4 ms·

We already have a social credit score. It's called FICO and it's been doing a great job of making life difficult for people who don't fit the mold for over sixt

We already have a social credit score. It's called FICO and it's been doing a great job of making life difficult for people who don't fit the mold for over sixty years.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> We already have a social credit score. It's called FICO There is a material difference between FICO and what China and, potentially, Facebook are building. FICO looks at financial factors. It's a model to estimate likelihood of repayment. Being brown or gay or female might correlate with factors that reduce the likelihood of repayment. But if those systemic problems were fixed, and FICO were left unchanged, it should yield an unbiased result. Social credit scores, on the other hand, directly incorporate biases. Introduce a social credit score into an economically equal society and it will redistribute from the "undesirable" to the "desirable" based on zero economic facts. (Same with ad-driven social networks like Facebook and Instagram.) It's subtle. But it makes a world of difference in terms of effect and the moral culpability of those who choose to support its development and deployment.
- taurath 7y ago
  There's not really such thing as an unbiased result, especially as it deals with economics. Thats kind of the point of the concept of systemic margininalization.
longerthoughts 7y ago
What alternative would you propose?
- resters 7y ago
  For what goal?
godelski 7y ago
Can we stop making this comparison? At best it is naive at worst you're purposefully misrepresenting the argument. When people say "social credit score" they distinctly mean something different than "credit score" (you may get this hint by the extra word, "social"). A social credit system not only includes your finances, but as well as much about your behavior. Such as "do you buy cigarettes? How often?" FICO doesn't care about this, they just care about if you're likely to pay back debt (based on your track record of doing exactly that). FICO doesn't care if you're Muslim, black, white, Christian, etc. But a social credit system DOES. Rather than putting a score on your likelihood of paying back debt, a social credit score scores you on how "good of a citizen" you are. Not just legally, but morally. And that's the danger. Morals shift and vary a lot (more so in the US than most countries). There's a general belief in most first world countries that your skin color, religion, gender, etc should not play a role in how the government of businesses treat you. Social credit systems (even if they don't explicitly add those factors: ie implicit) will use these factors to rate you.
- edmundsauto 7y ago
  Do you not see any parallels between the two? FICO scores are borderline discriminatory because it turns out that social behaviors and group membership is correlated with those scores. FICO doesn't "care" if you're Muslim or black, but FICO scores can be absolutely used to discriminate against those groups.
  - godelski 7y ago
    This is a fair argument. But there were other factors in my argument. That social credit scores are used to determine more than "can you pay back your credit?" It isn't hard to argue that FICO can be abused. But what's being argued here is that we don't need, nor want, a system that is more imposing than FICO. One that affects much more of your life, such as "can I use an airplane?"
    - mdorazio 7y ago
      FICO can be and is used to discriminate in job applications. You also seem to be missing the point that debt financing is a huge part of the ability to live a standard American life, much more so than in a country like China. For example, if you can't buy a car, there are many places in America where you simply won't be able to get around. This social-financial reliance system makes credit scores in America a lot closer to a social credit system than you seem to think. If a score prevents you from using transportation (a needed car), living in decent housing, and getting a decent job, I'd say that score is pretty tightly tied to your social well-being.

We already have a social credit score. It's called FICO and it's been doing a great job of making life difficult for people who don't fit the mold for over sixty years.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> We already have a social credit score. It's called FICO There is a material difference between FICO and what China and, potentially, Facebook are building. FICO looks at financial factors. It's a model to estimate likelihood of repayment. Being brown or gay or female might correlate with factors that reduce the likelihood of repayment. But if those systemic problems were fixed, and FICO were left unchanged, it should yield an unbiased result. Social credit scores, on the other hand, directly incorporate biases. Introduce a social credit score into an economically equal society and it will redistribute from the "undesirable" to the "desirable" based on zero economic facts. (Same with ad-driven social networks like Facebook and Instagram.) It's subtle. But it makes a world of difference in terms of effect and the moral culpability of those who choose to support its development and deployment.

taurath 7y ago
There's not really such thing as an unbiased result, especially as it deals with economics. Thats kind of the point of the concept of systemic margininalization.

longerthoughts 7y ago

What alternative would you propose?

resters 7y ago
For what goal?

godelski 7y ago

Can we stop making this comparison? At best it is naive at worst you're purposefully misrepresenting the argument. When people say "social credit score" they distinctly mean something different than "credit score" (you may get this hint by the extra word, "social"). A social credit system not only includes your finances, but as well as much about your behavior. Such as "do you buy cigarettes? How often?" FICO doesn't care about this, they just care about if you're likely to pay back debt (based on your track record of doing exactly that). FICO doesn't care if you're Muslim, black, white, Christian, etc. But a social credit system DOES. Rather than putting a score on your likelihood of paying back debt, a social credit score scores you on how "good of a citizen" you are. Not just legally, but morally. And that's the danger. Morals shift and vary a lot (more so in the US than most countries). There's a general belief in most first world countries that your skin color, religion, gender, etc should not play a role in how the government of businesses treat you. Social credit systems (even if they don't explicitly add those factors: ie implicit) will use these factors to rate you.

edmundsauto 7y ago
Do you not see any parallels between the two? FICO scores are borderline discriminatory because it turns out that social behaviors and group membership is correlated with those scores. FICO doesn't "care" if you're Muslim or black, but FICO scores can be absolutely used to discriminate against those groups.
- godelski 7y ago
  This is a fair argument. But there were other factors in my argument. That social credit scores are used to determine more than "can you pay back your credit?" It isn't hard to argue that FICO can be abused. But what's being argued here is that we don't need, nor want, a system that is more imposing than FICO. One that affects much more of your life, such as "can I use an airplane?"
  - mdorazio 7y ago
    FICO can be and is used to discriminate in job applications. You also seem to be missing the point that debt financing is a huge part of the ability to live a standard American life, much more so than in a country like China. For example, if you can't buy a car, there are many places in America where you simply won't be able to get around. This social-financial reliance system makes credit scores in America a lot closer to a social credit system than you seem to think. If a score prevents you from using transportation (a needed car), living in decent housing, and getting a decent job, I'd say that score is pretty tightly tied to your social well-being.