26 ms·

We already live in social credit, we just don't call it that

• p0w3n3d 1y ago
  The article sounds like a damage control
  • pavel_lishin 1y ago
    How do you mean?
    • Nasrudith 1y ago
      Well it is basically pure apologeticism for the social credit system mixed with whataboutism.
  • popopo73 1y ago
    Sounds like CCP cope to me.
• huem0n 1y ago
  In the US you will never be blocked from buying a plane ticket because of bad Uber reviews, or Amazon reviews. You can also choose to not participat in Uber, AirBnb, or LinkedIn they're far from mandatory. The Amish don't even have bank accounts, they don't have credit scores. The systems are not the same.
• NaomiLehman 1y ago
  > Your LinkedIn endorsements are social credit. Your Uber passenger rating, Instagram engagement metrics, Amazon reviews, and Airbnb host status are all social credit systems that track you, score you, and reward you based on your behavior. I don't use any of these things.
• AfterHIA 1y ago
  We used to have a social credit system called, "social democracy" but it was destroyed when we poisoned the educational system.
• NitpickLawyer 1y ago
  Interesting article. On the one hand, it provides insides into how the project actually worked in china, which I didn't know. That's interesting. But it misses a huge nuance on the whole "dystopian" thing. The main thing about "social score bad" takes is that the government will use that scoring. It's not private <-> private. Everything the author mentions about the various scoring in the US (and EU for that matter, although to a lesser extent in some cases) is between you and private institutions. The government does not "track" or "access" or "use" those 3rd party scores. It's a bit like 1st amendment in the US. You have the right of free speech with regards to the government. That means the government cannot punish you for your speech. But that says nothing about your relationship with private parties. If you go to a government institution and tell them their boss sux, in theory you shouldn't be punished for that, and they'll keep serving you. But the same does not extend to a private bakery. Or a bar. Or any private property. Tell them their boss sux, and you might not get service. So yeah, there are lots of 3rd party rating services. But they're mainly between you and those 3rd parties. The government mainly stays out.
  • Terr_ 1y ago
    > The main thing about "social score bad" takes is that the government will use that scoring. It's not private <-> private. No: The dystopia comes from helplessness and inability to appeal injustice, regardless of who/what manages the system or how it is legally constructed. We must take care to distinguish between the problem we want to avoid versus the mechanism we hope will avoid it... especially when there are reasons to believe that mechanism is not a reliable defense. > But the same does not extend to a private bakery. Or a bar. Or any private property. Tell them their boss sux, and you might not get service. The difference here isn't because they're "private", but because you implicitly assume you will have alternatives, other local bakeries or bars which are reliably neutral to the spat. Things become very different if they're all owned by Omni Consumer Products or subscribed to Blacklist as a Service.
  • docdeek 1y ago
    This was similar to my take. What's dystopian about how the Chinese system was/is/was rumored to be was that it was the government doing the tracking and scoring.
• socalgal2 1y ago
  Great article and good point. I never articulated this as good as the article but, I've always assumed that when I use Uber/Lyft and rate a driver, if I give too many drivers a low rating I'll be banned from the app. I'm not saying I will actually be banned, I have no idea. Rather, I'm saying I fear I will be banned. I mean why not? Any customer that effectively makes the company look bad can be banned by the company. I bring up Uber/Lyft in particular because 99/100 drivers break traffic laws. The speed (10-15 miles per hour above the speed limit), they tailgate which is both putting me in danger, putting other car in danger, and is illegal (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=21703 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...). They'll do things like stop a full car and half past the waiting point at an intersection (have pictures of this). In other words, there a line behind which a car is supposed to wait. Then there's a crosswalk. They've stopped the car so it's past the crosswalk while waiting for the light to change. They turn right on red when the sign says no right on red. Etc.... I'd give them all 1 star out of 5 except for the fear mentioned above. That my "social credit" with the company would have them drop me as a customer.
  • carlosjobim 1y ago
    There's no logical sense for Uber to ban or punish you for giving drivers low scores. The only reason would be if drivers gave you a low score.
    • socalgal2 1y ago
      Asking a random LLM to give reasons they might do this. Again, I'm not saying they do this. I'm saying my fear that they might isn't unfounded * To Prevent Unfair and Unfounded Ratings: Uber could argue that some riders misuse the rating system. They might give a driver a low rating for reasons outside of the driver's control, such as traffic, a bad mood, or a simple misunderstanding. This policy would be presented as a way to protect drivers from being unfairly penalized, which could affect their livelihood. * To Combat "Rating Terrorism" or Coercion: A rider might threaten a driver with a low rating to get a free ride, demand an unscheduled stop, or force them to violate a rule. By banning riders who frequently give low scores, Uber would be taking a stance against this kind of behavior, ensuring that the rating system is used as a genuine feedback mechanism, not a tool for coercion. * To Discourage "Troll" Behavior: Some users might be incentivized to give consistently low ratings just to cause trouble or get attention, a practice often referred to as "trolling." This policy would be framed as a way to filter out users who are not participating in the community in good faith and are instead just trying to cause problems. * To Maintain Driver Confidence in the Platform: Drivers rely on their ratings to maintain their account status. If they feel that riders are unfairly giving them low scores without consequence, they may become disillusioned with the platform and switch to a competitor. Banning riders who give consistently low ratings would be a way to show drivers that Uber has their back. * To Improve Service by Identifying and Removing "Unreasonable" Riders: Uber could frame this as a data-driven approach. They might claim that their internal data shows a small percentage of riders who give low ratings to virtually every driver, regardless of the quality of the service. By removing these outliers, they would be improving the overall efficiency and health of the marketplace for the vast majority of drivers and riders. The goal would be to cultivate a community of "reasonable" users who understand and use the ratings system as it was intended. To continue, for me, my experience is I would rate low probably 7 of 8 drivers for the reasons I gave above. They all break traffic laws and drive recklessly. I kind of wish the app would let me set a driver preference. I'd chose (*) drive at the speed limit. Don't break any laws. Drive cautiously. others might choose (*) get there as fast as possible - (implying ignoring speed limits, weaving through traffic, cutting people off, ignoring turn lanes, etc...) At least that way the driver would know up front what the user expects. Me, I'd give them 5 stars for not risking my life. Others would give them 5 stars for going as fast as possible. As it is, I don't rate them low. I just don't rate at all because of the fear of being banned.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• exabrial 1y ago
  Why do you think sms "2fa" is suddenly so popular with banks and other fintechs, despite things like passkeys and u2f, you know things that _actually_ prevent people from breaking into accounts, have existed forever?
  • jacobr1 1y ago
    Passkeys are pretty new - most the major platforms didn't gain support until 2023.
    • myhf 1y ago
      2023 was fifty years ago
    • mathiaspoint 1y ago
      TOTP was definitely common decades ago. E-Trade for example supported it before KYC was mandated.
  • gruez 1y ago
    Any business vaguely money related knows exactly who you are because of KYC requirements. They don't need to ask for you phone number when they already have your full name, address, birthday, and SSN.
    • inetknght 1y ago
      > Any business vaguely money related knows exactly who you are because of KYC requirements. They also will happily give your money to any thief pretending to be you, and then blame you for their mistake.
      • multjoy 1y ago
        Unless you’re in a jurisdiction in which they’re liable for that mistake.
        • 1y ago
• drnick1 1y ago
  The real problem here is privacy and anonymity. These discrete "rating systems" used by various companies aren't particularly dangerous as long as they cannot identify users by some common identifier such as name, DOB or address. Got banned by Uber or Amazon? Just create a new account.
  • nine_k 1y ago
    Both Uber and Amazon accounts involve payment methods and typical delivery / pickup addresses. All these, combined or separately, can be used as a proxy of "the same person" notion. Well, delivery addresses can be somehow anonymized by the use of PO boxes; names on credit cards, not so much.
    • bilbo0s 1y ago
      I was gonna say. Of all companies, the systems at Uber and Amazon definitely know it's you starting the new account. They just don't openly mention it, and quietly link your old accounts via monitoring and analytics. As soon as the FBI comes knocking, they're able to provide your current account and all linked accounts. Even the ones they previously closed. (Not that the FBI has to come knocking nowadays to get that information, but Uber and Amazon are able to provide comprehensive help to law enforcement if it's required.)
  • boznz 1y ago
    >Got banned by Uber or Amazon? Just create a new account. use the same phone number, email address or credit card and they know you are the same person, use the same wifi spot or IP address with the same behaviour and they can intimate you are the same.. Even badly written data analysis can do this and a VPN from another country and different username wont convince any system with an ounce of sense.
    • drnick1 1y ago
      It's trivial to use a different name, email, and phone number. Obfuscating your payment information is a bit harder, but you can request a new credit card from your bank, use a new PayPal account or similar to hide the underlying payment method, or use a prepaid card. The WiFi hotspot cannot be identified across the Internet, only the IP and other fingerprinting information leaked by the browser can, but generally speaking IPs are not fixed and tied to an individual. My point however was not to provide an exhaustive list of workarounds, just to point out that it is the lack of privacy and anonymity in our lives and enables such surveillance.
• encom 1y ago
  >Open your phone right now and count the apps that are scoring your behavior. Zero. Are everyone really that terminally online? I reject most things that use an app. Yesterday I encountered a coffee vending machine that required an app. I walked away. Uncle Ted was right.
  • drnick1 1y ago
    Agreed. I categorically refuse to install non-FOSS apps on my phone. I don't use social media, and refuse to use Uber for various reasons (including those explained in this article). I do buy things on Amazon, but only those that are physically delivered to my door (rather than "subscriptions" aka buying things that you won't own).
    • pipo234 1y ago
      How about banking apps? In my part of Europe a growing number of banks require installing an app via Google or Apple story. The Android ones are known to use sdks that at full of "telemetry". Cash is no longer an alternative.
      • drnick1 1y ago
        Can you not use a browser to access banking services? If not, you should vehemently complain and/or move to another bank. And while cash is better for privacy, you can always use a credit card instead of your phone.
        • jamesnorden 1y ago
          You may be able to at the moment, but web banking is being increasingly phased out in a lot of countries.
          • drnick1 1y ago
            If nothing else works, my suggestion would then be to buy a cheap Android phone just for that indispensable banking app. Just leave it home in a drawer powered off when not in use, and use your a degoogled phone for your daily business.
• sealeck 1y ago
  Weirdly, banks in China also use statistical algorithms when assessing their loan books!
• seydor 1y ago
  No there is a major difference when social credit is centralized to a single authority , and people cannot use the law to protect from that authority. otherwise, people have always judged each other with any way they could
  • fmnxl 1y ago
    Those "single authorities" you fear already exist in western countries, the mega-corporations that monopolise entire markets. The western system creates an illusion of choice, which those in power have found ways to manipulate. It has become merely a convenient tool for them to exploit the rest of the population, while the "free market" and "democracy" keep them oblivious to it. But whatever people like me say, it will be too hard for most of you to accept the reality.
    • Swenrekcah 1y ago
      You describe a real problem and an attack vector on democracy that is being used. However you make it sound like everything is already lost when it certainly isn’t.
      • fmnxl 1y ago
        Thinking of it as an attack vector is the problem with people. I'm saying what you have isn't democracy. Your market isn't free. Voting between the same 2 parties or choosing to buy/rent from the same few mega corporations aren't real choices. Unless you guys start accepting that and find an alternative solution or system, you'll keep digging yourself deeper into the hole you're in. More debt, more wars, more homelessness, more crime, and no future.
        • taffer 1y ago
          I don't know where you are from (I'm really curious though), but where I live there are more than two political parties and more than a few mega corporations to buy or rent from. You seem to have an extremely distorted idea of what live is like in "western countries".
• gruez 1y ago
  There was a comment that appeared for a few minutes before getting deleted, that vaguely lined up with what I wanted to say. It didn't reappear, so I'll just repost it: >real life also has social credit. were you an asshole to the bartender last week? that goes to your reputation at that bar. did you volunteer with a local non-profit? that goes to your reputation with that organization. even without an algorithm, people remember.
  • wvenable 1y ago
    You can always move to new town and start again. The problem with all these social credit systems is that they're designed to follow you wherever you go forever. There is also zero recourse if a mistake was made; at least you can try and smooth things over with a bartender.
    • otterley 1y ago
      > You can always move to new town and start again. Contra: "Wherever you go, there you are." (i.e., you don't stop being an asshole just because you move.)
      • wvenable 1y ago
        Of course, you are exactly the same person you were in your 20s and didn't improve one bit. Did you make mistakes? Too bad. That's you forever. Learning from mistakes is impossible.
        • otterley 1y ago
          [flagged]
          • Majestic121 1y ago
            They are surely not the only one to have make mistakes in their life. It's literally a lesson from the Bible: "Let him who is without sin among you, cast the first stone at her." I'm telling on myself too, yeah.
• YcYc10 1y ago
  Amazon? Who cares. Air BnB? Not really an issue unless you trash a place. Same with Uber. Instagram? Please.
  • tecleandor 1y ago
    You don't care until the corporation is big enough or starts crossing information with enough companies. Amazon already owns healthcare companies. Facebook has shared more information than we can think about with all sort of parties. One day you'll be denied care or your insurance premiums will quadruple because you buy too much sweets in Amazon, or because you once said you fell off a chair while drunk in a party in Instagram. Then you'll care.
    • corimaith 1y ago
      Then we'll vote in legislation to break up Amazon. You're assuming the hypothetical worst case in capitalism, but applying the same to the government it's going to be a far more difficult situation if the government is doing the same.
      • tecleandor 1y ago
        A: Amazon break up is years due already. B: I haven't said the government should do it instead.
• janalsncm 1y ago
  > Citizens are tracked for every jaywalking incident, points are deducted for buying too much alcohol The first time I visited China I was under 21 but I had heard the drinking age was 18 so I went to a convenience store to buy a beer. Person running the till was probably 12 and didn’t say a word or ask for ID. Unbelievably lax compared to the US sometimes. I generally think it’s easier and more effective to track the outputs rather than the inputs: you don’t need to track how many beers they buy, just outlaw public intoxication. And enforce that law.
  • ecshafer 1y ago
    I am not Chinese, my wife is though. I think, at least from my interpretation of it from being in China and having Chinese family, that something like underage drinking is seen more as a family issue, than a legal issue. What stops the 16 year old from drinking? The fact that their friends / family will see them being drunk, and think less of the person and their family. A 16 year old being drunk in public is family issue. Sure, the cops will intervene at some point, but China has very little drunken / raucous public behavior than the west does.
    • skeezyboy 1y ago
      > but China has very little drunken / raucous public behavior than the west does they were big on the opium, as I recall
      • Liftyee 1y ago
        > they were big on the opium, as I recall That's what happens when you get systematically manipulated by the biggest empire in the world smuggling in illegal drugs...
        • GreenWatermelon 1y ago
          And then people wonder why China is antagonistic towards the west.
        • 1y ago
• ok123456 1y ago
  "Social Credit" doesn't exist in China the way it's portrayed in Western media. It's really just a way of enforcing civil judgments, so you aren't living high on the hog after telling your creditors that you're broke. Depending on the type of bankruptcy declared, debtor exams happen here.
  • xandrius 1y ago
    That's just isn't true. That's financial credit, social credit is more nefarious as you don't know what counts for or against you.
• _knzv 1y ago
  [dead]
• deepsun 1y ago
  > As of 2024, there's still no nationwide social credit score in China. > The gap between Western perception and Chinese reality is enormous They inserted "nationwide". The social credit score in one China region (khm Xinj... khm) is truly dystopian, and I bet people there don't care whether it's "nationwide" or not, if they can literally be sterilized or get sent to concentration camps because of that. But they said it's not nationwide! As of 2024.
• nextworddev 1y ago
  Lol Americans have no clue what real social credit systems are like
  • platevoltage 1y ago
    Since you have first hand knowledge, why don't you share?
    • jamesbrek98 1y ago
      [dead]
• Bukhmanizer 1y ago
  The issue is that American media/discourse paints a very distorted view of what life under authoritarian rule is like. The truth is in many countries, unless you’re some kind of minority, politically active, or in legal trouble, day-to-day life is mostly similar to life in the west. But people don’t want to hear that, because we want to feel better than them. Like we wouldn’t tolerate that kind of life. Of course the most frustrating part about that is as the US and other western countries start sliding into authoritarianism, people deny it because they don’t feel like it’s authoritarian. Edit: To clarify, I don’t think life is exactly the same - just that the consequences of authoritarianism are much more insidious than they’re portrayed.
  • graemep 1y ago
    Not entirely true. People living authoritarian worry about what they say, they self-censor out of fear, they defer to those in power (even at a local level), they accept a hierarchy of power rather than rights. I do not entirely disagree without, but lack of freedom does intrude into day to day life to some extent.
    • deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    • yachad 1y ago
      Even if you live in a western country you do all of that anyway. Self-censor at work and online so I don’t get fired or banned from w/e. Accept elected officials whose policies don’t match up with popular opinion and accept standard employment hierarchy.
      • Rover222 1y ago
        That's very different than worrying about going to jail for life or getting disappeared.
        • ryandv 1y ago
          [flagged]
• josefritzishere 1y ago
  I hate it but this is true. The differences between this and the "social credit" system in China are trivial at best.
• stego-tech 1y ago
  Basically what I was saying a week ago about the rise of China as an empire: we already have this at home, and it’s worse because we don’t bother regulating it. Look, social credit is neither a new concept nor is it destined to be some Orwellian/Black Mirror/Authoritarian tool that keeps undesirables enslaved in low-wage work or targeted for “reeducation” - that’s a decision we allow Governments or Corporations to make on our behalf by refusing to bother regulating these systems or holding bad actors accountable. The sooner we accept that this is possible, that it’s already here in many cases, the sooner we can begin negotiating regulations in good faith with one another. Maybe it’s placing limits on the data corporations can gather and retain, or maybe it’s preventing the government from acquiring private data without transparent judicial warrants tied to crimes. Maybe it’s something else entirely! All I know is the current status quo enriches Capital while harming people, governments, and Democracy. I think that’s bullshit, and we should do something about it.
• ManlyBread 1y ago
  >credit score Non-existent in the country I live in. There's a national registry of debtors and people end up there for a very good reason. >Linkedin, Amazon There's no reason to consider these to be essential services, I am not using either and I'm doing perfectly fine in life. >Instagram LOL >Uber, Airbnb There are several copycats, traditional taxis and hotels are still a thing and public transportation or your own car are valid alternatives What even is this article? I skimmmed the rest of it and it just seems like the crux of the article is about proving how China's systems are actually fine while ommitng the fact that their systems are mandated by the state. Is Chinese propaganda what makes it to the front page of HN nowadays?
  • VerminOctopus1 1y ago
    This is a predominantly American website with American users. Your experience is of little relevance here.
    • krupan 1y ago
      The author appears to be Chinese and the articles they have written on the site have something to do with China
    • ManlyBread 1y ago
      If nationality would matter here I would be geoblocked and yet I am not.
  • gradientsrneat 1y ago
    > Is Chinese propaganda what makes it to the front page of HN nowadays? Yep. Because USA is a country which still ostensibly has free speech norms in its society, so you could get human rights commentary one day, foreign propaganda another day (even though the federal Trump government arrests political opponents), where meanwhile many human rights movements are banned in China. As the Soviets would say in the early 20th century, "And you are lynching Negroes". False equivalence is the bread and butter of authoritarian propaganda. By equating the two, we may fail to distinguish right from wrong and slide further toward authoritarianism.
• gspencley 1y ago
  > The only difference between your phone and China's social credit system is that China tells you what they're doing. We pretend our algorithmic reputation scores are just “user experience features.” At least Beijing admits they're gamifying human behavior. Um no. That is not the only difference by a LONG SHOT. If I want to evaluate whether or not I want to involve myself with you, in any capacity, then that negotiation is between you and me. I can ask for references. I can ask for a credit check. I can go pay for a police background check. I can read public review sites. Or, I might decide that because you listen to country & western music you're not a real person and I can't know you and leave the vetting at that. Consequentially, however, that dealing impacts our relationship and none other. You might find other people who don't care about the same "social credit criteria" that I do and you might find yourself dealing with them instead. That's kind of the beauty of this thing we call "freedom." Anyone gets to choose who they want to deal with (or not) and make their own individual choices. The "systems" they opt in are always opt in (or at least they should be). The difference between a government "social credit" system and individuals (businesses or people) vetting other individuals based on their own chosen requirements is force. A government system mandates this across society in a broad authoritarian sweep. Get on the bad side of "the party" and now you are a social pariah and will not have any luck finding anyone who wants to deal with you, country music lovers be damned, because it is forced upon everyone. A business has no choice but to apply "the" system because if they don't they get punished. It is not opt-in, it is a one-sized-fits-all mandated by force of law system that removes individual discretion and choice from the equation. That's a LOT different than just "we're upfront about it." Furthermore, while I appreciate when authoritarians are honest about their violations of basic human rights and freedoms, that doesn't suddenly make what they are doing OK. I don't want to deal with a thief who is honest about their thievery any more than I want to deal with one who tries to hide it.
  • timeon 1y ago
    > individuals (businesses or people) I think here is the difference between your and authors optics. You count businesses (does this include large corporations/organizations?) as individuals.
    • 1y ago
• poszlem 1y ago
  We often think of "social credit" as something far away, like in China. But it’s worth noticing how our own systems are starting to blend with state power. Just today, Graham Linehan, a comedy writer, was arrested by five UK police officers over social media posts when entering the country. We may not call it social credit, but in practice we’re already building it.
• Lammy 1y ago
  While I broadly agree with the article's point, this part stood out to me as the author not really knowing that much about Utah: > the image [of overt social-credit tech in public] is so powerful that Utah's House passed a law banning social credit systems, despite none existing in America. More like the LDS Church banned social credit systems that would compete with theirs lol
• tryauuum 1y ago
  [flagged]
• ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
  I come across as rather "stuffy," here, but you won't find instances of me fighting with others (a mild exchange is the most I'll do), or harassing folks. There's a reason: I used to be a real asshole troll, in the UseNet days (Don't listen to the folks with rose-colored glasses, telling you that things were better in those days; it was really bad). I feel that I need to atone for that. I'm not particularly concerned whether anyone else gives me credit (indeed, it seems to have actually earned me more enemies, here, than when I was a combative jerk). I do it because I need to do it for myself. I feel that we are best able to be "Productive members of Society," when we do things because we have developed a model of personal Integrity.
• jstrong 1y ago
  ... some stuff we have kinda resembles china's social credit score if you really think about it ... ok, maybe ... so yeah, it's totally fine lets do it ... WHAT
• valiant55 1y ago
  I never understood why employers do credit checks, seems like that's an overreach and should be illegal.
• ipython 1y ago
  Obligatory link to the relevant Black Mirror episode: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosedive_(Black_Mirror) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosedive_(Black_Mirror)
• stefantalpalaru 1y ago
  [dead]
• nattsu 1y ago
  illogical, you are confusing quality assessment with the concept of dictatorship
• bluedevilzn 1y ago
  I moved from Canada to California for a new job with a mid six figure salary. I had a very difficult time finding a place to rent as I had no credit score. Only places that were available without credit score was a room to share. That was not an option with a cat, wife and kids. Finally, I found a place that was willing to accept the entire year's rent up front. Moving such a large amount of money from Canada to US had its own set of hurdles. Once that was sorted out, I had to deal with yet more craziness to buy a vehicle. I decided to buy a CPO Mazda from the dealer in cash (using a cheque, of course). Once I signed all the papers, they ran a credit check on my newly created SSN. The system could not find my SSN. So, they denied letting me buy the car because they couldn't accept such a large amount from a person they could not verify. My passport and Canadian driver's license were not acceptable proof of ID for the dealer. On the flip side, my long history with Amex in Canada was ported over. So, they quickly set me up with very high limit credit cards. We already live in social credit but I fear the ones maintained by companies might be better for the consumer.
  • hdjrudni 1y ago
    I also moved from Canada to California for a new job with lowish six figure salary. My experience is almost the opposite of yours though. I moved at the end of 2018. I had to put 2 months deposit for rent instead of 1 because I had no credit, but it was otherwise easy. Transferring lots of money over the border is and continues to be a pain but is doable. I think I used OFX for that, my work gives me a bit of a discount. I also bought a Mazda. New, not pre-owned. For whatever reason, I think it was extra easy for me to secure financing. The guy at the dealership knew precisely what to do, and could answer the credit questions on his own (you know those weird questions they ask like did you have a credit card in 2015, what was your address in 2014, blah blah). Of course the answer was "no" to everything because I had just arrived and had no history. He got me a better deal than the credit union I was with was offering. Did everything on the spot. I think I got 2.9% APR. Maybe not the best, I see ads for 0 to 0.9% sometimes but I didn't really care because I was going to pay it off quick, but that's not the point -- I got financed with zero credit history in the US. I also put $10k on my brand new US credit card which had 6 months 0% interest. I'm sure they wanted me to rack up a bill and then charge me a fortune on interest but I knew I could (and did) pay it in time. Other places have been a mixed bag. Credit union took me in no problem. In fact, they were camped outside my work which is how they scooped me up. They know we're all high income earners, so smart move on their part. Meanwhile, Amazon declined to give me a credit card. Citi only give me $5k credit card and would only raise it $1k or $2k/year, meanwhile Capital One gave me $30k. Also got financing for some couches one time (Synchrony) and then denied another time. I think Synchrony actually checked my Canadian credit history, but only because the guy at Mancini's knew how to do it properly. At the other furniture store, I think they were n00bs and couldn't relay the information correctly. Weird. I guess this is what happens when you sometimes have humans in the loop and sometimes not. If any of them just looked at my salary and my employer or poked around a bit, they'd surely know I could pay some $$$.
• timeon 1y ago
  > Open your phone right now and count the apps that are scoring your behavior. I counted 0, but I do not live in US/China. It will probably came here as well.
• jongjong 1y ago
  This is a great article. It reminds me of a discussion I had about Russia; in Russia (and China) you are essentially told what you are not allowed to discuss freely... In the west, you are told that you can discuss anything but, in reality, the consequences for discussing certain topics are significant... You only find out once you start using your so-called 'free speech'. In the west, 'free-speech' isn't free at all; it's actually very expensive... It's a cost that's increasingly difficult for honest people to avoid; you have to kind of guess where the boundaries are... While the circle of permissible speech keeps shrinking. The circle has shrunk to a point where a lot of honest topics find themselves outside of the circle. It's difficult to be an intelligent, honest person in the west because of this. It's like most people don't understand reality. Everything they believe just happens to fit within the circle of allowed beliefs. They are in alignment with the system and benefiting from it (often unwittingly). It's only when the circle of allowed beliefs shrinks that they start to notice what I described above. I suspect a lot of people were 'awakened' after the most recent Israel/Palestine conflict because that shrunk the circle of allowed topics a lot. A lot of the people who were morally aligned with the ESG agenda before now found themselves partly outside the circle and you could see the agenda shift. Terms like 'diversity' which were originally conceived primarily as racial and gender-based started to drift towards 'neuro-diversity' as a response to the discomfort created by the shrinking circle having shrunk a little too fast... If you're outside the circle, you can see it much more clearly. The worst part is that you didn't even get to choose your fate. Kind of ironic as the west prides itself on individual choice. The circle shrinks slowly until you suddenly find yourself caught well outside of it when the consequences have accumulated beyond a certain threshold.
  • derelicta 1y ago
    It's crazy right? We've reached a threshold were even basic anti-war activism is de facto prohibited. In the UK, acting or even PROTESTING against the war machinery will get you jailed for 15 years if not deported.
    • bilekas 1y ago
      Have you any reasoning for saying 15 years ? I read the article, the number 15 isn't even mentioned. Edit : It's you again, no need to tell you to ignore my question.
• arthurjj 1y ago
  This article reminds me of those silly "Capitalism is the real super intelligent AI" or "is a burrito a sandwich" arguments from a few years ago. Saying a "system with the explicit goal of the government judging legal behavior to try and change it and punish you if you don't" is the same thing as "private entities deciding on how or even if they want to interact with you" is just stretching the definition too far to be taken seriously. By that argument me deciding I don't want to read more by this author is a social credit system. >Your Uber rating doesn't affect your mortgage rate, and your LinkedIn engagement doesn't determine your insurance premiums. But the infrastructure is being built to connect these systems. We're building the technical and cultural foundations that could eventually create comprehensive social credit systems. She doesn't provide any citation for this > Corporate platforms increasingly share reputation data. Financial services integrate social media analysis into lending decisions Again she doesn't provide any citation for this, but more importantly she doesn't explain why she thinks it's wrong. Someone who posts "Feeling lucky so headed to the craps table" probably shouldn't be lent to, if only for their sake
• tamimio 1y ago
  China is controlled by the government. The US is controlled by banks. The reality is, there's always an entity that controls a society. If not culture or religion, it will be the government or shadow government, or corporations and banks. Never forget that the main reason WFH was attacked in such a coordinated effort within a short period of time was because it threatened banks' business interests and model. Who's going to pay banks if landlords (commercial and residential) can't milk renters' money? It's a food chain and on top of it are the banks, and at the bottom are you, the average worker living paycheck to paycheck. WFH disrupted that and shifted the power to you. You don't have to rent/own downtown, so you (landlord) don't have to pay hefty property taxes. As a result, the government is losing, banks are losing, landlords will finally have to find real jobs instead of leeching off others, and all of that was a nightmare to them, and thus the push for hybrid or whatever under the fake claims it promotes cooperation and teamwork.
• rootsudo 1y ago
  "The only difference between your phone and China's social credit system is that China tells you what they're doing. We pretend our algorithmic reputation scores are just “user experience features.” At least Beijing admits they're gamifying human behavior." I've said this before in many ways to other Americans and they just join the very vocal "china bad, usa good, you're weird for liking china" while then wondering why they don't understand their own credit score, etc. Imagine having a less than 600 credit score and buying a car, buying a house, renting an apartment, opening a bank account, even getting insurance lol you are auto denied.
  • deadfoxygrandpa 1y ago
    i think that's actually a weak part of the article. she goes on to clarify that china's social credit system doesn't even really exist. so it would have been better to say it like this: "the only difference between your phone and china's social credit system is that your phone is real"
• apparent 1y ago
  > Bad Uber ratings can affect other services Really?
• insane_dreamer 1y ago
  I agree with the article's assessment that the US also has a social credit scores, but: - it's not at all the same as an aggregated government-assigned score (though we may be on the road to that) - the take of "things are so bad in China and basically the same here" are very naive; live in China for 5+ years and I guarantee you'll have a different view
  • insane_dreamer 1y ago
    oops - I mistakenly omitted the word "not"; meant to say "things are not so bad in China and basically the same here"
  • derelicta 1y ago
    Regarding the second point: I know right? If a lot more peeps were to have a chat with the average chinese netizen, I think it would shatter a lot of misconceptions about the People's Republic.
    • insane_dreamer 1y ago
      The problem if you’d have to live there quite a while and becomes friends and earn peoples trust before they’ll confide in you what they really think. That’s why so many of these takes about China are wrong.
• INTPenis 1y ago
  We sure do, it seems like a natural progression of a free market. The corporations want to know our worth before they deal with us. I'm speaking from a Swedish perspective but for a long time already we had these "credit checks", where a company can quickly order a check on a customer to see if they're eligible for paying via invoice, or installments. And the consumer gets a letter in the mail notifying them of each credit check and who requested it. They basically see if you have any large debts, and what your reported income is. But now some companies have gone even further and actually invented a credit score for us, that you have to pay them a subscription fee to see. All this is an organic progression driven by corporations who simply want to know if consumers are worth their time and risk.
  • skeezyboy 1y ago
    the entire first world has credit checks. china is doing behaviour checks
    • Kbelicius 1y ago
      > the entire first world has credit checks No it doesn't.
      • skeezyboy 1y ago
        give me a country in the first world that doesnt have credit checks
        • winrid 1y ago
          France
          • skeezyboy 1y ago
            interesting. you dont get a credit rating but you have an effective credit check. nobody is giving money out to strangers hoping itll get paid back, theyre all checking your credit history - a mortgage is credit, mortgage defaults still count against your borrowing ability. Its a credit check in all but name
• eadmund 1y ago
  > The only difference between your phone and China's social credit system is that China tells you what they're doing. And that I have a choice of phones, or even no phone at all, and none of my phone options is legally permitted to execute me. Further down, the article argues that switching costs between private companies are ‘enormous.’ I don’t know if they are that large, but however painful it is to switch from Apple to Google, it’s orders of magnitude easier than moving between nation-states. It notes that private systems ‘increasingly collaborate.’ Sure, and that can be a problem. But there’s a huge difference between a patchwork of systems which collaborate and a pervasive, inescapable State. Finally, it notes that governments purchase private data. Sure, but are they using that data to restrict fundamental freedoms? They may be (Canada’s restriction of economic rights for folks who donated to protesters comes to mind — although I don’t think that was actually enabled by purchasing private ‘social credit’ data). > Utah's House passed a law banning social credit systems, despite none existing in America. Does the article contend that Americans live in a social credit system, or that none exists in America? It can’t have it both ways! Finally, the article leads with a definition of ‘social credit’ as evolving beyond an original definition of ‘distributing industry profits to consumers to increase purchasing power.’ Whatever that might mean, it seems completely irrelevant to the meaning of the phrase under discussion, as relevant as mentioning in a discussion on O.J. Simpson that ‘O.J.’ can mean ‘orange juice’ (in Mr. Simpson’s case, it stood for ‘Orenthal James.’
  • jychang 1y ago
    > is legally permitted to execute me. Plenty of cops have shot/executed innocent people, and were declared not guilty due to qualified immunity. Plus, a phone in China can't execute you either. It'd be the police goons who do that.
    • deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    • thenthenthen 1y ago
      You cannot live without a phone number in China, your phone number is basically your Social Security number and it is used everywhere. Side note, I have never seen a (street)cop with a gun in China.
• bluecalm 1y ago
  Imo some social credit/reputation mechanism is needed. As it is there is very little you can do to judge trustworthiness of your business partners. Bad apples make services worse and more expensive for everyone. Honest people are in effect subsidizing behavior of dishonest people. It's often talked about in context of insurance but it happens everywhere. I want to rent a hotel room or Airbnb: risk of me ruining or stealing from the place is include in the price. I want hire a contractor: I may run into the same guy who scammed 10 people already and changed name of his business again. I want to rent a car: it's more expensive because of reckless drivers renting it as well and the owner have no way to tell if I am a responsible one. We pay idiot/scammer premium everywhere. There is a real need for that mechanism and if we keep putting our head in the sand big corps with proprietary solutions will cover that need. That is the worst of both worlds.
• skeezyboy 1y ago
  disagree on the first line "credit score is social credit". the chinese also have credit scores ya dummy
  • mapotofu 1y ago
    If you’re going to be commenting a lot, consider reading the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Specifically all of the parts about commenting. Looking at your posts it seemed like you had no idea these exist.
• stickfigure 1y ago
  I don't think this is a very good article. She tries to address the primary rebuttal: > You may argue there's a fundamental difference between corporate tracking and government surveillance. Corporations compete; you can switch services. Governments have monopoly power and can restrict fundamental freedoms. By saying: > This misses three key points: First, switching costs for major platforms are enormous. Try leaving Google's ecosystem or abandoning your LinkedIn network. Second, corporate social credit systems increasingly collaborate. Bad Uber ratings can affect other services; poor credit scores impact everything from insurance to employment. Third, Western governments already access this corporate data through legal channels and data purchases. This is weak and handwavy. * People leave Google's ecosystem all the time; it's practically sport here on HN. * "Bad Uber ratings can affect other services" - is this theoretical or has this actually happened? Without specific citation, I'm calling bullshit. * Poor credit ratings make it hard to get credit, yep. However, this area is heavily regulated and really only comes into play when you're asking someone to extend credit to you. It won't stop you getting on a train. * It's not clear what governments are doing with corporate data. She needs to be a lot more specific about the harms here. Also, saying that social credit systems in China are "limited to small pilot cities" is not particularly reassuring. The pilot programs are what we should freak out about. When it's rolled out en masse it's too late.
  • duxup 1y ago
    The corporate stuff gets weird too as ... what does leaving entail exactly? There's no sure thing to be an alternative that is actually different. I'm reminded of the SCOTUS arguments about cellphones and tracking, or just technology in general (the actual case(s) aren't so relevant as the arguments). The argument at one point was that since you're carrying a cellphone or using a computer in some way that tracks your location you made a choice and that end result might be to just give up your right to privacy / location data because you chose to carry a cellphone. Fortunately a few judges recognized that cell phones aren't just an accessory you pick and choose, they're part of daily life now, to operate in society you generally will need / want one, accordingly you should be able to do so without giving up some rights. Unfortunately, the same arguments didn't carry over into topics like binding arbitration and so on ...
  • 1y ago
• KolibriFly 1y ago
  At least in the Chinese pilots you know what counts against you
• ulbu 1y ago
  We = Americans. typical.
• M95D 1y ago
  It's actually worse than in China in other ways too: - China: no records about a person is a good thing - Elsewhere: no records is a very bad thing - China: records can be corrected and eliminated - Elsewhere: records are permanent
  • boxed 1y ago
    - China: records are centralized - Elsewhere: records are fragmented Although Meta is trying to "fix" that last part of course.
    • markus_zhang 1y ago
      TBF it took China decades to centralize the data. Back in the 2010s you can technically marry two persons in different provinces because the system was fragmented along the provinces. I think they finally solved the problem 10 years ago. China is actually far more fragmented than some people thought. The central government isn’t that all powerful. I mean even today, let alone 20 years ago. It is actually the big businesses like Ali/Tencent that are centralizing the data they collected — exactly like what US corporations are doing.
      • M95D 1y ago
        But I remember some story about Ali CEO dissappeared for a while... So, not exactly like US corporations.
        • markus_zhang 1y ago
          Ah yes, for good or bad.
• the_af 1y ago
  > The gap between Western perception and Chinese reality is enormous, and it reveals something important: we're worried about a system that barely exists while ignoring the behavioral scoring systems we actually live with. This rings very true. It's pervasive online, and HN is no exception. The "China scare" is pervasive, "in China they do (some imagined nasty thing that of course the US or Europe would never do, no siree!)".
• hunglee2 1y ago
  we're all more similar than we have been told to think. it's in our respective government's interests to tell us that of course the system we live in is the best, hey look at those other people living under tyranny 'over there', aren't you lucky to be living over here, under us?
• markus_zhang 1y ago
  I think there is no doubt that we are dropping lower and lower into a dystopian world and most of us are actually fine with it, because it doesn’t come upon us suddenly but evolves along the decades. Gotta get my FU money as quickly as possible and go live in the woods.
• kmeisthax 1y ago
  [dead]
• rlt 1y ago
  “The only difference between your phone and China's social credit system is that China tells you what they're doing.” Weird take. There’s a massive difference between a centralized government-run system and a decentralized system run by individual companies. Credit scores are closest but limited to financial behaviors
  • causal 1y ago
    Credit scores are used for a lot more than finances. You could argue everything they're used for is tied to money some way, but since everything is being sold to us as a service that doesn't leave much out. They are also very much not decentralized.
    • 0xffff2 1y ago
      > Credit scores are used for a lot more than finances. Such as? I'm wracking my brain, but I can't think of a single non-financial situation where someone has asked to pull my credit.
      • causal 1y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_credit_scoring_systems_in_the_United_States#Discriminatory_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_credit_scoring_sy...
      • hlhdlhcohcv 1y ago
        housing? security clearance? preemployment checks?
        • 0xffff2 1y ago
          Housing is categorically a financial transaction. Clearances are a far broader investigation, but to the extent that they look at your credit, I believe it is also to establish your financial status, which is most definitely a significant component of the clearance process. Preemployment: I admit to not having started a new job in many years... Is there any evidence whatsoever you can present that companies regularly reject candidates not in a position of financial trust for having poor credit?
• aidenn0 1y ago
  I have zero of the apps on the phone that the author mentions.
• cornhole 1y ago
  I have the choice to not use LinkedIn or uber
  • mcbobgorge 1y ago
    I agree with the sentiment but I have seen multiple job applications that have a mandatory 'apply with LinkedIn' button. Of course I could always choose not to apply, but I don't want to do that. Same thing when some websites require you to sign in with Google- there is no Google user score yet but they can ban you from their platform.
• mbac32768 1y ago
  I can't really prove this but I'm pretty sure your ability to get a refund on Amazon is based on their scoring of you. If you're fairly large purchaser with infrequent returns they just approve your return no questions asked, but if you return a lot for your volume they put a lot of barriers in place. At times it makes me wary of protecting my score (which may not even actually exist), and I'll often just take the loss rather than return something.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• RamSam50 1y ago
  Just to add, if you fall into certain risk profiles, some of which you are born into and you can never get out of, it becomes incredibly hard to get basic banking services. Banks will unilaterally close your account. Payment apps will deny you applications and none of them have to explain why. The rules of the financial credit system are mostly opaque and work through indirect levers. This AML social credit system also totally global, extending anywhere that the FATF has sway.
• 6510 1y ago
  If it is going to happen anyway the goal should be to design it properly.