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.
To be fair I think you already pointed out the very very important difference between “what out phones do” and what has colloquially been called social credit. It’s the centralization of the...
To be fair I think you already pointed out the very very important difference between “what out phones do” and what has colloquially been called social credit.
It’s the centralization of the information that gets scary fast. Double so if involved in anything government. And the fact that SO MUCH is linked privately already through your criminal history and credit score is absolutely the sort of thing that keeps the poverty to prison spiral going.
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.
A chargeback is not 'disagreeing with your service provider', it is taking their money. Like walking out of a restaurant without paying the bill, obviously the restaurant doesn't want you to come...
Pretty much every major company will nuke you from their service if you do a chargeback, justified or not.
A chargeback is not 'disagreeing with your service provider', it is taking their money. Like walking out of a restaurant without paying the bill, obviously the restaurant doesn't want you to come back. That's not what is being discussed here
I have dealt with at least 2 companies that required me to do a chargeback. I presented multiple screenshots of correspondence to my CC company and they reviewed and agreed with it. This is far...
I have dealt with at least 2 companies that required me to do a chargeback. I presented multiple screenshots of correspondence to my CC company and they reviewed and agreed with it.
This is far from just walking out without paying the bill. It is providing evidence that you have been scammed or stolen from.
So you had two different companies agree that a chargeback was valid, but decide to ban you anyway? That sucks, but businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, as long as...
So you had two different companies agree that a chargeback was valid, but decide to ban you anyway?
That sucks, but businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, as long as it's not discrimination of a protected class.
If a businesses policy is to ban anyone who does a chargeback, that's a pretty shitty policy, but it's their right to do that. What would be the alternative from a public policy perspective? Force businesses to put up with any sort of behavior from their customers, even if it hurts their business?
I’m not really disagreeing with any of that. The previous commenter said it was like refusing to pay the bill which it is patently not. Again not all chargebacks are even approved and the CC...
I’m not really disagreeing with any of that. The previous commenter said it was like refusing to pay the bill which it is patently not.
Again not all chargebacks are even approved and the CC provider gives the company a chance to defend themselves. Chargebacks can be “overturned” or rejected and there are punishments to the credit card user for having that occur frequently.
Either way I’m not sure what you’re getting at given this entire example was given because someone asked for examples of people being “punished” for disagreements with the service provider, and the general behavior of getting a successful chargeback (which again traditionally requires a basic level of proof) leading to banning from their platforms qualifies.
As you already pointed out though, yes, they have a right to refuse service and that right can ABSOLUTELY be used to refuse service over disagreements so long as it’s not a protected class.
Gave a 1 star review they didn’t like on Amazon? They can remove you from the platform (which of course also means losing access to any movies or books you’ve purchased). That, to my knowledge, hasn’t happened, but there’s also no law that says service providers need to be rational. Want to punish people for liking tweets or wearing a red shirt, or any of a thousand arbitrary metrics, you have the right to.
It’s in theory bad business, but I don’t think people get just how easily we could go from apathetic business models to out right hostile ones. If MS, Anazon, and Google started banning accounts it would do a lot of damage to most people and be pretty trivial to find excuses to target the people they wanted to, protected class or not. Hell they could share lists of “bad users” and just wipe you out.
In my eyes the current situation is much like pre Trump politics in that no one of note has bothered to push the boundaries yet, but I don’t think there’s much stopping them if they do.
In that situation, where a company has tried to steal from you, why would being locked out of their services in the future be a bad thing? You're no longer allowed to fall for a scam, that should...
This is far from just walking out without paying the bill. It is providing evidence that you have been scammed or stolen from.
In that situation, where a company has tried to steal from you, why would being locked out of their services in the future be a bad thing? You're no longer allowed to fall for a scam, that should protect you.
Its still not a 'disagreement', it is one of you thinking the other has stolen money from them. I guess you could frame that as a disagreement about which one of you is the thief, but its not a disagreement in the context of this converstation
If the company is uber? Lyft? Microsoft? Google? Amazon? Walmart? Steam? Delta? United? Southwest? American? Hell ISPs + phone providers blacklisting you would be legal and crippling to basically...
If the company is uber? Lyft? Microsoft? Google? Amazon? Walmart? Steam? Delta? United? Southwest? American?
Hell ISPs + phone providers blacklisting you would be legal and crippling to basically anyone. How easily can you get by without internet or cellular connection?
What if they start sharing lists so a chargeback against one bans you from all of them.
Hell these are absolutely companies large enough to have entire divisions fuck up and force you to charge back out of incompetence not any intended malice.
At what point does it become “better let them steal from me because I can’t afford to be difficult”
And again, I don’t think they technically need a charge back to do this. As there’s a right to refuse service to anyone nothing really stops them from saying “fuck it” and just banning people every time a RNG seed kicks out a 10.
Arbitrary malice is technically legal, as would be sharing your banned users list, as would all the companies listed refusing service because you’re on that list.
I personally believe this is another huge hole in our laws and it’s only a matter of time until someone takes advantage. Things like social credit scores accelerate that.
There’s been some drama recently about the incredibly chilling effects and direct action that video game developers have been hit by recently, including and up to being removed from large online...
There’s been some drama recently about the incredibly chilling effects and direct action that video game developers have been hit by recently, including and up to being removed from large online game stores (such as itch and Steam).
As best I understand it, Steam and Itch have taken these actions not because of specific games being shown to break specific laws, but rather because payment processors have given vague statements about inappropriate themes. As attention was drawn to it, rather than provide any specific examples of games which break any laws, the payment processors hid behind vague rhetoric of illegal content in games in general. When the games platforms directly reached out to the payment processors with the intention of working with them for games which had been identified, the payment processors declined to work with them.
Out of fear of losing all access to payment processors entirely, Steam and Itch hid or deleted large swathes of porn themed games even when there was no direct evidence of direct lawbreaking, because neither platform has the kind of legal or moderation teams to undertake a review/audit of every single game on their platform at once.
As is often the case with this kind of broad, sweeping action, there were non-sexual LGBT-themed games which got caught up in things too, but I believe many of these have since been reviewed and restored.
And all this began not because of any criminal proceedings, or the outcome of an audit or anything, but rather because a vocal group from Australia intentionally put pressure on these payment providers because they don’t like sex in games. I believe the group is religiously associated, possibly Christian-based? And they have a history of attempting this kind of pressure with the intention of removing all sex media by hiding behind arguments of legal liability and criminal content, and usually in general terms, rarely identifying any specific media or relevant laws as they launch their campaigns.
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.
We've had taxi services function fine without ratings. Uber only needs ratings because of a disconnect between the driver and the operator, and the passenger and the operator.
We've had taxi services function fine without ratings. Uber only needs ratings because of a disconnect between the driver and the operator, and the passenger and the operator.
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.
If someone has bad social credit with Amazon, they can use Walmart (which does have delivery now). If they have bad social credit with Uber, they can use Lyft. Having a bad credit score is harder...
You are assuming that computers never make a mistake. If someone has bad social credit, that's because they're a bad person.
If someone has bad social credit with Amazon, they can use Walmart (which does have delivery now). If they have bad social credit with Uber, they can use Lyft. Having a bad credit score is harder to avoid, but credit scores are based on pretty transparent metrics (even if the exact formula is not public), and in general are pretty fair. If you pay your loans it goes up, if you don't it goes down, that's not exactly something with 'cracks' in it.
There could be a hypothetical case where a social credit system did go too far, that's what everyone was thinking China would end up doing, but it seems like in reality, in both China and the West things haven't ended up going that bad.
Having a few accounts go 30 days past due (when credit is in the product name and you agree to pay interest for the credit) because, I don't know: you were being abused and needed to escape you...
Having a few accounts go 30 days past due (when credit is in the product name and you agree to pay interest for the credit) because, I don't know:
you were being abused and needed to escape
you lost your job during a recession
your housing cost went up by 25% YoY
you decided to not budget for a few months due to crippling depression
you made some mistakes
I would argue the credit reporting system is really only fair if you take the perspective of the person (excuse me, corporation) lending money at usurious (excuse me, a barely regulated by our negligent and regulator it captured government at 29%).
This coming from someone that has never paid a cent of interest on revolving debt and with a 'perfect' score. They're always waiting for me to mess up. I'll never help justify a credit company's practices. I watched my PBS Frontline as a teenager.
I do not understand this perspective. Credit scores are not a social score so factoring in such social factors would be odd. The only thing the score is intended to convey is if someone will pay...
I do not understand this perspective. Credit scores are not a social score so factoring in such social factors would be odd. The only thing the score is intended to convey is if someone will pay their bills. It would be quite odd to me if we built a system that was designed to give people bills they can't or won't pay.
There's an argument to be made that interest rates on various loan types, such as credit cards, are allowed to be too high, but that's not really related to credit scores.
I grant that a credit card is not the same thing as the economic concept. But the driving point I was trying to make was that a late payment reducing your credit score is a violation of the very...
Credit (from Latin verb credit, meaning "one believes") is the trust which allows one party to provide money or resources to another party wherein the second party does not reimburse the first party immediately (thereby generating a debt), but promises either to repay or return those resources (or other materials of equal value) at a later date.[1] The resources provided by the first party can be either property, fulfillment of promises, or performances.[2] In other words, credit is a method of making reciprocity formal, legally enforceable, and extensible to a large group of unrelated people.
I grant that a credit card is not the same thing as the economic concept. But the driving point I was trying to make was that a late payment reducing your credit score is a violation of the very economic concept upon which the FICO system is based.
Sure, small reductions are understandable, but that's not really what happens in today's viciously exploitative world, is it. We have a system of positive feedback loops that crush people in debt until bankruptcy because that's the most profitable system for the capital holders to impose on the lower classes.
There's a reason there used to be the concept of having credit with a local grocer. And there's a reason it's a common parable to see a pitiable character archetype in that same past society (a single young mother striving to care for their family or similar) painted as the one to suffer when the local grocer shutters their personal book of credit in favor of a wider and newer economic model resulting in economic suffering for the pitiable character.
It is not. If it was profitable, companies would give way more debt to distressed creditors. They don't because companies like getting their money back. Most credit card business models rely on...
We have a system of positive feedback loops that crush people in debt until bankruptcy because that's the most profitable system for the capital holders to impose on the lower classes.
It is not. If it was profitable, companies would give way more debt to distressed creditors. They don't because companies like getting their money back.
Most credit card business models rely on responsible use. The companies want you to be trustworthy and reliable. One or two missed payments will not crater your score, but months of missed payments or a dozen loans certainly will.
There's a reason there used to be the concept of having credit with a local grocer.
Used to be, the only way to get credit was your personal reputation and relationship with a creditor. That system heavily discriminated against minority populations. Credit scores are more equitable, believe it or not.
The credit system is fair in that it allows people to get loans at rates that compensate banks for the risk they are taking by giving the loan. It does not make up for other unfairnesses in...
The credit system is fair in that it allows people to get loans at rates that compensate banks for the risk they are taking by giving the loan.
It does not make up for other unfairnesses in society which may cause someone to not be able to pay back a loan, but that's kind of outside of the scope of what a credit score is trying to solve.
If you're someone who is being abused, if you lost your job, if your housing costs went up such that you can't afford to pay your bills and so on, then you're a riskier proposition for a lender....
If you're someone who is being abused, if you lost your job, if your housing costs went up such that you can't afford to pay your bills and so on, then you're a riskier proposition for a lender. Its not a judgement call about the situation you're in, or an assignment of fault, it's just an assessment of how likely you are to default on debt.
I don't necessarily think it's fair, but then, I also don't think it's fair for credit scores to go away, forcing everyone else to have to pay higher interest rates to make up for people who don't pay their debts.
To fill in some info on China's social credit score in daily life: China has many 'shared' services. You can rent a bicycle, a power bank, even a moped, and only be charged when you return it to a...
There could be a hypothetical case where a social credit system did go too far, that's what everyone was thinking China would end up doing, but it seems like in reality, in both China and the West things haven't ended up going that bad.
To fill in some info on China's social credit score in daily life: China has many 'shared' services. You can rent a bicycle, a power bank, even a moped, and only be charged when you return it to a charger/parking spot. This would go horribly wrong in most countries due to people not returning or vandalising them, so when you rent the system looks at your renting record and decides whether or not you need to pay a deposit, or I assume deny service.
This seems like mostly a non-issue elsewhere even without a social credit score. As long as you know who had it you can seek remedy anyway. Most extreme case is to pursue legal action, but...
This seems like mostly a non-issue elsewhere even without a social credit score. As long as you know who had it you can seek remedy anyway. Most extreme case is to pursue legal action, but generally this is solved in a much simpler way: make you keep a valid payment method on file and charge it for incidentals.
There are other problems with that, like that it generally means further entrenching the position of the big credit card companies and can be discriminatory toward those that would have trouble getting financial credit, but those can and should be fixed in ways that have nothing to do with state-run social credit systems.
It's not state run. It's from the three big apps, WeChat, Meituan, and Alipay, who are each affiliated with a range of services, compete with each other, and process their own payments.
It's not state run. It's from the three big apps, WeChat, Meituan, and Alipay, who are each affiliated with a range of services, compete with each other, and process their own payments.
Then that's just the same system as elsewhere? Like if you want to use a Lime bike in the US then when you turn it in you get a charge based on how long you had it. Lime already knows if your...
Then that's just the same system as elsewhere? Like if you want to use a Lime bike in the US then when you turn it in you get a charge based on how long you had it. Lime already knows if your account is in good standing.
But it makes sense to monopolize these things for the same reason everyone uses WhatsApp. It's easier to use and easier to profit from. Besides, having two options that are just good enough to be...
If someone has bad social credit with Amazon, they can use Walmart
But it makes sense to monopolize these things for the same reason everyone uses WhatsApp. It's easier to use and easier to profit from. Besides, having two options that are just good enough to be marketable doesn't mean there is always an option that doesn't suck for you. And you don't always have an option either. If the landlord of the only apartment you can afford uses Amazon, you can't switch to Walmart.
things haven't ended up going that bad.
And let's hope they won't in the future! But I don't think companies like Amazon and Walmart can hurt their profit margins for the greater good. They are artifical money-making machines, not charities. It's not their job to consider what's best for different societies all over the globe. If they can increase profits by 3 % by making the lives of 10 % of their customers 100 % worse, they are supposed to do exactly that. And it's the jobs of regulators to forsee their move and turn those 3 % gain into a 30 % loss.
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.
This is something I've always irrationally feared, being blackballed from society from some 'universal' amalgamation of my online activity. The thing is, this would mean that services would need...
This is something I've always irrationally feared, being blackballed from society from some 'universal' amalgamation of my online activity. The thing is, this would mean that services would need to access some API that provides your universal profile with insights. I know that data brokers exist but AFAIK this isn't necessarily a thing yet. I would really want to know if there is a service that is not only pulling from all these datapoints, but actively making insights that other companies can use to 'rank' you, instead of aimlessly pointing fingers at the "evil algorithms."
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.
To be fair I think you already pointed out the very very important difference between “what out phones do” and what has colloquially been called social credit.
It’s the centralization of the information that gets scary fast. Double so if involved in anything government. And the fact that SO MUCH is linked privately already through your criminal history and credit score is absolutely the sort of thing that keeps the poverty to prison spiral going.
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.
A chargeback is not 'disagreeing with your service provider', it is taking their money. Like walking out of a restaurant without paying the bill, obviously the restaurant doesn't want you to come back. That's not what is being discussed here
I have dealt with at least 2 companies that required me to do a chargeback. I presented multiple screenshots of correspondence to my CC company and they reviewed and agreed with it.
This is far from just walking out without paying the bill. It is providing evidence that you have been scammed or stolen from.
So you had two different companies agree that a chargeback was valid, but decide to ban you anyway?
That sucks, but businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, as long as it's not discrimination of a protected class.
If a businesses policy is to ban anyone who does a chargeback, that's a pretty shitty policy, but it's their right to do that. What would be the alternative from a public policy perspective? Force businesses to put up with any sort of behavior from their customers, even if it hurts their business?
I’m not really disagreeing with any of that. The previous commenter said it was like refusing to pay the bill which it is patently not.
Again not all chargebacks are even approved and the CC provider gives the company a chance to defend themselves. Chargebacks can be “overturned” or rejected and there are punishments to the credit card user for having that occur frequently.
Either way I’m not sure what you’re getting at given this entire example was given because someone asked for examples of people being “punished” for disagreements with the service provider, and the general behavior of getting a successful chargeback (which again traditionally requires a basic level of proof) leading to banning from their platforms qualifies.
As you already pointed out though, yes, they have a right to refuse service and that right can ABSOLUTELY be used to refuse service over disagreements so long as it’s not a protected class.
Gave a 1 star review they didn’t like on Amazon? They can remove you from the platform (which of course also means losing access to any movies or books you’ve purchased). That, to my knowledge, hasn’t happened, but there’s also no law that says service providers need to be rational. Want to punish people for liking tweets or wearing a red shirt, or any of a thousand arbitrary metrics, you have the right to.
It’s in theory bad business, but I don’t think people get just how easily we could go from apathetic business models to out right hostile ones. If MS, Anazon, and Google started banning accounts it would do a lot of damage to most people and be pretty trivial to find excuses to target the people they wanted to, protected class or not. Hell they could share lists of “bad users” and just wipe you out.
In my eyes the current situation is much like pre Trump politics in that no one of note has bothered to push the boundaries yet, but I don’t think there’s much stopping them if they do.
In that situation, where a company has tried to steal from you, why would being locked out of their services in the future be a bad thing? You're no longer allowed to fall for a scam, that should protect you.
Its still not a 'disagreement', it is one of you thinking the other has stolen money from them. I guess you could frame that as a disagreement about which one of you is the thief, but its not a disagreement in the context of this converstation
If the company is uber? Lyft? Microsoft? Google? Amazon? Walmart? Steam? Delta? United? Southwest? American?
Hell ISPs + phone providers blacklisting you would be legal and crippling to basically anyone. How easily can you get by without internet or cellular connection?
What if they start sharing lists so a chargeback against one bans you from all of them.
Hell these are absolutely companies large enough to have entire divisions fuck up and force you to charge back out of incompetence not any intended malice.
At what point does it become “better let them steal from me because I can’t afford to be difficult”
And again, I don’t think they technically need a charge back to do this. As there’s a right to refuse service to anyone nothing really stops them from saying “fuck it” and just banning people every time a RNG seed kicks out a 10.
Arbitrary malice is technically legal, as would be sharing your banned users list, as would all the companies listed refusing service because you’re on that list.
I personally believe this is another huge hole in our laws and it’s only a matter of time until someone takes advantage. Things like social credit scores accelerate that.
There’s been some drama recently about the incredibly chilling effects and direct action that video game developers have been hit by recently, including and up to being removed from large online game stores (such as itch and Steam).
As best I understand it, Steam and Itch have taken these actions not because of specific games being shown to break specific laws, but rather because payment processors have given vague statements about inappropriate themes. As attention was drawn to it, rather than provide any specific examples of games which break any laws, the payment processors hid behind vague rhetoric of illegal content in games in general. When the games platforms directly reached out to the payment processors with the intention of working with them for games which had been identified, the payment processors declined to work with them.
Out of fear of losing all access to payment processors entirely, Steam and Itch hid or deleted large swathes of porn themed games even when there was no direct evidence of direct lawbreaking, because neither platform has the kind of legal or moderation teams to undertake a review/audit of every single game on their platform at once.
As is often the case with this kind of broad, sweeping action, there were non-sexual LGBT-themed games which got caught up in things too, but I believe many of these have since been reviewed and restored.
And all this began not because of any criminal proceedings, or the outcome of an audit or anything, but rather because a vocal group from Australia intentionally put pressure on these payment providers because they don’t like sex in games. I believe the group is religiously associated, possibly Christian-based? And they have a history of attempting this kind of pressure with the intention of removing all sex media by hiding behind arguments of legal liability and criminal content, and usually in general terms, rarely identifying any specific media or relevant laws as they launch their campaigns.
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.
We've had taxi services function fine without ratings. Uber only needs ratings because of a disconnect between the driver and the operator, and the passenger and the operator.
Would a taxi service ban an abusive rider? I have to imagine an operator could block a phone number
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.
If someone has bad social credit with Amazon, they can use Walmart (which does have delivery now). If they have bad social credit with Uber, they can use Lyft. Having a bad credit score is harder to avoid, but credit scores are based on pretty transparent metrics (even if the exact formula is not public), and in general are pretty fair. If you pay your loans it goes up, if you don't it goes down, that's not exactly something with 'cracks' in it.
There could be a hypothetical case where a social credit system did go too far, that's what everyone was thinking China would end up doing, but it seems like in reality, in both China and the West things haven't ended up going that bad.
Having a few accounts go 30 days past due (when credit is in the product name and you agree to pay interest for the credit) because, I don't know:
I would argue the credit reporting system is really only fair if you take the perspective of the person (excuse me, corporation) lending money at usurious (excuse me, a barely regulated by our negligent and regulator it captured government at 29%).
This coming from someone that has never paid a cent of interest on revolving debt and with a 'perfect' score. They're always waiting for me to mess up. I'll never help justify a credit company's practices. I watched my PBS Frontline as a teenager.
I do not understand this perspective. Credit scores are not a social score so factoring in such social factors would be odd. The only thing the score is intended to convey is if someone will pay their bills. It would be quite odd to me if we built a system that was designed to give people bills they can't or won't pay.
There's an argument to be made that interest rates on various loan types, such as credit cards, are allowed to be too high, but that's not really related to credit scores.
I grant that a credit card is not the same thing as the economic concept. But the driving point I was trying to make was that a late payment reducing your credit score is a violation of the very economic concept upon which the FICO system is based.
Sure, small reductions are understandable, but that's not really what happens in today's viciously exploitative world, is it. We have a system of positive feedback loops that crush people in debt until bankruptcy because that's the most profitable system for the capital holders to impose on the lower classes.
There's a reason there used to be the concept of having credit with a local grocer. And there's a reason it's a common parable to see a pitiable character archetype in that same past society (a single young mother striving to care for their family or similar) painted as the one to suffer when the local grocer shutters their personal book of credit in favor of a wider and newer economic model resulting in economic suffering for the pitiable character.
It is not. If it was profitable, companies would give way more debt to distressed creditors. They don't because companies like getting their money back.
Most credit card business models rely on responsible use. The companies want you to be trustworthy and reliable. One or two missed payments will not crater your score, but months of missed payments or a dozen loans certainly will.
Used to be, the only way to get credit was your personal reputation and relationship with a creditor. That system heavily discriminated against minority populations. Credit scores are more equitable, believe it or not.
The credit system is fair in that it allows people to get loans at rates that compensate banks for the risk they are taking by giving the loan.
It does not make up for other unfairnesses in society which may cause someone to not be able to pay back a loan, but that's kind of outside of the scope of what a credit score is trying to solve.
If you're someone who is being abused, if you lost your job, if your housing costs went up such that you can't afford to pay your bills and so on, then you're a riskier proposition for a lender. Its not a judgement call about the situation you're in, or an assignment of fault, it's just an assessment of how likely you are to default on debt.
I don't necessarily think it's fair, but then, I also don't think it's fair for credit scores to go away, forcing everyone else to have to pay higher interest rates to make up for people who don't pay their debts.
To fill in some info on China's social credit score in daily life: China has many 'shared' services. You can rent a bicycle, a power bank, even a moped, and only be charged when you return it to a charger/parking spot. This would go horribly wrong in most countries due to people not returning or vandalising them, so when you rent the system looks at your renting record and decides whether or not you need to pay a deposit, or I assume deny service.
This seems like mostly a non-issue elsewhere even without a social credit score. As long as you know who had it you can seek remedy anyway. Most extreme case is to pursue legal action, but generally this is solved in a much simpler way: make you keep a valid payment method on file and charge it for incidentals.
There are other problems with that, like that it generally means further entrenching the position of the big credit card companies and can be discriminatory toward those that would have trouble getting financial credit, but those can and should be fixed in ways that have nothing to do with state-run social credit systems.
It's not state run. It's from the three big apps, WeChat, Meituan, and Alipay, who are each affiliated with a range of services, compete with each other, and process their own payments.
Then that's just the same system as elsewhere? Like if you want to use a Lime bike in the US then when you turn it in you get a charge based on how long you had it. Lime already knows if your account is in good standing.
But it makes sense to monopolize these things for the same reason everyone uses WhatsApp. It's easier to use and easier to profit from. Besides, having two options that are just good enough to be marketable doesn't mean there is always an option that doesn't suck for you. And you don't always have an option either. If the landlord of the only apartment you can afford uses Amazon, you can't switch to Walmart.
And let's hope they won't in the future! But I don't think companies like Amazon and Walmart can hurt their profit margins for the greater good. They are artifical money-making machines, not charities. It's not their job to consider what's best for different societies all over the globe. If they can increase profits by 3 % by making the lives of 10 % of their customers 100 % worse, they are supposed to do exactly that. And it's the jobs of regulators to forsee their move and turn those 3 % gain into a 30 % loss.
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?
This is something I've always irrationally feared, being blackballed from society from some 'universal' amalgamation of my online activity. The thing is, this would mean that services would need to access some API that provides your universal profile with insights. I know that data brokers exist but AFAIK this isn't necessarily a thing yet. I would really want to know if there is a service that is not only pulling from all these datapoints, but actively making insights that other companies can use to 'rank' you, instead of aimlessly pointing fingers at the "evil algorithms."