowed to discriminate based on if you are likable or not. As in they can refuse to serve you as long as they don't mention it's based on anything that's illegal to discriminate against.
pavel_lishin · 5h ago
Why is that strange?
arcane23 · 4h ago
You are making my point though. You'd have a problem if you'd have to fake your religion or your sexual orientation so you get served, but it's fine if we do it with how "likable" we are.
pavel_lishin · 3h ago
How am I making your point?
aezart · 5h ago
The government staying out of it makes it worse. The companies have so much power over your life without any oversight.
card_zero · 5h ago
On the other hand, the government staying out of it makes it better, because if you're banned by the main taxi firm or housing market or [insert rhetorical third thing], there remains the chance of using some sketchy unpopular alternative service, and you're not in violation of the law if you find such a option.
aspenmayer · 3h ago
I’m reminded of the punishment that Kevin Mitnick received, which included a ban on using any computing device more advanced than a landline phone. I understand that he was agreed to this, but one cannot agree to sell themselves into slavery[0], and yet these supervised release conditions are considered legal and acceptable to most folks not subject to them. Plea deals are a pox on society.
> Mitnick was released from prison on January 21, 2000. During his supervised release period, which ended on January 21, 2003, he was initially forbidden to use any communications technology other than a landline telephone.
The sketchiness of those alternative services frequently means you are in violation of the law by using them. IP law on its own for film and tv is a series of monopolies granted to pieces of content and if the owner doesn’t want to sell it to you, Pirate Bay is not a legal alternative.
Regardless these arguments about whether it’s bad based on if the government is involved or not is ridiculous given how interwoven our corporations and government are. Like just doing business with any company strips your 4th amendment rights on that data.
There’s no sane way to argue that they have a clear delineation throughout society
card_zero · 4h ago
The clear delineation is the police and prisons, and courts. If the government is a corporation that happens to control the police, despite having that power it still isn't supposed to have everything all sewn up, because laws and courts and institutional resistance prevent it from doing anything it likes. This system is theoretical and supported mostly by wishing, but used to work for quite a long time. Meanwhile the actual corporations don't even have proper police forces and would struggle to get you put in actual prison for violating their rules.
marcosdumay · 3h ago
> The government staying out of it makes it worse.
That's because all that power turns the companies into paragovernamental organizations. Anything with the power to gatekeep human rights is a government.
socalgal2 · 5h ago
That's mostly irrelevant. If both Google and Apple banned you it would be difficult to get stuff done. No iPhone, no Android, yes you could find some hacker phone but for many people that would not be enough. Similarly, if all the banks dropped you because your shared social credit said "don't do business with this person".
> Your credit score doesn't just determine loan eligibility; it affects where you can live, which jobs you can get, and how much you pay for car insurance.
> LinkedIn algorithmically manages your professional visibility based on engagement patterns, posting frequency, and network connections, rankings that recruiters increasingly rely on to filter candidates.
gruez · 5h ago
>That's mostly irrelevant. If both Google and Apple banned you it would be difficult to get stuff done. No iPhone, no Android, yes you could find some hacker phone but for many people that would not be enough.
Luckily neither google nor apple does any hardcore KYC (yet) so such bans can be avoided with a new phone + phone number. Inconvenient? Yes. Being perma-locked out of digital services for the rest of your life? Hardly.
ysofunny · 5h ago
> private <-> private
the more I think about it, the more I think this is the core of a rePUBLIC
there's a bunch of private actors, the "citizens" who get together to form the republic, and thereby establish "the public space" aka the commons
pharrington · 5h ago
As others have noted, the bad thing about social credit is that any one particular institution does it - its that the social credit is mandated by unaccountable entities with lopsided amounts of power. It doesn't matter if its a government that's doing it, or a company, or a cabal of companies, or even if it was literally a single person - the undue coercion is the problem.
shadowgovt · 5h ago
The relevant freedom is the freedom to opt-out.
It's much harder to opt-out of a government than a privately-crafted social scoring system. But some become so large that you can't de-facto opt-out, not without significant consequences to your quality of life... And that becomes a problem.
idle_zealot · 4h ago
As an exercise, can you construct a version of private social credit that supports opt-out and isn't dystopian? I posit that any such system would interpret and opt-out as an effective negative score, heavily disincentivizing that option, and making it de-facto mandatory.
docdeek · 5h ago
This was similar to my take. What's dystopian about how the Chinese system was/is/was rumored to be was that it was the government doing the tracking and scoring.
ysofunny · 5h ago
at this point, "doing that" is called having a "CRM" system.
it's all part of how there's widely available social media technology and academic graph languages.
of course the government is going to track the citizens, it's all a matter of how, how much, and to what end.
jacobr1 · 5h ago
The wave of CRM is CDP. Customer Data Platform. The key is that it isn't just your basic account data, but all the behavioral data across various system interactions both online and off (if applicable). Shopping Cart abandonment email campaigns are pretty benign. But the outrage around the targeted ad for baby/pregnancy products that made the news from Target a few years ago is just the start for what more insightful data signals can give you. I don't really care about most retailers knowing what I buy. I do care about them reselling that data to big aggregators that know everything I buy, where I go and when, and join that what sites I visit and what mail I get. It is too much and can be abused.
corimaith · 4h ago
Which ends up harsher than what private entities do as a form of moralistic restrictions than are dubiously related to one's ability to pay back loans. I don't see how barring one from using long distance travel is going to help them better pay back loans beyond punitive punishment.
pessimizer · 5h ago
> The government does not "track" or "access" or "use" those 3rd party scores.
This is absolutely untrue. The government is a customer of all of these companies, and can whip up a chorus of brownshirts to loudly complain about any objections to the government doing this. There's a reason everybody who talks about speech should know what a long obsolete device called a "pen register" does. It's what we now refer to as a public-private partnership.
> It's a bit like 1st amendment in the US.
It is, in that the government can pay or blackmail* companies into censoring your speech, and doesn't have to bother with prior restraint.**
-----
[*] ...through selective application of what is usually antitrust legislation.
[**] ...which the 1st Amendment never mentions, but has been bound to it by people and judges who wanted to censor speech about communism and birth control.
timeon · 55m ago
> Open your phone right now and count the apps that are scoring your behavior.
I counted 0, but I do not live in US/China. It will probably came here as well.
Great article and good point. I never articulated this as good as the article but, I've always assumed that when I use Uber/Lyft and rate a driver, if I give too many drivers a low rating I'll be banned from the app. I'm not saying I will actually be banned, I have no idea. Rather, I'm saying I fear I will be banned.
I mean why not? Any customer that effectively makes the company look bad can be banned by the company.
I bring up Uber/Lyft in particular because 99/100 drivers break traffic laws. The speed (10-15 miles per hour above the speed limit), they tailgate which is both putting me in danger, putting other car in danger, and is illegal (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...). They'll do things like stop a full car and half past the waiting point at an intersection (have pictures of this). In other words, there a line behind which a car is supposed to wait. Then there's a crosswalk. They've stopped the car so it's past the crosswalk while waiting for the light to change. They turn right on red when the sign says no right on red. Etc....
I'd give them all 1 star out of 5 except for the fear mentioned above. That my "social credit" with the company would have them drop me as a customer.
nemomarx · 5h ago
All of this sounds like normal driving behavior to me? I see it every time I commute to work. I think if you want a driver who doesn't do this you'd need a real commercially registered driver with specific training.
justinrubek · 5h ago
It is, but it shouldn't be. We don't pay all of the other drivers on the road, but we do pay for the uber we're in. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect someone performing a commercial driving act to need to do so safely and correctly.
nemomarx · 4h ago
I think it was a mistake too, but we let Uber use random people without a CDL do this job, so I can hardly say it's surprising they drive like the average?
Taxis admittedly aren't that much more careful but a professional chauffeur probably fits the bill, and charges accordingly.
BeetleB · 4h ago
Being normal doesn't mean "not bad". If I'm rating a driver, then I'm rating him. It's irrelevant how other drivers behave.
socalgal2 · 5h ago
why even have traffic laws then?
carlosjobim · 5h ago
There's no logical sense for Uber to ban or punish you for giving drivers low scores. The only reason would be if drivers gave you a low score.
socalgal2 · 5h ago
Asking a random LLM to give reasons they might do this. Again, I'm not saying they do this. I'm saying my fear that they might isn't unfounded
* To Prevent Unfair and Unfounded Ratings: Uber could argue that some riders misuse the rating system. They might give a driver a low rating for reasons outside of the driver's control, such as traffic, a bad mood, or a simple misunderstanding. This policy would be presented as a way to protect drivers from being unfairly penalized, which could affect their livelihood.
* To Combat "Rating Terrorism" or Coercion: A rider might threaten a driver with a low rating to get a free ride, demand an unscheduled stop, or force them to violate a rule. By banning riders who frequently give low scores, Uber would be taking a stance against this kind of behavior, ensuring that the rating system is used as a genuine feedback mechanism, not a tool for coercion.
* To Discourage "Troll" Behavior: Some users might be incentivized to give consistently low ratings just to cause trouble or get attention, a practice often referred to as "trolling." This policy would be framed as a way to filter out users who are not participating in the community in good faith and are instead just trying to cause problems.
* To Maintain Driver Confidence in the Platform: Drivers rely on their ratings to maintain their account status. If they feel that riders are unfairly giving them low scores without consequence, they may become disillusioned with the platform and switch to a competitor. Banning riders who give consistently low ratings would be a way to show drivers that Uber has their back.
* To Improve Service by Identifying and Removing "Unreasonable" Riders: Uber could frame this as a data-driven approach. They might claim that their internal data shows a small percentage of riders who give low ratings to virtually every driver, regardless of the quality of the service. By removing these outliers, they would be improving the overall efficiency and health of the marketplace for the vast majority of drivers and riders. The goal would be to cultivate a community of "reasonable" users who understand and use the ratings system as it was intended.
To continue, for me, my experience is I would rate low probably 7 of 8 drivers for the reasons I gave above. They all break traffic laws and drive recklessly. I kind of wish the app would let me set a driver preference. I'd chose
(*) drive at the speed limit. Don't break any laws. Drive cautiously.
others might choose
(*) get there as fast as possible - (implying ignoring speed limits, weaving through traffic, cutting people off, ignoring turn lanes, etc...)
At least that way the driver would know up front what the user expects. Me, I'd give them 5 stars for not risking my life. Others would give them 5 stars for going as fast as possible.
As it is, I don't rate them low. I just don't rate at all because of the fear of being banned.
drnick1 · 5h ago
The real problem here is privacy and anonymity. These discrete "rating systems" used by various companies aren't particularly dangerous as long as they cannot identify users by some common identifier such as name, DOB or address. Got banned by Uber or Amazon? Just create a new account.
nine_k · 5h ago
Both Uber and Amazon accounts involve payment methods and typical delivery / pickup addresses. All these, combined or separately, can be used as a proxy of "the same person" notion.
Well, delivery addresses can be somehow anonymized by the use of PO boxes; names on credit cards, not so much.
bilbo0s · 4h ago
I was gonna say.
Of all companies, the systems at Uber and Amazon definitely know it's you starting the new account. They just don't openly mention it, and quietly link your old accounts via monitoring and analytics. As soon as the FBI comes knocking, they're able to provide your current account and all linked accounts. Even the ones they previously closed.
(Not that the FBI has to come knocking nowadays to get that information, but Uber and Amazon are able to provide comprehensive help to law enforcement if it's required.)
boznz · 5h ago
>Got banned by Uber or Amazon? Just create a new account.
use the same phone number, email address or credit card and they know you are the same person, use the same wifi spot or IP address with the same behaviour and they can intimate you are the same.. Even badly written data analysis can do this and a VPN from another country and different username wont convince any system with an ounce of sense.
drnick1 · 4h ago
It's trivial to use a different name, email, and phone number. Obfuscating your payment information is a bit harder, but you can request a new credit card from your bank, use a new PayPal account or similar to hide the underlying payment method, or use a prepaid card. The WiFi hotspot cannot be identified across the Internet, only the IP and other fingerprinting information leaked by the browser can, but generally speaking IPs are not fixed and tied to an individual.
My point however was not to provide an exhaustive list of workarounds, just to point out that it is the lack of privacy and anonymity in our lives and enables such surveillance.
platevoltage · 3h ago
I've been trying to "create a new account" for Facebook in order to have the privilege of using the WhatsApp for my business. Not sure why I can't since I left the platform voluntarily.
Instaban. Every. Time.
deepsun · 4h ago
> As of 2024, there's still no nationwide social credit score in China.
> The gap between Western perception and Chinese reality is enormous
They inserted "nationwide".
The social credit score in one China region (khm Xinj... khm) is truly dystopian, and I bet people there don't care whether it's "nationwide" or not, if they can literally be sterilized or get sent to concentration camps because of that.
But they said it's not nationwide! As of 2024.
encom · 5h ago
>Open your phone right now and count the apps that are scoring your behavior.
Zero. Are everyone really that terminally online? I reject most things that use an app. Yesterday I encountered a coffee vending machine that required an app. I walked away. Uncle Ted was right.
drnick1 · 5h ago
Agreed. I categorically refuse to install non-FOSS apps on my phone. I don't use social media, and refuse to use Uber for various reasons (including those explained in this article). I do buy things on Amazon, but only those that are physically delivered to my door (rather than "subscriptions" aka buying things that you won't own).
pipo234 · 4h ago
How about banking apps? In my part of Europe a growing number of banks require installing an app via Google or Apple story. The Android ones are known to use sdks that at full of "telemetry". Cash is no longer an alternative.
drnick1 · 3h ago
Can you not use a browser to access banking services? If not, you should vehemently complain and/or move to another bank. And while cash is better for privacy, you can always use a credit card instead of your phone.
sealeck · 5h ago
Weirdly, banks in China also use statistical algorithms when assessing their loan books!
YcYc10 · 5h ago
Amazon? Who cares. Air BnB? Not really an issue unless you trash a place. Same with Uber. Instagram? Please.
tecleandor · 5h ago
You don't care until the corporation is big enough or starts crossing information with enough companies. Amazon already owns healthcare companies. Facebook has shared more information than we can think about with all sort of parties.
One day you'll be denied care or your insurance premiums will quadruple because you buy too much sweets in Amazon, or because you once said you fell off a chair while drunk in a party in Instagram. Then you'll care.
corimaith · 4h ago
Then we'll vote in legislation to break up Amazon. You're assuming the hypothetical worst case in capitalism, but applying the same to the government it's going to be a far more difficult situation if the government is doing the same.
tecleandor · 27m ago
A: Amazon break up is years due already. B: I haven't said the government should do it instead.
nextworddev · 4h ago
Lol Americans have no clue what real social credit systems are like
platevoltage · 3h ago
Since you have first hand knowledge, why don't you share?
josefritzishere · 4h ago
I hate it but this is true. The differences between this and the "social credit" system in China are trivial at best.
poszlem · 3h ago
We often think of "social credit" as something far away, like in China. But it’s worth noticing how our own systems are starting to blend with state power. Just today, Graham Linehan, a comedy writer, was arrested by five UK police officers over social media posts when entering the country.
We may not call it social credit, but in practice we’re already building it.
jstrong · 1h ago
... some stuff we have kinda resembles china's social credit score if you really think about it ...
ok, maybe
... so yeah, it's totally fine lets do it ...
WHAT
ManlyBread · 3h ago
>credit score
Non-existent in the country I live in. There's a national registry of debtors and people end up there for a very good reason.
>Linkedin, Amazon
There's no reason to consider these to be essential services, I am not using either and I'm doing perfectly fine in life.
>Instagram
LOL
>Uber, Airbnb
There are several copycats, traditional taxis and hotels are still a thing and public transportation or your own car are valid alternatives
What even is this article? I skimmmed the rest of it and it just seems like the crux of the article is about proving how China's systems are actually fine while ommitng the fact that their systems are mandated by the state. Is Chinese propaganda what makes it to the front page of HN nowadays?
SalmoShalazar · 3h ago
This is a predominantly American website with American users. Your experience is of little relevance here.
krupan · 2h ago
The author appears to be Chinese and the articles they have written on the site have something to do with China
I had a very difficult time finding a place to rent as I had no credit score. Only places that were available without credit score was a room to share. That was not an option with a cat, wife and kids.
Finally, I found a place that was willing to accept the entire year's rent up front. Moving such a large amount of money from Canada to US had its own set of hurdles.
Once that was sorted out, I had to deal with yet more craziness to buy a vehicle. I decided to buy a CPO Mazda from the dealer in cash (using a cheque, of course). Once I signed all the papers, they ran a credit check on my newly created SSN. The system could not find my SSN. So, they denied letting me buy the car because they couldn't accept such a large amount from a person they could not verify. My passport and Canadian driver's license were not acceptable proof of ID for the dealer.
On the flip side, my long history with Amex in Canada was ported over. So, they quickly set me up with very high limit credit cards.
We already live in social credit but I fear the ones maintained by companies might be better for the consumer.
Duly noted. I might be in your position one day in the far future. Will prep for it.
Thanks :)
Of course the most frustrating part about that is as the US and other western countries start sliding into authoritarianism, people deny it because they don’t feel like it’s authoritarian.
Edit: To clarify, I don’t think life is exactly the same - just that the consequences of authoritarianism are much more insidious than they’re portrayed.
Okay but that is exactly why I would prefer a western liberal government. It is better and that is ideal is worth criticizing authoritarians for, and fighting to keep in the west.
So not seeing a huge difference between liberal democracies and authoritarians.
No comments yet
This is very different from what things are like in places like Russia.
I'm not trying to minimize the dangers of Trump. My point is that there is a huge difference in the level of authoritarianism between today's US and what I consider to be actual authoritarian countries. Today's US is one of the freest countries on the entire planet. We should keep it that way. I don't see what good it does to act as if today's US is anywhere close to actual authoritarian countries.
I do not entirely disagree without, but lack of freedom does intrude into day to day life to some extent.
No comments yet
Accept elected officials whose policies don’t match up with popular opinion and accept standard employment hierarchy.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_genocide
As for trans/LGBTQ+ genocide, it does not exist in the West.
Feel free to set the record straight and edit the Wikipedia article to correct this fact, or even suggest its deletion.
Sounds a lot like having a job.
but not landed you in prison or disappeared, I take it?
Not adequately or safely.
https://impactjustice.org/new-report-provides-first-ever-nat...
And do you think American media really distorts the "other" side more than Chinese or Russian media distorts what life in the west is like?
That affects everyone.
If you call it what it actually is, too many Americans might actually connect the dots.
You only realise you can’t do something when you come into contact with trying to do it. Otherwise you live your life blissfully unaware of how free you arent.
Its like how you feel that driving is safer than flying, despite driving being the most dangerous thing most people do… you only realise how dangerous it is when its too late.
>real life also has social credit. were you an asshole to the bartender last week? that goes to your reputation at that bar. did you volunteer with a local non-profit? that goes to your reputation with that organization. even without an algorithm, people remember.
I was musing over something, though. We have creeping Orwellian things like face recognition and the policing of chat histories. But some of this is private, as in, not done by the state. Even when done by the state, it isn't in most places to prop up the regime and prevent dissent. It's big brother mechanisms without a Big Brother. I speculate that it's genuinely motivated by preventing disorder, because (is this true?) over the last couple of decades people have got more disorderly in petty ways to do with thieving and harassing and scamming one another. Then the people don't like it, and so the people politically demand heavy-handed policing of the people.
Because of what, the decrease in crime?
Consider how many children were terrified to swim in the ocean after seeing Jaws for the first time... statistics do very little to allay existing (irrational) fears for most people.
People are not afraid of sensational crime next door. They want crime to be happening where political opponents live, so that they can feel good about punishing them.
In summary, everybody has started liking doing everything in a hands-off way via the internet, but also everybody hates it.
That was never possible before. Historically, conversations didn’t leave records, and when they did, they were trivially burned. There was no sense that the police should have access to the records because there were no records.
The technical and ethical problems of this “common sense” are far from obvious to most whose primary exposure to and mode of thinking about policing and technology is what we see on TV.
The mobile phone created an occupation for people who would otherwise be on the street committing crime. It paced people, even common kids, adults, we commit much, much less crime than the previous generation, and even less in unreported crime (bar fights, revenge against a neighbor, etc.). The boomers used their hands!
But the problem is: If you follow the average strength and fight training of citizen from 1970 to today, violence should have been practically zero. It is much higher because some subsets have abnormally high rates.
You claim the average is going down. OP claims it’s going up. Both are right. Violence wins.
I don't know in which world you're living so here are officials, likely downplayed, numbers for the EU, from an official EU website to get you back to earth:
"In 2023, sexual violence offences, including rape, continued to rise in the EU."
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
Rape numbers are through the roof in France (nearly 40 000 a year now): they went x6 in 20 years.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1072770/number-of-rapes-...
"The number of violent crimes in Germany increased in 2024 with a sharp increase in rapes and sexual assaults.":
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-sees-rise-in-sexual-violence-a...
Thefts and violent thefts are on the rise all across the EU. When I was young I didn't hear about being stabbed to death so that their Rolex could be stolen.
In the city were I grew up in now people firing full-auto AK-47 is a weekly occurrence.
Someone who walks into a major EU city and tells me its safer than it was 20 years is very blind.
Meanwhile the risk of my daughter getting raped is very real. And the fault is as much on the rapists as on the ones who try to refute irrefutable numbers.
Big Brother does exist: it's money. If there were some single named entity, people would rebel against it, so it's diluted and realized through financialization of one's interactions with other humans. Big Brother is invisible to individuals because it's us, and no individual thinks “I'm Big Brother” when it's their point of view looking out. It's an illusion that creates and enforces scarcity but only works if everyone else also believes (power word: “Full Faith and Credit”).
Check out “Wishes and Rainbows” from The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston for a primer on our road to rootα: https://www.bostonfed.org/publications/economic-education/wi... (favorite panel, top-right on page fifteen: ◀ 1̵1̵ + 9 ／ = 20 ▷)
Contra: "Wherever you go, there you are." (i.e., you don't stop being an asshole just because you move.)
We would need some kind of legislation around this. No company is looking to decay scores over time unless there is some profit motive to be exploited (like there is with credit scores).
Bear in mind that you can mitigate a lot of risk by operating as a business instead of establishing a relationship in an individual capacity.
And people, much like businesses, need disaster recovery plans. We advise people to have escape plans from their homes; similarly, they should have escape plans for their critical information. Almost nothing in this world is risk-free.
It's literally a lesson from the Bible: "Let him who is without sin among you, cast the first stone at her."
I'm telling on myself too, yeah.
But if you respond like an asshole to a comment, it means you haven't learned the lessons you should have. IOW, the commenter is proving my point.
The irony here is palpable. Buy a mirror.
But yeah it's better than some capricious bureaucrat just pulling decisions out their ass with no serious recourse, except all those cases there the process is just that.
No comments yet
The big ones (credit score and criminal history) are strongly tied to you, but have recourse to challenge mistakes and remove strikes from your record. The sufficiency of those recourses is open for debate though.
However, all of the private company's social credit systems have a much looser coupling to your actual ID. Often you can just make a new account. If you first get a new credit card, phone, phone number, internet connection, and address, most companies would completely fail to correlate you to their previous profile of you.
This is accurate. And taken for granted in the US.
Someone once remarked to me: "I think it's cool you can just pick up and go anywhere (on a huge scale)" - They were from the Netherlands.
Oh and also remember that the EU has freedom of movement for labour, not necessarily people. If you don’t have enough money, you can’t just move to another EU country and hope things work out.
Hahah... You never offended a bartender for sure.
No comments yet
I mean, I think you could pick up and move but it was much harder, and how far you could reasonably move when you did move was limited pre-modern era. If you can't move that far, the likelihood of someone knowing you or word spreading is probably higher.
Although I remember seeing an article here on movement of serfs a while back, I think the conclusion was that they were more mobile than one might think.
This had pros and cons depending on who you were. For example, thieves loved it as you could drop you criminal record simply by moving somewhere that no one recognized you. On the other hand, there were documented cases of mistaken identity and people being prosecuted just because they looked like someone else. Then there is the case of William West which is better understood by looking at the pictures of two men names William West [1]
Contrast that to today where it doesn't matter which town in the US you live in, there is always a credit record that is tied to you.
0 - https://amzn.to/47XN9Id
1 - https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/will-william-west-case-fing...
If you had to move across the country to leave your bad name behind, you used to be able to. And just like bankruptcy you’d start with nothing so it wasn’t exactly easy but it was at least an option. Now what recourse do people have?
> "If you weren’t born and raised here, you’re an outsider even though you’ve lived here for thirty-five years. That’s just kind of typical in small communities." https://dokumen.pub/small-town-america-finding-community-sha...
Is it easy? No, but neither is declaring bankruptcy or moving across the country.
Digital social credit is (potentially) an automatically calculated number with strict and unyielding consequences that follows you around for your entire life.
Further my interactions with the bartender aren't likely to be measured or even known about by the non-profit and vice versa. To the extent my "credit" is a factor it doesn't travel with me from location to location.
I don't see how this is a relevant factor. If you're a karen at a restaurant who constantly sends your food back for the tiniest of issues, how is that any different than if the interaction happened online, such as if amazon gave you a bad customer credit score for your excessive returns?
>Further my interactions with the bartender aren't likely to be measured or even known about by the non-profit and vice versa. To the extent my "credit" is a factor it doesn't travel with me from location to location.
Word travels around, does it not? Moreover why is it relevant whether it's a number sitting on a database somewhere, compared to some vibes sitting in some guy's head?
Is amazon going to tell me that up front? In the restaurant case the manager can explain the issue to the customer and ask them not to come in again. It becomes immediately resolvable whereas in your example I have no idea what just happened to me.
> Word travels around, does it not?
The difference between the analog word and the digital word is extreme.
> compared to some vibes sitting in some guy's head?
I live in a town of 2 million people. These vibes have zero impact. Add them to a database that can be tied to my credit card number? Now they have real impact. I don't think that's a reasonable or desirable outcome.
The problem with these systems isn't their mere existence it's their draconian implementations.
In either case they can explain, it's entirely orthogonal to the question of whether it's in-person or not. There's no technical reason why Amazon can't send you a email saying that you were banned for excessive returns, for instance. Moreover I can imagine plenty of reasons why a restaurant manager might not want to explain the precise reason, such as the threat of lawsuits, or not wanting to create an argument/scene. See also, why some HR/hiring managers are cagey about why you were turned down for a job.
>The difference between the analog word and the digital word is extreme.
The difference between a hyper-connected metropolises of today, and a random village in the 1800s is also extreme.
That bartender most likely has 3 to 5 worse assholes every shift and dozen usual assholes . He is not going to remember he doesn’t care.
Local non profit after 2 years most likely won’t have the same people and top guys won’t remember all one off volunteers.
Believing any of it having more significance would be attributed to “spotlight effect” in my opinion.
In large, dense cities you’re pretty much anonymous; I could dance naked in a main street today and (provided no one’s recording) carry on with my life with zero repercussions.
Some people make a living out of that fact. Tourist traps do not exactly engage recurring customers, every purchase is a customer’s first.
But I will agree that it’s far from perfect. It’s also similar to the bar example. A reputation is built one person at a time. It takes a while, with repeated bad behavior, to build a bad reputation with the entire staff or regulars.
Certain subreddits you can't comment on until you have a minimum # of karma, some other subs auto-ban you if you contribute or subscribe to other subs.
and people don't just remember. sometimes they set you up to test you and or to give you a chance.
some other times they set someone else up to test you and or to give you a chance.
and sometimes people poison others to increase their and or your social credit.
as Austin Powers (or was it Ali G?) said quite eloquently: "behave".
One is more distributed and not controlled by any single entity, the other puts all the power over your life into the hands of a few oligarchs.
otherwise, people have always judged each other with any way they could
In this case a corporation is judging me and then offering those judgments as a service.
Quite a difference.
> Here's what's actually happening. As of 2024, there's still no nationwide social credit score in China. Most private scoring systems have been shut down, and local government pilots have largely ended. It’s mainly a fragmented collection of regulatory compliance tools, mostly focused on financial behavior and business oversight. While well over 33 million businesses have been scored under corporate social credit systems, individual scoring remains limited to small pilot cities like Rongcheng. Even there, scoring systems have had "very limited impact" since they've never been elevated to provincial or national levels.
Compare that to the situation with, say, credit scores in the US --- wholly run by an oligopoly of three private companies, but fully ingrained into how personal finances work here. At least a publicly run credit score would be held accountable, however indirectly, to voters and the law; and its safety might be treated as a matter of national security, rather than having Equifax and Experian leaking data like clockwork.
The fact there's a credit system that protects banks from the people makes it painfully obvious who is in charge of Western society - consider this:
You take out a loan to contract the company to build you a house. The company defaults and disappears overnight. The bank is protected automatically but it's up to you have to run after your money yourself.
China has had a lot of official social control for centuries, but it was local and managed by local cops.[2] As the population became more mobile, that wasn't enough. But a single national system never emerged.
There was a work record history, the Dang'an, created by the Party but to some extent pre-dating communism. This, again, was handled locally, by Party officials. This system didn't cope well with employee mobility. But it didn't get built into a comprehensive national system, either.
China is authoritarian, but most of the mechanisms of coercion are local. Local political bullies are a constant low-level problem.
Kind of like rural Alabama.
[1] https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/11/22/1063605/china-an...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dang%27an
It is a fundamentally flawed comparison.
The actual distinction here is between positive/negative rights. In OP's case, it's if even if you do have the money to do X thing, you are artifically not allowed to do so. That's a violation of negative rights.
In your case, you're positing that if you couldn't afford it anyways, it's "social credit" if private lenders don't give you help because you have a history of not paying loans back. That's an appeal to positive rights, that people have a active obligation to you, and it's not even from the government but from private lenders. That's a far more contentious assumption that ironically isn't held by the Chinese or the CCP or most of the world for that matter outside of a spoilt corner of the West. And it's a critique that dosen't even land in reality when the Fed does provide easy student loans at a far greater scale than the Chinese Government. A policy that has worked out swimmingly well!
Please read it again. It was hypothesized that you could have a hard time getting a college loan if your parents had bad credit. Now, you could construct an argument for why that policy makes sense for credit issuers, such as 'statistics show that 87% of debtors' children go on to become debtors themselves'. But the underlying objection was that you shouldn't need to go into debt to get access to higher education in the first place, ie college should not be insanely expensive and you should be able to manage the academic and financial demands with a part time job.
But we're conflating social credit with credit scores are we? A highly contentious normative claim has little to do with OP's argument and is obviously not a basis for a rebuttal for distinctiying the two systems. Which I would imagine there is a certain intentionality in reaching for highly contrived arguments based on literal hypotheticals rather than accurate description of reality.
Democracy is about balancing different interests. So yeah, it is hard when the change you want isn't neccessairly what others believe in. You do need to compromise with other groups. Which means that large, coaliation parties that emerge will naturally regress to the mean. But ironically, that also is the suremost sign of plurality that things very much are different from authoritarianism where it pretty is just one interest group trampling over all the others. Well, some here might prefer that, but they are almost definetly not going to be the ones in charge.
The western system creates an illusion of choice, which those in power have found ways to manipulate. It has become merely a convenient tool for them to exploit the rest of the population, while the "free market" and "democracy" keep them oblivious to it.
But whatever people like me say, it will be too hard for most of you to accept the reality.
Unless you guys start accepting that and find an alternative solution or system, you'll keep digging yourself deeper into the hole you're in. More debt, more wars, more homelessness, more crime, and no future.
Edit: I might be another troll, but from last few elections I don’t feel any progress. As an engineer I see continuous offshoring of well paid positions to cheaper EU countries. As self employed electrician I see regulatory and tax madness.
I'm aware there are more than exactly 2 parties in the ballots in many western countries. It's not about the numbers, but whether any of those choices really give the people real alternatives, or just different ways to screw the majority of the people.
As you can probably can see from the above interaction, people resort very quickly to ad hominem attacks.
You seem to think awfully highly of your ability to reason about the world, but I find your claim to be fairly lacking. This all reads like the ramblings of a 19 year old who just discovered Chomsky.
Address the argument rather than engaging in ad hominem.
You have tons of meaningful economic choices everywhere in American life. You can bank with any bank and look for competing offers for credit to do useful things. For example you can buy a home and shop for a better interest rate by taking an offer for a loan from one lender to another and 9 times out of 10 you'll come away with a better offer. But you can easily not take on a loan and choose to preference flexibility and therefore rent. This housing choice involves a myriad of sub choices about lifestyle, commuting preferences, school adjacency, and other elements you may want to balance. Because US state are often quite different in character and economic and social opportunity you have a ton of dimension along which you can exercise choice.
Someone posting here likely has access to remote work and can meaningfully choose to live in a quite mountain town in West Virginia with satellite internet where you never see more than a few people every week, or you could live in a mid sized city like I do and get involved in neighborhood organizations. Similarly you could move to NYC and live in a small apartment an spend all of your time going out to bars and restaurants. These are SUPER meaningful choices on an individual level.
There are total nutjobs of all walks that are living just fine. There are actual Nazis and commies living just fine.
It's a big country. If our whole society already has dystopian social credit it should be easy to find examples.
Stop right there, then you'll see them :) Millions of them
The first time I visited China I was under 21 but I had heard the drinking age was 18 so I went to a convenience store to buy a beer. Person running the till was probably 12 and didn’t say a word or ask for ID. Unbelievably lax compared to the US sometimes.
I generally think it’s easier and more effective to track the outputs rather than the inputs: you don’t need to track how many beers they buy, just outlaw public intoxication. And enforce that law.
I think, at least from my interpretation of it from being in China and having Chinese family, that something like underage drinking is seen more as a family issue, than a legal issue. What stops the 16 year old from drinking? The fact that their friends / family will see them being drunk, and think less of the person and their family. A 16 year old being drunk in public is family issue. Sure, the cops will intervene at some point, but China has very little drunken / raucous public behavior than the west does.
There's a reason: I used to be a real asshole troll, in the UseNet days (Don't listen to the folks with rose-colored glasses, telling you that things were better in those days; it was really bad).
I feel that I need to atone for that. I'm not particularly concerned whether anyone else gives me credit (indeed, it seems to have actually earned me more enemies, here, than when I was a combative jerk).
I do it because I need to do it for myself. I feel that we are best able to be "Productive members of Society," when we do things because we have developed a model of personal Integrity.
They also will happily give your money to any thief pretending to be you, and then blame you for their mistake.
It's popular because it solves the problem (not ALL problems, but the one they're trying to solve) and it's easy and low-barrier to implement and use.
Depending on the type of bankruptcy declared, debtor exams happen here.
> the image [of overt social-credit tech in public] is so powerful that Utah's House passed a law banning social credit systems, despite none existing in America.
More like the LDS Church banned social credit systems that would compete with theirs lol
Look, social credit is neither a new concept nor is it destined to be some Orwellian/Black Mirror/Authoritarian tool that keeps undesirables enslaved in low-wage work or targeted for “reeducation” - that’s a decision we allow Governments or Corporations to make on our behalf by refusing to bother regulating these systems or holding bad actors accountable.
The sooner we accept that this is possible, that it’s already here in many cases, the sooner we can begin negotiating regulations in good faith with one another. Maybe it’s placing limits on the data corporations can gather and retain, or maybe it’s preventing the government from acquiring private data without transparent judicial warrants tied to crimes. Maybe it’s something else entirely!
All I know is the current status quo enriches Capital while harming people, governments, and Democracy. I think that’s bullshit, and we should do something about it.
Um no. That is not the only difference by a LONG SHOT.
If I want to evaluate whether or not I want to involve myself with you, in any capacity, then that negotiation is between you and me. I can ask for references. I can ask for a credit check. I can go pay for a police background check. I can read public review sites. Or, I might decide that because you listen to country & western music you're not a real person and I can't know you and leave the vetting at that.
Consequentially, however, that dealing impacts our relationship and none other. You might find other people who don't care about the same "social credit criteria" that I do and you might find yourself dealing with them instead.
That's kind of the beauty of this thing we call "freedom." Anyone gets to choose who they want to deal with (or not) and make their own individual choices. The "systems" they opt in are always opt in (or at least they should be).
The difference between a government "social credit" system and individuals (businesses or people) vetting other individuals based on their own chosen requirements is force.
A government system mandates this across society in a broad authoritarian sweep. Get on the bad side of "the party" and now you are a social pariah and will not have any luck finding anyone who wants to deal with you, country music lovers be damned, because it is forced upon everyone. A business has no choice but to apply "the" system because if they don't they get punished. It is not opt-in, it is a one-sized-fits-all mandated by force of law system that removes individual discretion and choice from the equation.
That's a LOT different than just "we're upfront about it."
Furthermore, while I appreciate when authoritarians are honest about their violations of basic human rights and freedoms, that doesn't suddenly make what they are doing OK. I don't want to deal with a thief who is honest about their thievery any more than I want to deal with one who tries to hide it.
I think here is the difference between your and authors optics. You count businesses (does this include large corporations/organizations?) as individuals.
But it misses a huge nuance on the whole "dystopian" thing. The main thing about "social score bad" takes is that the government will use that scoring. It's not private <-> private. Everything the author mentions about the various scoring in the US (and EU for that matter, although to a lesser extent in some cases) is between you and private institutions. The government does not "track" or "access" or "use" those 3rd party scores.
It's a bit like 1st amendment in the US. You have the right of free speech with regards to the government. That means the government cannot punish you for your speech. But that says nothing about your relationship with private parties. If you go to a government institution and tell them their boss sux, in theory you shouldn't be punished for that, and they'll keep serving you. But the same does not extend to a private bakery. Or a bar. Or any private property. Tell them their boss sux, and you might not get service.
So yeah, there are lots of 3rd party rating services. But they're mainly between you and those 3rd parties. The government mainly stays out.
On the other hand, "private" has the downside of falling into unaccountable monopolies/duopolies. You don't have a individual choice about having a credit score, or whether banks can use it, or with which companies. You have no control, there's no accountability.
If credit scores were run by the government, then in theory democratic processes could regulate them in terms of accuracy, privacy, who was allowed to access them, for what purposes, etc. There would be actual accountability to the people, in what that there isn't when it comes to private companies.
While you say "lots of 3rd party rating services... are mainly between you and those 3rd parties", many are not. They're between one 3rd party (a bank, a landlord), and another (Equifax, Experian).
The ones that are, they're eBay, Uber, etc. Which seem more obviously defensible as being privately run.
I've also heard of food safety regulation, airline safety, public schools, libraries, science funding, workplace safety regulation, building safety regulation, the list goes on.
Giving the government more power is quite often the answer. Sometimes it's the best solution, sometimes it isn't. But it's definitely not "almost never", that much we can be sure of.
No: The dystopia comes from helplessness and inability to appeal injustice, regardless of who/what manages the system or how it is legally constructed.
We must take care to distinguish between the problem we want to avoid versus the mechanism we hope will avoid it... especially when there are reasons to believe that mechanism is not a reliable defense.
> But the same does not extend to a private bakery. Or a bar. Or any private property. Tell them their boss sux, and you might not get service.
The difference here isn't because they're "private", but because you implicitly assume you will have alternatives, other local bakeries or bars which are reliably neutral to the spat.
Things become very different if they're all owned by Omni Consumer Products or subscribed to Blacklist as a Service.
Except, of course, it's not that simple. There are a host of behaviors and traits that private businesses are not allowed to consider when choosing whether or not to provide you products or services. These carve-outs to free association exist because at any given time a large enough portion of the population exists of bigots who choose their associations based on characteristics that the rest of society has decided are not acceptable grounds for refusing service. So we compel service if we think not providing it is sufficiently shitty and harmful. Something similar happens when a private institution, or class of institution, is so critical to life or participation in society that exclusion serves as a form of semi-banishment. Such institutions are put under even stricter standards for association.
The idea that social credit or similar are totally fine and peachy so long as it's "only" private institutions using it is a fantasy entertained by rugged individualists who naively narrow their analysis of power dynamics to "big government bad" and discount their dependency on extremely powerful private organizations.
I always found it strange that they are not allowed to discriminate based on gender/religion etc but they are allowed to discriminate based on if you are likable or not. As in they can refuse to serve you as long as they don't mention it's based on anything that's illegal to discriminate against.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick#Arrest,_convicti...
> Mitnick was released from prison on January 21, 2000. During his supervised release period, which ended on January 21, 2003, he was initially forbidden to use any communications technology other than a landline telephone.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_agreement
Regardless these arguments about whether it’s bad based on if the government is involved or not is ridiculous given how interwoven our corporations and government are. Like just doing business with any company strips your 4th amendment rights on that data.
There’s no sane way to argue that they have a clear delineation throughout society
That's because all that power turns the companies into paragovernamental organizations. Anything with the power to gatekeep human rights is a government.
> Your credit score doesn't just determine loan eligibility; it affects where you can live, which jobs you can get, and how much you pay for car insurance.
> LinkedIn algorithmically manages your professional visibility based on engagement patterns, posting frequency, and network connections, rankings that recruiters increasingly rely on to filter candidates.
Luckily neither google nor apple does any hardcore KYC (yet) so such bans can be avoided with a new phone + phone number. Inconvenient? Yes. Being perma-locked out of digital services for the rest of your life? Hardly.
the more I think about it, the more I think this is the core of a rePUBLIC
there's a bunch of private actors, the "citizens" who get together to form the republic, and thereby establish "the public space" aka the commons
It's much harder to opt-out of a government than a privately-crafted social scoring system. But some become so large that you can't de-facto opt-out, not without significant consequences to your quality of life... And that becomes a problem.
it's all part of how there's widely available social media technology and academic graph languages.
of course the government is going to track the citizens, it's all a matter of how, how much, and to what end.
This is absolutely untrue. The government is a customer of all of these companies, and can whip up a chorus of brownshirts to loudly complain about any objections to the government doing this. There's a reason everybody who talks about speech should know what a long obsolete device called a "pen register" does. It's what we now refer to as a public-private partnership.
> It's a bit like 1st amendment in the US.
It is, in that the government can pay or blackmail* companies into censoring your speech, and doesn't have to bother with prior restraint.**
-----
[*] ...through selective application of what is usually antitrust legislation.
[**] ...which the 1st Amendment never mentions, but has been bound to it by people and judges who wanted to censor speech about communism and birth control.
I counted 0, but I do not live in US/China. It will probably came here as well.
I mean why not? Any customer that effectively makes the company look bad can be banned by the company.
I bring up Uber/Lyft in particular because 99/100 drivers break traffic laws. The speed (10-15 miles per hour above the speed limit), they tailgate which is both putting me in danger, putting other car in danger, and is illegal (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...). They'll do things like stop a full car and half past the waiting point at an intersection (have pictures of this). In other words, there a line behind which a car is supposed to wait. Then there's a crosswalk. They've stopped the car so it's past the crosswalk while waiting for the light to change. They turn right on red when the sign says no right on red. Etc....
I'd give them all 1 star out of 5 except for the fear mentioned above. That my "social credit" with the company would have them drop me as a customer.
Taxis admittedly aren't that much more careful but a professional chauffeur probably fits the bill, and charges accordingly.
* To Prevent Unfair and Unfounded Ratings: Uber could argue that some riders misuse the rating system. They might give a driver a low rating for reasons outside of the driver's control, such as traffic, a bad mood, or a simple misunderstanding. This policy would be presented as a way to protect drivers from being unfairly penalized, which could affect their livelihood.
* To Combat "Rating Terrorism" or Coercion: A rider might threaten a driver with a low rating to get a free ride, demand an unscheduled stop, or force them to violate a rule. By banning riders who frequently give low scores, Uber would be taking a stance against this kind of behavior, ensuring that the rating system is used as a genuine feedback mechanism, not a tool for coercion.
* To Discourage "Troll" Behavior: Some users might be incentivized to give consistently low ratings just to cause trouble or get attention, a practice often referred to as "trolling." This policy would be framed as a way to filter out users who are not participating in the community in good faith and are instead just trying to cause problems.
* To Maintain Driver Confidence in the Platform: Drivers rely on their ratings to maintain their account status. If they feel that riders are unfairly giving them low scores without consequence, they may become disillusioned with the platform and switch to a competitor. Banning riders who give consistently low ratings would be a way to show drivers that Uber has their back.
* To Improve Service by Identifying and Removing "Unreasonable" Riders: Uber could frame this as a data-driven approach. They might claim that their internal data shows a small percentage of riders who give low ratings to virtually every driver, regardless of the quality of the service. By removing these outliers, they would be improving the overall efficiency and health of the marketplace for the vast majority of drivers and riders. The goal would be to cultivate a community of "reasonable" users who understand and use the ratings system as it was intended.
To continue, for me, my experience is I would rate low probably 7 of 8 drivers for the reasons I gave above. They all break traffic laws and drive recklessly. I kind of wish the app would let me set a driver preference. I'd chose
(*) drive at the speed limit. Don't break any laws. Drive cautiously.
others might choose
(*) get there as fast as possible - (implying ignoring speed limits, weaving through traffic, cutting people off, ignoring turn lanes, etc...)
At least that way the driver would know up front what the user expects. Me, I'd give them 5 stars for not risking my life. Others would give them 5 stars for going as fast as possible.
As it is, I don't rate them low. I just don't rate at all because of the fear of being banned.
Well, delivery addresses can be somehow anonymized by the use of PO boxes; names on credit cards, not so much.
Of all companies, the systems at Uber and Amazon definitely know it's you starting the new account. They just don't openly mention it, and quietly link your old accounts via monitoring and analytics. As soon as the FBI comes knocking, they're able to provide your current account and all linked accounts. Even the ones they previously closed.
(Not that the FBI has to come knocking nowadays to get that information, but Uber and Amazon are able to provide comprehensive help to law enforcement if it's required.)
use the same phone number, email address or credit card and they know you are the same person, use the same wifi spot or IP address with the same behaviour and they can intimate you are the same.. Even badly written data analysis can do this and a VPN from another country and different username wont convince any system with an ounce of sense.
My point however was not to provide an exhaustive list of workarounds, just to point out that it is the lack of privacy and anonymity in our lives and enables such surveillance.
Instaban. Every. Time.
> The gap between Western perception and Chinese reality is enormous
They inserted "nationwide".
The social credit score in one China region (khm Xinj... khm) is truly dystopian, and I bet people there don't care whether it's "nationwide" or not, if they can literally be sterilized or get sent to concentration camps because of that.
But they said it's not nationwide! As of 2024.
Zero. Are everyone really that terminally online? I reject most things that use an app. Yesterday I encountered a coffee vending machine that required an app. I walked away. Uncle Ted was right.
One day you'll be denied care or your insurance premiums will quadruple because you buy too much sweets in Amazon, or because you once said you fell off a chair while drunk in a party in Instagram. Then you'll care.
We may not call it social credit, but in practice we’re already building it.
ok, maybe
... so yeah, it's totally fine lets do it ...
WHAT
Non-existent in the country I live in. There's a national registry of debtors and people end up there for a very good reason.
>Linkedin, Amazon
There's no reason to consider these to be essential services, I am not using either and I'm doing perfectly fine in life.
>Instagram
LOL
>Uber, Airbnb
There are several copycats, traditional taxis and hotels are still a thing and public transportation or your own car are valid alternatives
What even is this article? I skimmmed the rest of it and it just seems like the crux of the article is about proving how China's systems are actually fine while ommitng the fact that their systems are mandated by the state. Is Chinese propaganda what makes it to the front page of HN nowadays?