The only one of these I'd come close to agreeing with is credit scores. The rest of these don't meaningfully impact your life at all for the most part. Yes, Amazon tracks my purchases, but are...
The only one of these I'd come close to agreeing with is credit scores. The rest of these don't meaningfully impact your life at all for the most part.
Yes, Amazon tracks my purchases, but are they going to refuse to sell me things because I bought too many things that they've frowned upon? LinkedIn tracks me (or would it I used it), but is the fact that I don't post enough on LinkedIn going to result in me not getting a job?
These are all voluntary associations, not a widespread system to ensure that I'm living my life according to someone's view of morality. If I'm an Uber driver, I'm probably not picking someone up that has one star not because I don't approve of their lifestyle or because I want them to be more moral, I'm not picking them up because I don't want them to puke in my car, start an argument with me, then slash my tires.
They're free to use a cab or Lyft if they want to, neither of which are going to look at their Uber rating.
Credit ratings are trickier because they're much more pervasive. On the one hand, it makes sense for creditors to have a system that allows them to determine risk. On the other hand, it can be pretty invasive. It's still not about morality though. It's about your likelihood to repay debts, which is the one thing a creditor actually cares about.
Amazon does limit refunds and LinkedIn can ask for identity verification. These are meant to be fraud protection but they're not transparent about what goes into these and some policies might be...
Amazon does limit refunds and LinkedIn can ask for identity verification. These are meant to be fraud protection but they're not transparent about what goes into these and some policies might be more for company protection rather than for users. Amazon refusing refunds for fake products received due to conmingled inventories. LinkedIn might use the smallest reasons to get ID verification because they want to push their Verified tag to more profiles (also might want more data). There are alternatives to Amazon, but for some products depending on where you are, it might be the only option. And you need LinkedIn for a lot of jobs, terrible as the platform is.
Morality isn't tied in, but I think it's worth considering how tech is becoming increasingly linked with our lives.
You are assuming that computers never make a mistake. If someone has bad social credit, that's because they're a bad person. Which could be the case. But it could also be the case that making a...
You are assuming that computers never make a mistake. If someone has bad social credit, that's because they're a bad person. Which could be the case. But it could also be the case that making a 100 % perfect social credit system that also maximizes profits for the company that runs it is not feasible, and a significant number of people fall through the cracks and won't be able to find an Uber, a mate, a job or an apartment. And they won't be able to rectify their score because the credit system is a black box. They are not the customer, they are the product.
People will still use the system if it's correct most of the time. If billions of people benefit from it, a few millions who suffer from it will not be able to effect change. It can take literally hundreds of years to get the worst discimination out of a society if it only affects a minority.
Considering that every employer I've applied to in the last 5 years has a mandatory LinkedIn URL field,I'm gonna say yes. It's also what's not there. If every current employee has a public active...
but is the fact that I don't post enough on LinkedIn going to result in me not getting a job?
Considering that every employer I've applied to in the last 5 years has a mandatory LinkedIn URL field,I'm gonna say yes.
It's also what's not there. If every current employee has a public active Instagram account, and you don't.... would they see that as a warning sign?
Also, regarding Uber
If I'm an Uber driver, I'm probably not picking someone up that has one star not because I don't approve of their lifestyle or because I want them to be more moral, I'm not picking them up because I don't want them to puke in my car, start an argument with me, then slash my tires.
Social credit is a reformulation of the backbone of society: reputation. Reputation is what breaks the hegemony of snitches in the prisoner dilemma. It’s what makes cooperation a viable strategy....
Social credit is a reformulation of the backbone of society: reputation. Reputation is what breaks the hegemony of snitches in the prisoner dilemma. It’s what makes cooperation a viable strategy.
Uber is an example given: it would really make everyone’s experience worse if Uber didn’t have passenger scores and driver scores.
It's also a great way to blacklist anyone you don't agree with.... "Sorry you can no longer use uber due to your lawsuit against uber/statements on X political issue/etc". Now just expand that to...
It's also a great way to blacklist anyone you don't agree with....
"Sorry you can no longer use uber due to your lawsuit against uber/statements on X political issue/etc".
Now just expand that to every sector. How about nuking your MS and gmail account.
This seems like the best we can do? I don’t see a reasonable alternative. (A) You are entitled to use Uber no matter what — not great for people who regularly harass drivers (B) You are entitled...
This seems like the best we can do? I don’t see a reasonable alternative.
(A) You are entitled to use Uber no matter what — not great for people who regularly harass drivers
(B) You are entitled to use Uber unless some third-party deems it inappropriate — now they can just do the same denylisting with no oversight
(C) You are entitled to use Uber unless Uber doesn’t let you — very similar to B, except that Uber’s decisions are kept in check by Lyft, taxis, and other ridesharing services who want their business.
It’d be nice if you could just say “You are allowed to use a service if and only if your use of that service will not be harmful” but in reality, someone somewhere will need to make that call.
I know they are examples, but do you know any cases in that banning or other harm was done to customers for disagreements with the service provider? And, not to invalidate your concern, but...
I know they are examples, but do you know any cases in that banning or other harm was done to customers for disagreements with the service provider? And, not to invalidate your concern, but sometimes things can go wrong even with those we used to consider “on our side”.
Not sure if i'm misunderstanding, but a major point I'm making is that no one should ever be considered "on our side" because it can change overnight. Xu_Xiaodong is one of the most famous...
Not sure if i'm misunderstanding, but a major point I'm making is that no one should ever be considered "on our side" because it can change overnight.
Xu_Xiaodong is one of the most famous examples from a government perspective, which is arguably the most concerning. From the link:
Xu was sued in 2019 for calling tai chi Grandmaster Chen Xiaowang a fraud, and the Chinese court ordered him to pay Chen approximately US$60,000 in damages and to apologize for seven consecutive days on social media. Additionally, his credit rating was lowered to the point where he could not rent, own property, stay in certain hotels, travel on high speed rail, or buy plane tickets.[17][18] The restrictions were lifted after he paid US$40,000 in both legal fees and the cost of placing the apology.[19]
In May 2019, Xu defeated another martial artist, but was only able to do so wearing clown makeup to hide his face and by fighting under a pseudonym. It took him 36 hours to reach the fight location due to his low credit score, and Chinese search engines reportedly had stopped listing him.[20][21]
Edit: oh and if you want non Chinese examples they very much exist. Pretty much every major company will nuke you from their service if you do a chargeback, justified or not. DIRECT punishment due to legal activity is harder to prove, but since all companies have the right to refuse service outside of VERY specific situations, it's also quite trivial to just say they're exercising that right.
After reading the article, I came here to post until I found that my perspective had already been said! I’d argue that reputation is one of the fundamental values of the human economy; it’s built...
After reading the article, I came here to post until I found that my perspective had already been said! I’d argue that reputation is one of the fundamental values of the human economy; it’s built into every exchange. We pay brand premiums because of reputation. We hire and admit based on reputation.
Ironically, the author’s insight is precisely what they overlook. The fact that reputation is privatized is a good thing. It means that companies and people can go to a different party to regain reputation if they have lost it with one party.
The issue with social credit as a centralized measure is that can be used for consolidation of power. The government is not subject to the same market checks and balances. At the end of the day, humans can choose to do things or not do things. It’s better for that power to be in the hands of companies and individuals than with the government, who already has a monopoly on violence.
The only one of these I'd come close to agreeing with is credit scores. The rest of these don't meaningfully impact your life at all for the most part.
Yes, Amazon tracks my purchases, but are they going to refuse to sell me things because I bought too many things that they've frowned upon? LinkedIn tracks me (or would it I used it), but is the fact that I don't post enough on LinkedIn going to result in me not getting a job?
These are all voluntary associations, not a widespread system to ensure that I'm living my life according to someone's view of morality. If I'm an Uber driver, I'm probably not picking someone up that has one star not because I don't approve of their lifestyle or because I want them to be more moral, I'm not picking them up because I don't want them to puke in my car, start an argument with me, then slash my tires.
They're free to use a cab or Lyft if they want to, neither of which are going to look at their Uber rating.
Credit ratings are trickier because they're much more pervasive. On the one hand, it makes sense for creditors to have a system that allows them to determine risk. On the other hand, it can be pretty invasive. It's still not about morality though. It's about your likelihood to repay debts, which is the one thing a creditor actually cares about.
Amazon does limit refunds and LinkedIn can ask for identity verification. These are meant to be fraud protection but they're not transparent about what goes into these and some policies might be more for company protection rather than for users. Amazon refusing refunds for fake products received due to conmingled inventories. LinkedIn might use the smallest reasons to get ID verification because they want to push their Verified tag to more profiles (also might want more data). There are alternatives to Amazon, but for some products depending on where you are, it might be the only option. And you need LinkedIn for a lot of jobs, terrible as the platform is.
Morality isn't tied in, but I think it's worth considering how tech is becoming increasingly linked with our lives.
You are assuming that computers never make a mistake. If someone has bad social credit, that's because they're a bad person. Which could be the case. But it could also be the case that making a 100 % perfect social credit system that also maximizes profits for the company that runs it is not feasible, and a significant number of people fall through the cracks and won't be able to find an Uber, a mate, a job or an apartment. And they won't be able to rectify their score because the credit system is a black box. They are not the customer, they are the product.
People will still use the system if it's correct most of the time. If billions of people benefit from it, a few millions who suffer from it will not be able to effect change. It can take literally hundreds of years to get the worst discimination out of a society if it only affects a minority.
Considering that every employer I've applied to in the last 5 years has a mandatory LinkedIn URL field,I'm gonna say yes.
It's also what's not there. If every current employee has a public active Instagram account, and you don't.... would they see that as a warning sign?
Also, regarding Uber
If you refuse too many riders, they will offer rides to other drivers first. So you you have to choose: Is that risk worth continually lowering your income for the week?
Social credit is a reformulation of the backbone of society: reputation. Reputation is what breaks the hegemony of snitches in the prisoner dilemma. It’s what makes cooperation a viable strategy.
Uber is an example given: it would really make everyone’s experience worse if Uber didn’t have passenger scores and driver scores.
It's also a great way to blacklist anyone you don't agree with....
"Sorry you can no longer use uber due to your lawsuit against uber/statements on X political issue/etc".
Now just expand that to every sector. How about nuking your MS and gmail account.
This seems like the best we can do? I don’t see a reasonable alternative.
(A) You are entitled to use Uber no matter what — not great for people who regularly harass drivers
(B) You are entitled to use Uber unless some third-party deems it inappropriate — now they can just do the same denylisting with no oversight
(C) You are entitled to use Uber unless Uber doesn’t let you — very similar to B, except that Uber’s decisions are kept in check by Lyft, taxis, and other ridesharing services who want their business.
It’d be nice if you could just say “You are allowed to use a service if and only if your use of that service will not be harmful” but in reality, someone somewhere will need to make that call.
I know they are examples, but do you know any cases in that banning or other harm was done to customers for disagreements with the service provider? And, not to invalidate your concern, but sometimes things can go wrong even with those we used to consider “on our side”.
Edit: oh and if you want non Chinese examples they very much exist. Pretty much every major company will nuke you from their service if you do a chargeback, justified or not. DIRECT punishment due to legal activity is harder to prove, but since all companies have the right to refuse service outside of VERY specific situations, it's also quite trivial to just say they're exercising that right.
After reading the article, I came here to post until I found that my perspective had already been said! I’d argue that reputation is one of the fundamental values of the human economy; it’s built into every exchange. We pay brand premiums because of reputation. We hire and admit based on reputation.
Ironically, the author’s insight is precisely what they overlook. The fact that reputation is privatized is a good thing. It means that companies and people can go to a different party to regain reputation if they have lost it with one party.
The issue with social credit as a centralized measure is that can be used for consolidation of power. The government is not subject to the same market checks and balances. At the end of the day, humans can choose to do things or not do things. It’s better for that power to be in the hands of companies and individuals than with the government, who already has a monopoly on violence.