Social credit systems
A social credit system is a form of a reputation system implemented by the government seeking to standardize the assessment of social credit or social and economic reputations for its citizens and businesses. The system relies on big data analysis technology and other records used to create a ranking system that monitors the country’s population, keeping record of specific activities to determine a person’s social credit. The aim of the system is to make citizens more trustworthy by keeping check of their behavior and activities and punishing those who engage in distrustful behavior and activities. One of the countries that have implemented the social credit system is China which aims to have the system operating fully across the entire country. There are however specific regions where the system is in use and is run by the city council and others by the private tech organization assigned to collect and store the data on Chinese citizens. Although the concept is still relatively new, social credit systems are commendable as they hold every citizen accountable for their actions and thereby making them more honest and constructive which goes a long way into ensuring the well-being of the country in general.
In relation to social constructivism, it is clear to see that artifacts have politics. Social constructivism has it that human development is greatly influenced by society because people gain knowledge through their interactions with others as well as the experiences that they go through in society (Winner 121). Similar to how people need each other to gain knowledge, artifacts too can be said to be political because the process of making and operating them follows a certain social arrangement and procedures that bear close resemblance to the formation and operation of a political party. In his argument supporting the belief that artifacts have politics, Willey (669) quotes the Republic by Plato where he discusses the process of running a ship. Like most governments, ships rely on a number of individuals each performing different tasks with the main to meet an overall objective. The operations require a great deal of coordination and cooperation and this is how the politics comes into play as the operations become more complex depending on the size of the ship.
Similarly, social credit systems have political properties that ensure the systems function as intended. One of the properties has to do with the vetting and approval process that go into making the system a reality. At present, the social credit system is in the implementation phase where a lot of vetting and analysis is being conducted to ensure that the system serves the citizen’s best interests (Wiley 682). Just like political parties, the system has to be discussed, analyzed and examined thoroughly to inform the public what role it intends to fulfill as well as to ensure that it strives to achieve a common good. Since the aim is to create a better society for the citizens, the system has to be examined and assed like any other political party before it is given the authority to govern the way citizens live their lives.
Another political property present in social credit system is the authority given to the program after implementation. Once established, social credit systems collect data on people’s behaviors, activities and any other relevant information that can be used to build social credit. If any organization was to collect such sensitive information, it would be considered an invasion of privacy as it pries into people’s personal lives (Kobie 1). However, similar to the way governments operate, the social credit systems will have the authority to collect the data and use it to build social credit without it being considered a violation of people’s rights and freedoms. As such, the systems are in a similar footing with the government as they have the authority to surveil citizens and collect information needed to build social credit records.
My reasons for supporting the implementation of a social credit system has to do with the accountability such a move will place on citizens. Often times, when something goes wrong, people tend to blame the government and cite various reasons why it is not doing its job properly (Tumler 1). People rarely take accountability of their actions and do not pose to think how their behavior may have contributed to various national crisis such as destruction of the economy. Since the social credit system collects and stores data on people’s behavior, it would make it easier to show people the role they play in creating the problems that exist in the communities they live in (Willey 55). The realization that people are equally to blame for some of the challenges that exist in a country is likely to make them more accountable for their actions and in so doing, make the country a better place to live in.
An argument can be made against social credit systems regarding how they are an invasion of privacy. People greatly value their privacy and consider any intrusion of their rights and freedoms. Since the social credit systems collect data on people’s behavior and activities, it can be said to be a violation of privacy as it observes things that they may even want to keep private. While it is true that the systems will collect personal information, it is in no way an invasion of privacy because it is a tool used by the government to look out for people’s best interests. Since the government has been given the authority to employ all measures to protect and serve its citizens, the social credit systems are therefore a tool used to bring about positive change rather than an invasion of privacy.
Work cited
Kobie, Nicole, “The complicated truth about China’s social credit system” Wired, 2018, retrieved from, https://www.wired.co.uk/article/china-social-credit-system-explained
Tummler, Mario, “The social credit system and governmentality in China” Open Edition, 2019, retrieved from, https://soziologieblog.hypotheses.org/11485
Wiley, Blackwell, “Philosophy of technology: The technological condition and anthology” Blackwell Philosophy Anthologies, 2014, print
Winner, Langdon, “Do artifacts have politics?” JSTOR, 2018
