We’re just data: Exploring China’s social credit system in relation to digital platform ratings cultures in Westernised democracies

Abstract

Social media platforms and apps have become increasingly important tools for governance and the centralisation of information in many nation states around the globe. In China, the government is currently piloting a social credit system in several cities in an ambitious attempt to merge a financial credit score system with a broader quantification of social and civic integrity for all citizens and corporations. China has already begun to experiment with metrics and quantification of the value and virtue of its citizens, going beyond the function of measuring workplace performance and health-related selftracking to measuring one's purchasing and consumption history, interpersonal relationships, political activities, as well as the tracking of one's location history. China has also already begun to apply a reward and punishment system that rewards those who comply with the Chinese government's ideals and punishes those who deviate from them. Although there are no such ambitiously unified systems currently proposed in Western liberal democratic countries, some aligned structures and cultures of social media use are already well in place. This article seeks to offer a comparative examination of the structures and cultures of China's social credit system with those which are already present and in place in Western liberal democratic countries. While it may be convenient to digitise everyday social, political and economic life, China's social credit system brings about a vision of what may be to come, should democratic countries continue to do so without stricter data use policies in place.

Ethical implications of digital infrastructures for pluralistic perspectives

“…While one might expect that people, across different age groups, may be concerned about privacy implications of SCS, they instead appear to embrace SCS with high levels of approval (80%), according to a cross-regional survey by Kostka (2019). In contrast to previous research studies that perceived SCS as a surveillance infrastructure for social management (Creemers 2018;Hoffman 2017;Liang et al 2018;Wong and Dobson 2019), the survey further reveals factors that influence people to embrace the SCS include: individual's characteristics such as demographic factors, online presence, and political attitude; SCS' characteristics in terms of its score magnitude, transparency, and fairness; perceived and received advantages and disadvantages of SCS such as improved accountability, quality of life, and conformance to government regulations. In particular, the rationale for such a positive response to SCS is because they view SCS as a system promoting "honest dealings in society and economy instead of privacy-violations" (Kostka 2019(Kostka , p. 1566.…”

“…In contrast, a critical analysis of the design of the Chinese SCS, i.e. the set of mechanisms providing rewards or punishments as feedback to actors for the morality of their socio-economic and political actions (Lanzing 2019), candidly critiqued it as an 'Orwellian nightmare' (Orgad and Reijers 2019), and as a big data gamified version of modern social control/management (Creemers 2018;Hoffman 2017) and state surveillance (Liang et al 2018;Wong and Dobson 2019). To address these issues, it is not sufficient to enable a system to work at a technical level, not least because the quality of the data that goes into the system itself may be suspect, compromising the reliability of its outcomes.…”

When push comes to nudge: a Chinese digital civilisation in-the-making

“…Digital data collected by tech companies allow them to construct unique profiles for each individual on different apps and platforms. Instances of 'uncivilised' behaviour found in such profiles can limit access to certain forms of information, to services, entry to certain places and along the refusal of social and economic opportunities (Galič et al, 2017;Wong and Dobson, 2019).…”

“…Initially announced by the State Council in 2014, the Chinese Social Credit System is not entirely dissimilar to credit systems operating in liberal democracies (Griffith, 2019;Wong and Dobson, 2019). This is a state-led form of Zuboff's surveillance capitalism in play, bolstered by the obligation of China tech companies like Tencent and Alibaba to pass on information to security services.…”

“…The Chinese government is harnessing digital technologies not only as means of policing unrest but also for the purpose of correcting instances of abuse by state officials, and thereby cultivating trust in government. It says it is 'policing "dishonesty"', widely understood as the common factor across high-level corruption, commercial fraud, food safety crimes and the production and selling of counterfeit goods (Wong and Dobson, 2019). As such, the Social Credit System is nudging people to be more honest.…”