HN Reader

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.

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

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

“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

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.

"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.

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.

> 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.’

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.

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.

>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?

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?

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.

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

The article sounds like a damage control

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

> 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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

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.

I never understood why employers do credit checks, seems like that's an overreach and should be illegal.

> 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!)".

We used to have a social credit system called, "social democracy" but it was destroyed when we poisoned the educational system.

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.

I have the choice to not use LinkedIn or uber

> 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.

At least in the Chinese pilots you know what counts against you

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.

Weirdly, banks in China also use statistical algorithms when assessing their loan books!

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.

illogical, you are confusing quality assessment with the concept of dictatorship

> Bad Uber ratings can affect other services

Really?

disagree on the first line "credit score is social credit". the chinese also have credit scores ya dummy

>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.

We = Americans. typical.

I have zero of the apps on the phone that the author mentions.

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?

If it is going to happen anyway the goal should be to design it properly.

Amazon? Who cares. Air BnB? Not really an issue unless you trash a place. Same with Uber. Instagram? Please.

"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.

Obligatory link to the relevant Black Mirror episode: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosedive_(Black_Mirror)

I hate it but this is true. The differences between this and the "social credit" system in China are trivial at best.

Lol Americans have no clue what real social credit systems are like

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_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.

> 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.

... 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