I draw the reader’s attention to this social credit PR, from the inimitable BBC website.
A brief review.
" In most countries, the existence of a credit system isn't controversial. Past financial information is used to predict whether individuals will pay their mortgages or credit card bill in the future."
Immediately a parallel is drawn, between a 'credit system' and a 'social credit system'. And credit is reasonable, is it not? Credit makes the world go round, for a 17% fee.
“But China is taking the whole concept a few steps further. The Chinese government is building an omnipotent "social credit" system that is meant to rate each citizen's trustworthiness.”
A few steps. To phrase this in a manner the Chinse would understand, you take a few steps to get a credit card, but you march round the entire wall of China for the social credit. This is not a few steps, this is a giant leap forward, a phrase the Chinese are far less likely to appreciate. Sold as a mere extension of the humble credit card, a collectivist enhancer of the Great Village, and, later, a fraud buster, even a psychopath catcher. Credit has a purpose, of course, for the individual. One may spend on a credit card, whilst cash flow is short. One may wish to have a mortgage, so as to own a home. A business will always require credit. Trust in the financial system is vital, or it all goes 2008. But now the algo has been let loose, where previously caged.
"Someone who plays video games for 10 hours a day, for example, would be considered an idle person, and someone who frequently buys diapers would be considered as probably a parent, who on balance is more likely to have a sense of responsibility," Li Yingyun, Sesame's technology director told Caixin, a Chinese magazine, in February.
Well, exactly. The Algo will subtract idle points, or add responsible points, as above. During the one child policy, perhaps the latter would have points subtracted again for buying too many diapers, prior to arrest. Mr Yingun appears blithely unaware that our poor gamer is harmlessly pursuing a hobby, for which censure should reasonably be regarded as absurd.
And what censure there is. Let us consider VisaMex, a new visa company. They decide to tell all their customers, in a multi-million ad campaign, to ‘fuck you, pay me.” They hire some Gillette execs to wear Brown shirts, and pop up at press conferences telling their customers that “there will be consequences” should they fail to pay their monthly limit. When turning down a customer for extra credit, VisaMex then informs them that they’ve just cancelled their flight, because they are untrustworthy beggars, who don’t deserve a holiday. Possibly they have VisaMex vans, to ensure people aren’t drinking too heavily. You might call that Socialism Credit, if you were being unkind. You would also think VisaMex had gone insane, refuse to have anything to do with them. Authoritarian Government, party-linked credit companies, and new technology, never likely to be a winner.
“Critics say the social credit system is "nightmarish" and "Orwellian". However, some believe that some kind of credit system is badly needed in China.”
As withering put downs of authoritarianism goes, I put this roughly at the level of someone who utilises Harry Potter metaphors whilst discussing anything at all. For one, no quotes necessary. Nightmarish is fine. Orwellian is apposite. Other words we may add as suits. If you believe in evil, and I do, that word works too. And some people, well they believe any old shit, don’t they?
'Very convenient...'
I do not know if the estimable Iain M. Banks ever called a GCU the “Very Convenient for Whom’, but I’d like to think he would have, eventually.
Social Credit is well named. It fools the credulous into making insane parallels, doubtless the intent. "Credit systems build trust between all citizens, Wen Quan says." Wen Quan is a blogger, we are told.
"Without a system, a conman can commit a crime in one place and then do the same thing again in another place. But a credit system puts people's past history on the record. It'll build a better and fairer society," she promises.
And here we have our fraud buster, our psychopath hunter. This risible nonsense I need not elaborate on to any great extent, but anyone who makes that kind of promise is almost certainly the type of conman she feigns to protect us from. To the extent that this makes any sense at all, I’d hazard that they are seeking to persuade us that a score which defines personal trustworthiness is useful when considering credit worthiness, which feeds into trust in the economy more generally, and it is in high trust society’s that the economy works most effectively.
“Without a system, a conman can commit a crime” ... This is zero hour: before this system, there was nothing. “But a credit system puts people’s past history on the record” ... This naturally is a threat, barely hidden. “It’ll build a better and fairer society.” Sure, Chairman Mao, pass me a gun.
“Perhaps it is good for all citizens to learn quickly about the concept of a "social credit" score, while it is still partly voluntary. Within five years, the government's mandatory system will rank everyone within China's borders.”
I quote this article for a reason. Written in 2015, the 5 years has almost elapsed. The credit score is up and running. I have another simpler reason also: this was the very first article that appeared in the search engine. And, no, not Google. Make of that what you wish.
An addendum. In the period between writing this post, and publishing on the blog, I received a message from the tax office, over some trifling mistake from 2018, since rectified. I was impressed they found the error, whilst disturbed at the threats of an audit, if I did not comply. And I can observe that the apparatus is already in place, and our own social credit system close to fruition.