19 ms·

This is so indicative of the difference between the US and China. So in China they're looking at a Social Credit System (which has been talked about here befor

This is so indicative of the difference between the US and China. So in China they're looking at a Social Credit System (which has been talked about here before [1][2]) which is a government program which would apply to all Chinese citizens and rate their trustworthiness. It's seen as authoritarian, providing no way to start over, etc. Here in America we've got this post and it's implication that we're going to institute a similar social credit system except it will come from corporations, not government and it won't apply to everyone, only gig workers. It's seen as an interesting technical problem and a way to increase market efficiency. A tale of two viewpoints. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13201926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13201926 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9445538 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9445538

anentropic 9y ago
quite chilling either way
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Here in America we've got this post and ...criticism in this very thread they almost exactly mirrors the criticism you point to by Americans of the Chinese system, particularly on the “no way to start over”.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  From the way I interpreted their post, that was their point. We like to complain about the bad system that China is implementing, yet our market system is doing the exact same thing for the same reasons as China.
oldcynic 9y ago
When I started writing this most comments are pretty negative about applying this to gig workers. In essence they're one and the same. China: Manage to upset, doesn't matter how, the party representative and you're doomed. West: s/party/company/ Neither approach brings truth, just verisimilitude. Every review or score out there has been gamed in some way either postively by friends and colleagues or negatively by your competitors.
trs80 9y ago
Reminds me of Black Mirror episode where everyone is rated by the number of stars they receive and are obsessed with the likes or dislikes. 0 stars end up in a dungeon even if they've broken no laws. Very cypberpunk/dystopian.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- dv_dt 9y ago
  If you look at the practice of redlining the extension of credit within the boundaries of black urban communities for home and business loans this was basically applied at a neighborhood wide scale. The negative effects are still seen today. One would essentially lose stars for living in a certain area or being a certain race.
  - aianus 9y ago
    I pay double for insurance because of my age and genitals but that's ok because statistics /s
    - abakker 9y ago
      Devils advocate: since insurance is a business of pricing risk, isn't the point of it to use statistics to charge more to higher risk people? I've been in that group/situation before and it sucks to pay more, but, in a sense it is more fair if you pay more to be a higher risk, otherwise you end up charging lower risk people the difference.
      - temp-dude-87844 9y ago
        The point of insurance is to group recipients with different likelihood of risks into the same risk pool, such that it's very unlikely that many of your insured will need a payout at the same time. How you set pricing is largely a different matter. Now, as an insurer, you have a monetary interest in ending up with as few riskier clients as you can. You can try to use pricing or exclusions to try to achieve this, but regulations often step in, because otherwise only the least risky clients could obtain insurance, and everyone else would have to fend for themselves. However, the least risky people often don't even want to purchase insurance, because they perceive its utility to be low, and the incidence of catastrophic events to be unlikely. This generally means that clients who perceive themselves to be low-risk will place a lower value on insurance, necessitating a lower price, or they'll take their business elsewhere or nowhere at all. People who perceive themselves to be higher-risk will "accept" a higher price, because they expect to have a better outcome with insurance than without. Since companies want to avoid this type of customer, prices can creep higher than they need to be just by factoring in their risk.
ape4 9y ago
A government or corporate rating system for all sounds horrible to me.
RandallBrown 9y ago
A major difference is that one is a rating for services rendered, where the other is a rating for being a citizen. Gig workers would be able to avoid the consequences of their rating for everything but their gig jobs.
- lev99 9y ago
  Your job has consequences on your entire life. These numbers both will have consequences on everything. The major difference is who owns the rating system and which factors modify the rating.
usrusr 9y ago
> we're going to institute a similar social credit system except it will come from corporations, not government and it won't apply to everyone, only gig workers Just wait for those networks to eventually pull a yelp on their members: "nice five star ratings you got there, would be a shame if something... happened to them. My brother, well, he can be a little clumsy at times when importing a migrated profile. Things get ...lost. Please contact us for a quote for our Premium Verified Trust package". When acting on behalf of shareholders, every scrap of money left on the table is a betrayal.
jasode 9y ago
>A tale of two viewpoints. I think your links to China's "social credit" system have invited comments that derailed what this thread's submitted article is actually about.[1] They are different situations and motivations. The Chinese social rating is imposed from the top down on its citizens. It's possible most of them don't want it. On the other hand, this particular article is about about tradespeople (think carpenters, freelance programmers, etc) that want to have a reputation -- so they are more marketable to potential clients. The problem for them is that their reputation karma is locked and controlled in a proprietary platform (e.g. Upwork, or AngiesList, etc). It's not portable. The article discusses how tradespeople are unhappy that they can't get references from previous projects or a gig platform deletes their ratings.) She's saying there's a bottom up set of voluntary market desires and wondering if a technical solution can be developed for them. From those pain points, the author hypothesizes some ideas about decentralizated ownership of ratings. Yes, the China ratings system is also an important human rights issue but that's a distraction from this particular article. They are not the same. [1] The main point of the article starts halfway down with: "It was a radically different story for tradespeople. Their reputation data feels important to them, and they prefer to keep control over it. They preferred word of mouth reputation and recommendations, as there was no middleman who could take that away from them. Online platforms were seen as something to graduate away from once you had a sufficient “real world” presence. [...]"
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  >The Chinese social rating is imposed from the top down on its citizens. >On the other hand, this particular article is about about tradespeople (think carpenters, programmers, etc) that want to have a reputation -- so they are more marketable to potential clients. The problem for them is that their reputation karma is locked and controlled in a proprietary platform (e.g. Upwork, or AngiesList, etc). It's not portable. Hmm, well let's compare. From this article: 'I tried to reach them and I was really upset because I had built that profile... I couldn't take my profile and move it. I lost everything but they didn't really care because it says in their terms and conditions they can close any account without reason. -Nick From this[1] article: Chen Chao, a 34-year-old vendor also waiting in line, agreed. “If you didn’t commit a crime, why do you need to look at your file?” he asked, adding that he’s looking forward to an e-system. “An electric file will be more convenient for me. I believe the workers here have professional ethics, so they won’t leak my information.” and “I just opened the app, showed my score, they took down my name and phone number and I breezed through in five minutes,” said Yolanda Liu, 30, who works for a state-owned sports organisation. “China needs a credit system so that people like me who are responsible can get more benefits.” Is China really imposed? After all look! People there really want to have a reputation - so they can get credit advantages. The problem for them is that their reputation karma is locked and controlled on the dang'an paper record system. >The article discusses how tradespeople are unhappy they can't get references from previous jobs or a gig platform deletes their ratings.) From those pain points, the author hypothesizes some ideas about decentralization of ratings. That SCMP article discusses how Chinese citizens are unhappy they can't get advantages for being a good citizen. From those pain points, the Chinese government has hypothesized some ideas about a rating system. Is your only problem with the Chinese system the centralization? >She's saying there's a bottom up set of voluntary market desires and wondering if a technical solution can be developed for them. And when it comes out are you going to use a service from gig workers who opt out? If American gig workers' livelihoods depend on using portable ratings, maybe you should reconsider how voluntary it really is. >Yes, the China ratings system is also an important human rights issue I'm curious, why do you think it's a human rights issue? Is it just that it's controlled by the government? I wouldn't think that would, in itself, constitute a human rights issue so there must be another component. >I think your links to China's "social credit" system have invited comments that have derailed what this thread's submitted article is actually about Well no, I think my links to China's social credit system have shown what 'portable ratings' really are. Truth through analogy maybe. [1] http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/1882533/big-brother-watching-how-china-compiling-computer http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/188...

anentropic 9y ago

quite chilling either way

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Here in America we've got this post and ...criticism in this very thread they almost exactly mirrors the criticism you point to by Americans of the Chinese system, particularly on the “no way to start over”.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
From the way I interpreted their post, that was their point. We like to complain about the bad system that China is implementing, yet our market system is doing the exact same thing for the same reasons as China.

oldcynic 9y ago

When I started writing this most comments are pretty negative about applying this to gig workers. In essence they're one and the same. China: Manage to upset, doesn't matter how, the party representative and you're doomed. West: s/party/company/ Neither approach brings truth, just verisimilitude. Every review or score out there has been gamed in some way either postively by friends and colleagues or negatively by your competitors.

trs80 9y ago

Reminds me of Black Mirror episode where everyone is rated by the number of stars they receive and are obsessed with the likes or dislikes. 0 stars end up in a dungeon even if they've broken no laws. Very cypberpunk/dystopian.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dv_dt 9y ago
If you look at the practice of redlining the extension of credit within the boundaries of black urban communities for home and business loans this was basically applied at a neighborhood wide scale. The negative effects are still seen today. One would essentially lose stars for living in a certain area or being a certain race.
- aianus 9y ago
  I pay double for insurance because of my age and genitals but that's ok because statistics /s
  - abakker 9y ago
    Devils advocate: since insurance is a business of pricing risk, isn't the point of it to use statistics to charge more to higher risk people? I've been in that group/situation before and it sucks to pay more, but, in a sense it is more fair if you pay more to be a higher risk, otherwise you end up charging lower risk people the difference.
    - temp-dude-87844 9y ago
      The point of insurance is to group recipients with different likelihood of risks into the same risk pool, such that it's very unlikely that many of your insured will need a payout at the same time. How you set pricing is largely a different matter. Now, as an insurer, you have a monetary interest in ending up with as few riskier clients as you can. You can try to use pricing or exclusions to try to achieve this, but regulations often step in, because otherwise only the least risky clients could obtain insurance, and everyone else would have to fend for themselves. However, the least risky people often don't even want to purchase insurance, because they perceive its utility to be low, and the incidence of catastrophic events to be unlikely. This generally means that clients who perceive themselves to be low-risk will place a lower value on insurance, necessitating a lower price, or they'll take their business elsewhere or nowhere at all. People who perceive themselves to be higher-risk will "accept" a higher price, because they expect to have a better outcome with insurance than without. Since companies want to avoid this type of customer, prices can creep higher than they need to be just by factoring in their risk.

ape4 9y ago

A government or corporate rating system for all sounds horrible to me.

RandallBrown 9y ago

A major difference is that one is a rating for services rendered, where the other is a rating for being a citizen. Gig workers would be able to avoid the consequences of their rating for everything but their gig jobs.

lev99 9y ago
Your job has consequences on your entire life. These numbers both will have consequences on everything. The major difference is who owns the rating system and which factors modify the rating.

usrusr 9y ago

> we're going to institute a similar social credit system except it will come from corporations, not government and it won't apply to everyone, only gig workers Just wait for those networks to eventually pull a yelp on their members: "nice five star ratings you got there, would be a shame if something... happened to them. My brother, well, he can be a little clumsy at times when importing a migrated profile. Things get ...lost. Please contact us for a quote for our Premium Verified Trust package". When acting on behalf of shareholders, every scrap of money left on the table is a betrayal.

jasode 9y ago

>A tale of two viewpoints. I think your links to China's "social credit" system have invited comments that derailed what this thread's submitted article is actually about.[1] They are different situations and motivations. The Chinese social rating is imposed from the top down on its citizens. It's possible most of them don't want it. On the other hand, this particular article is about about tradespeople (think carpenters, freelance programmers, etc) that want to have a reputation -- so they are more marketable to potential clients. The problem for them is that their reputation karma is locked and controlled in a proprietary platform (e.g. Upwork, or AngiesList, etc). It's not portable. The article discusses how tradespeople are unhappy that they can't get references from previous projects or a gig platform deletes their ratings.) She's saying there's a bottom up set of voluntary market desires and wondering if a technical solution can be developed for them. From those pain points, the author hypothesizes some ideas about decentralizated ownership of ratings. Yes, the China ratings system is also an important human rights issue but that's a distraction from this particular article. They are not the same. [1] The main point of the article starts halfway down with: "It was a radically different story for tradespeople. Their reputation data feels important to them, and they prefer to keep control over it. They preferred word of mouth reputation and recommendations, as there was no middleman who could take that away from them. Online platforms were seen as something to graduate away from once you had a sufficient “real world” presence. [...]"

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
>The Chinese social rating is imposed from the top down on its citizens. >On the other hand, this particular article is about about tradespeople (think carpenters, programmers, etc) that want to have a reputation -- so they are more marketable to potential clients. The problem for them is that their reputation karma is locked and controlled in a proprietary platform (e.g. Upwork, or AngiesList, etc). It's not portable. Hmm, well let's compare. From this article: 'I tried to reach them and I was really upset because I had built that profile... I couldn't take my profile and move it. I lost everything but they didn't really care because it says in their terms and conditions they can close any account without reason. -Nick From this[1] article: Chen Chao, a 34-year-old vendor also waiting in line, agreed. “If you didn’t commit a crime, why do you need to look at your file?” he asked, adding that he’s looking forward to an e-system. “An electric file will be more convenient for me. I believe the workers here have professional ethics, so they won’t leak my information.” and “I just opened the app, showed my score, they took down my name and phone number and I breezed through in five minutes,” said Yolanda Liu, 30, who works for a state-owned sports organisation. “China needs a credit system so that people like me who are responsible can get more benefits.” Is China really imposed? After all look! People there really want to have a reputation - so they can get credit advantages. The problem for them is that their reputation karma is locked and controlled on the dang'an paper record system. >The article discusses how tradespeople are unhappy they can't get references from previous jobs or a gig platform deletes their ratings.) From those pain points, the author hypothesizes some ideas about decentralization of ratings. That SCMP article discusses how Chinese citizens are unhappy they can't get advantages for being a good citizen. From those pain points, the Chinese government has hypothesized some ideas about a rating system. Is your only problem with the Chinese system the centralization? >She's saying there's a bottom up set of voluntary market desires and wondering if a technical solution can be developed for them. And when it comes out are you going to use a service from gig workers who opt out? If American gig workers' livelihoods depend on using portable ratings, maybe you should reconsider how voluntary it really is. >Yes, the China ratings system is also an important human rights issue I'm curious, why do you think it's a human rights issue? Is it just that it's controlled by the government? I wouldn't think that would, in itself, constitute a human rights issue so there must be another component. >I think your links to China's "social credit" system have invited comments that have derailed what this thread's submitted article is actually about Well no, I think my links to China's social credit system have shown what 'portable ratings' really are. Truth through analogy maybe. [1] http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/1882533/big-brother-watching-how-china-compiling-computer http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/188...