3 ms·

Today it's Uber's jerks, tomorrow it's people accused of being jerks elsewhere on the internet.

by daenz 7y ago

fwip 7y ago
That doesn't really make any sense. Low-star riders make the drivers' experiences worse. That's why they're low rated.
- daenz 7y ago
  I'm not arguing against the idea that low-star riders make drivers' experiences worse and that's why they have low ratings. I'm arguing against the idea that a "social metric", which can be changed and expanded (to include, hypothetically, your credit score), should be used to deny access to services, without strong guarantees about the sources and other aspects of that social metric. The Orwellian aspect is when companies start sharing their scores, and when those scores start having clearly highly subjective influences.
  - aeternus 7y ago
    After watching some videos of what Uber drivers have to put up with, as well as having a few friends that work in retail, some kind of "social metric" may not be the worst thing. As a society, we put up with a lot of terrible behavior and people get away with it because they don't care about making a scene or situation that is uncomfortable for everyone else. We pay higher prices to deal with these people's behavior: constantly complaining until they get free stuff, abusing return policies, review blackmail, vandalizing state/national parks, cutting lines, etc. You're right though that we need very strong guarantees around the sources and accuracy of such a metric.
  - phil21 7y ago
    I had a very similar reaction 25ish years ago when I found out as a teen credit agencies exist and were somehow not illegal (but employment blacklists are). Don't worry - I was told they are optional, and you only need them for major things like if you getting a new car or house financed. Anyone worried about these things were mocked with the slippery slope "fallacy" typically being the counterargument. Of course scope creep inevitably happened - and now you are effectively locked out of many parts of society if you have a poor credit score. We were told it was outright illegal to use credit scores when hiring people (again, 25 years ago) so our fears were unjustified. Now we're running credit reports on entry level warehouse positions, some volunteer jobs, etc. With every reason to believe it's going to get more pervasive. As these "social rating" systems get more normalized with consumers, I fully expect to see "novel" new uses and data sharing starting to happen.

Today it's Uber's jerks, tomorrow it's people accused of being jerks elsewhere on the internet.

by daenz 7y ago

Today it's Uber's jerks, tomorrow it's people accused of being jerks elsewhere on the internet.

fwip 7y ago

That doesn't really make any sense. Low-star riders make the drivers' experiences worse. That's why they're low rated.

daenz 7y ago
I'm not arguing against the idea that low-star riders make drivers' experiences worse and that's why they have low ratings. I'm arguing against the idea that a "social metric", which can be changed and expanded (to include, hypothetically, your credit score), should be used to deny access to services, without strong guarantees about the sources and other aspects of that social metric. The Orwellian aspect is when companies start sharing their scores, and when those scores start having clearly highly subjective influences.
- aeternus 7y ago
  After watching some videos of what Uber drivers have to put up with, as well as having a few friends that work in retail, some kind of "social metric" may not be the worst thing. As a society, we put up with a lot of terrible behavior and people get away with it because they don't care about making a scene or situation that is uncomfortable for everyone else. We pay higher prices to deal with these people's behavior: constantly complaining until they get free stuff, abusing return policies, review blackmail, vandalizing state/national parks, cutting lines, etc. You're right though that we need very strong guarantees around the sources and accuracy of such a metric.
- phil21 7y ago
  I had a very similar reaction 25ish years ago when I found out as a teen credit agencies exist and were somehow not illegal (but employment blacklists are). Don't worry - I was told they are optional, and you only need them for major things like if you getting a new car or house financed. Anyone worried about these things were mocked with the slippery slope "fallacy" typically being the counterargument. Of course scope creep inevitably happened - and now you are effectively locked out of many parts of society if you have a poor credit score. We were told it was outright illegal to use credit scores when hiring people (again, 25 years ago) so our fears were unjustified. Now we're running credit reports on entry level warehouse positions, some volunteer jobs, etc. With every reason to believe it's going to get more pervasive. As these "social rating" systems get more normalized with consumers, I fully expect to see "novel" new uses and data sharing starting to happen.