'Social credit' systems - good idea or bad one ?

[erol]

http://uk.businessinsider.com/china-soc ... ned-2018-4

something kind of connected to ideas I wrote about back in 2001 for an article for the telegraph about 'community area networks' *

With identity on a CAN relating to a physical point in a physical community a whole range of possible ‘trust based’ network applications become increasingly viable. Schemes to rate anything from local plumbers to local library provision. Individuals and businesses will be able to build up a ‘profile’ based on their actions in the local community. Your trust rating may become more important than your credit rating in such an environment.

* (in case anyone is interested in the whole artcle an early darft of it can be found here http://dek.spc.org/x/canx.html)

So 'social credit' ratings ? Good idea ? Bad idea ? Big Brother gone mad ? Great way to promote social trust and mediate bad social behaviour ?

[kayc]

there is something similar in the US... called 'Angie's List" where one can write a review, give a testimony- good or bad, on contractors and businesses. A valuable tool I think

[erol]

there is something similar in the US... called 'Angie's List" where one can write a review, give a testimony- good or bad, on contractors and businesses. A valuable tool I think

What about some kind of general rating system for people / individuals based on negative points for 'anti social' behaviour (littering, vandalism, public drunkenness, urinating in the street ...) and positive points for 'social' behaviour (charity / community work, organising social events, participating in local 'clean ups' .... ) ?

[Groucho]

If social media has taught us anything it is that it is open to abuse... people seem to regard it as their right to ruin the good name of another merely for sport.

[kayc]

there is something similar in the US... called 'Angie's List" where one can write a review, give a testimony- good or bad, on contractors and businesses. A valuable tool I think

What about some kind of general rating system for people / individuals based on negative points for 'anti social' behaviour (littering, vandalism, public drunkenness, urinating in the street ...) and positive points for 'social' behaviour (charity / community work, organising social events, participating in local 'clean ups' .... ) ?

Unfortunately, human nature is more inclined to jump on the "criticism bandwagon" when adding their evaluations. It would be a refreshing change in behaviour if people would be as equally compelled to leave positive comments.

In any manner, it seems that judgements (negative or positive) from our community, or family or friends can, over time, result in improved behaviour. And then also, judgements or criticism can be used maliciously to destroy a reputation of an innocent person.

[erol]

Did not explain it very well. I am thinking more of some 'third party' agency (public or private?) akin to the third party 'credit rating agencies' that already exist. Donate blood - your 'social credit rating' increases. Act in a yobish manner on a flight - your 'social credit rating' decreases.

[Groucho]

Did not explain it very well. I am thinking more of some 'third party' agency (public or private?) akin to the third party 'credit rating agencies' that already exist. Donate blood - your 'social credit rating' increases. Act in a yobish manner on a flight - your 'social credit rating' decreases.

Yeah but who polices it?

I would advocate as system like the BHC operates for lawyers - they have a list of those with high performance records - they don't list bad ones and leave it up to you to decide why a lawyer is not or is no longer on the list.

[erol]

Yeah but who polices it?

Who polices current 'credit rating' systems ? In terms of inaccuracies on your own 'social credit score' I imagine some sort of right to have these reviewed and corrected ? So if say you had 'negative points' for having got a fine for 'littering' (or speeding ? or parking illegally, or caution for playing music too loud ?) and you had not done these things you could get such reviewed and corrected. In terms of who decides what behaviours merit 'positive' or 'negative' points and how many points, then these could be agreed by some form of 'consensus' ?

[Groucho]

It seems like a can of worms... it could lead to actionable libel. Can it be trusted? If not - then it is of dubious worth. I can foresee trolls having a field-day.

[kibsolar1999]

This only can be meant as a joke.
Ok, lets start.
- Urinating in the street, anti social , 1 minus point.
- Not opening the door to somebody who needs the rest room, anti social, 2 minus points.
- Littering, eg, a can, 1 minus point
- Flying to North Cyprus, damaging the environment and selfish, 1000 minus points. Hongkong: minus 5000
- Working for a dirty coal power station, 100 - 1 million minus points (depend on position)
- Working for a nuclear power station: max minus point exceeded, jail.
- Having a bank account with HSBC.. reportedly involved in money laundering.. anti social, 1000 minus points.
- Buying a home for 200.000 and selling five years later for 500.000: anti social greed incl direct or indirect supporting of gentrification: uhh… many minus points.
- Having too much money.. anti social.
- Being poor. anti social.
- Wearing long hairs.. maybe red or green.. not compliant with whatsoever and judged negative from our community, or family or friends: Last year it was 1 minus point, this year 5 points. Sorry, our “ valuation method”, or new, “ the algorithm” , changed.
We, İam a german, had a “ system compliant social ranking system”.. with the nazis and with the stasi (State Security of the GDR).
Not again.

[erol]

This only can be meant as a joke.

No not a joke. If you read the business insider article in the first post this is something that is happening already in China. To a degree it is already in place in the UK as well - ASBO (anti social behaviour orders) are a 'public record' of anti social behaviour that can and do affect a persons employment, housing and other prospects. They are currently only 'negative records' of behaviour of course.

At it's most benign the idea really is to try and apply the kind of limits to anti social behaviour that used to exist when people lived in largely static, small local communities, where every one knew everyone else in their community.

Of course such a system would be open to potential abuse but then are not all 'social systems' and 'social agreements' open to such ? Democracy, rule of law etc etc can and in the past all have been 'abused' by totalitarian regimes.

Such a system would have to be 'transparent' and 'accountable' and deciding what constituted 'anti social' behaviour and what 'social' would have to be a matter of open public debate and consensus - not much different from deciding what is 'legal' and 'illegal' to my mind. Even the 'process' of such discussions could themselves be of value. So as you say the idea of what job you do impacting your 'social credit score' is to me intriguing. Is a nurse or teacher or carer more 'socially beneficial' than say someone running a betting shop or off license ?