Talk:Social Credit System/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Note: numerous reports have wrongly picked up the name "Sesame Credit" to describe this system, conflating it with the commercial Sesame Credit system. They are clearly not the same thing, although it's clear that the Chinese government is closely observing the progress of private credit rating systems. Whether the Chinese government has plans for integrating data from these, or other sources of information like social media and Internet activity, into the SCS seem to be currently unknown. -- The Anome (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I propose that Sesame Credit be merged into Social Credit System. I think that the content in the Sesame Credit article can easily be explained in the context of this one. As the Sesame Credit page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, and the Social Credit System article is of a reasonable size, I believe that the merging of Sesame Credit will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Greg (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose They are separate systems. One is commercial and the other is government. Andrew D. (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Let us wait for developments. Zezen (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by your responses, @Zezen. Unless I'm totally missing something, a merge hasn't happened. Regardless, what developments might you wish to see take place, before supporting a merge? Thanks, Greg (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support Sesame Credit's relevance seems to stem primarily from its status as the main contender for China's nationwide Social Credit System, and what little information is publicly available right now does not warrant a separate article at this time. JulianFT (talk) 11:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Because Sesame Credit is one example of a platform that uses this style. Geraldshields11 (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - The articles are fine either merged or separate. I think the Sesame Credit article is likely to expand, dependent on its up take. If separate, there probably should be a paragraph dedicated to Sesame on the social credit system article. Jonpatterns (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose These are two different systems, and we shouldn't contribute to the conflation of them. See http://www.chinalawtranslate.com/seeing-chinese-social-credit-through-a-glass-darkly/ Ctbeiser (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Closed as Keep separate - unless anyone has new objections. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

QZ article

Some screenshots and back office algorithms here: https://qz.com/1097766/i-fixed-my-poor-sesame-credit-score-by-being-a-more-loyal-user-of-alibabas-wallet-app-alipay-in-china/ Zezen (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is mainly about Sesame Credit/ Jonpatterns (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorting 'Social Credit System' from 'Sesame Credit'

A lot of new information has been added to the article in the last month. A lot of it mentions Sesame Credit. Sesame Credit is a separate system run by Ant Financial Services Group (AFSG, affiliate of the Chinese Alibaba Group). However, the situation is complicated by AFSG being one of several companies tasked with implementing the Social Credit System. Therefore, some of the same systems and data may be used by both. It would useful if someone in the know, or able to pick through the references could double check both articles. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Its unclear whether Sesame Credit will be an integrated part of the national system? Jonpatterns (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Single score for every citizen?

It would be good to get a definitive answer on whether there are plans for a unique national "Social Credit" score for each citizen? According to this Foreign Policy article the answer is no:

But contrary to some Western press accounts, which often confuse existing private credit systems with the future schemes, it will not be a unified platform where one can type in his or her ID and get a single three-digit score that will decide their lives. This caricature of a system that doles out unique scores to 1.4 billion people could not work technically nor politically, says Rogier Creemers, a scholar of Chinese law at the Leiden University Institute for Area Studies in the Netherlands. The system would instead expand and automatize existing forms of bureaucratic control, formalizing the existing controls and monitoring of Chinese citizens.

article

Jonpatterns (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

This claims to be a translation of the proposal that might help determining what we can say. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

That's the closest explanation I can find for you. Social credit documents focus more on information collection, consolidation, and aggregation than scoring. They actually seem to suggest that many different ratings be involved for different uses, including industry-specific regulation, lending, etc. Private credit investigation operations are encouraged to develop ratings that meet the needs of the market...The media emphasis on a universal score is probably the result of well-deserved vigilance against China’s surveillance ambitions....The Social Credit documents do call for ‘a unified social credit code’ but this isn’t a rating. It refers to an identification number for associating all credit information so as to facilitate the compatibility and exchange of information. For humans, this code will be their national identification number; organizations will be assigned a new number under this system. [1]-Loned (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Current state of Social Credit System implementation (mid-2018)

The national wide, or should I say state-run credit system hasn't been built up. Right now, all credit rating system are controlled by private companies or state-owned banks. And these companies are not cooperating. Since there's no social credit system as right now, no source mentions which part of the system and data will be used in the future. Currently, different journalism has noted this reality in their article like QZ's https://qz.com/1097766/i-fixed-my-poor-sesame-credit-score-by-being-a-more-loyal-user-of-alibabas-wallet-app-alipay-in-china/ It states: China wants to build a credit system by 2020. Right now, China doesn't have such system. - Loned (talk) 05:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Loned: I've added references showing the state has some pilot schemes up and running, and also the restrictions placed on citizens with low scores. The QZ's article is mainly talking about credit score and especially Sesame Credit, it mentions the state scheme almost in passing. Here is one of the references I added that has details of the state pilot schemes "Three dozen pilot systems have been rolled out in cities across the country, and Rongcheng is one of them." article Jonpatterns (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you read the article recommended by another guy on the talk page: https://qz.com/1097766/i-fixed-my-poor-sesame-credit-score-by-being-a-more-loyal-user-of-alibabas-wallet-app-alipay-in-china/. It's an excellent piece on how the system really operate. Those credit systems you mentioned are not linked together. The law is indeed passing but digital infrastructure for a universal credit system isn't there right now. For example, Rongcheng credit you mentioned above, just like Shanghai local credit system, are set up by two different local governments. The data of two credit system aren't shared and whether it will become part of the national-wide credit system is up to debate. In fact, many credit system in China is competing the resources, fund from the government, like Alibaba and Tencent's battle on their financial credit system. So "dozen pilot systems have been rolled out in cities across the country" doesn't means that the national credit system is partially operational. It just mean that more than 12 cities is experimenting with their own independent credit system. -Loned (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I read the qz article and its mainly about Sesame Credit. From the Foreign Policy article:

Rongcheng is a microcosm of what is to come. The national credit system planned for 2020 will be an “ecosystem” made up of schemes of various sizes and reaches, run by cities, government ministries, online payment providers, down to neighborhoods, libraries, and businesses, say Chinese researchers who are designing the national scheme. It will all be interconnected by an invisible web of information.

But contrary to some Western press accounts, which often confuse existing private credit systems with the future schemes, it will not be a unified platform where one can type in his or her ID and get a single three-digit score that will decide their lives. This caricature of a system that doles out unique scores to 1.4 billion people could not work technically nor politically, says Rogier Creemers, a scholar of Chinese law at the Leiden University Institute for Area Studies in the Netherlands. The system would instead expand and automatize existing forms of bureaucratic control, formalizing the existing controls and monitoring of Chinese citizens.

“The social credit system is just really adding technology and adding a formality to the way the party already operates,” says Samantha Hoffman, a consultant at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) who researches Chinese social management.

It sounds like the national system is the official adoption of different state and business systems. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, I posted the wrong link for you- it should be this one for China Law Watch https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/seeing-chinese-social-credit-through-a-glass-darkly/?lang=en I was actually trying to check every source in the article so I mismatched the link, but the qz's article is a good piece nonetheless. Here's my argument: if you ask "if Social Credit System is an independently working system, like a nation-wide service provided by the government". Then no, I don't think such system exists. But if you think the concept of Social Credit System in the general sense, like "Does China have social credit system?" Then, it's definitely a Yes. But I would argue that social credit system as of right now in China isn't so much different from the credit system of my Bank of America credit card. The system is limited to either bank or private business transactions as in the case of Alibaba's sesame credit. There's no evidence shown that purchasing different product has effect on your credit. In fact, the credit is decided by your expenditure within Alibaba ecosystem. This isn't so much different from my United Airline Reward Program, just in a boarder sense. Anyway, the evidence is contradicted to the summary of the current wikipedia article - China has this operational national reputation system as of now. -Loned (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I've change the lede to make it clear that the design goal of the national system is unknown, and therefore whether current systems constitute part of the national system is also unknown. I've started a section below to discuss new lede, comments welcome. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Nice edit. I do wish we get better English source on this topic. Cheers! -Loned (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Misconceptions in media

This topic has taken my eye because it's fascinating but more than anything confusing. It seems that there are a lot of confusion in media conflating Social Credit and Sesame/Zhima Credit (Wikipedia even even redirects Zhima Credit here). There are a number of articles online clarifying common misconceptions and explainin in detail, like this article by ForeignPolicy. Also this article, this one, this one (sadly not in English) and this are good starts to understand what's actually going on. I would tag this article, currently as it is, as not accurate. --200.16.16.13 (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, what is not currently accurate? Its seems to be unknown (by English sources) how the system is to be implemented, and how much will be 'borrowed' from Seasame. I've fixed the Zhina redirect. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

That's part of it. The article, as it is, explains in detail the systems like if it already implemented. From the sources it's stated that there are several different experiments. ForeignPolicy states that there are two dozens of them and they vary greatly in terms of evaluation and kind of reward of punishment. Also both FP and Whatsonweibo state that it is a credit system but not a credit score, unlike Zhima Credit. --200.16.16.13 (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I've moved out another source I found to be solely about Sesame Credit. I don't think anything in the article is incorrect now, and it states when something is unknown. If you find any errors either WP:BOLD or comment here. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Section on Factors used to evaluate citizen behavior

I glanced at the history, and noticed a large removal in August of the section Factors used to evaluate citizen behavior, although with a detailed rationale in the edit summaries. @Jonpatterns: I'll ping you to verify, as you're probably the most familiar with the current sources. Possibly the previous content was inappropriate as stated, but could be somewhat easily replaced with accurate info that is focusing on the same section elements? It seems a worthwhile aspect to cover in this article, if you (or anyone else) has time & inclination to look into it. Cheers, Quiddity (talk) 01:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reinstating the referenced information. @Vuspired: regarding the references:

 

1) https://global.handelsblatt.com/politics/germany-mass-surveillance-social-credit-china-big-data-886786

Unsure what "...mixes information without reflection on several occasions..." is referring to spefically

 

2) http://uk.businessinsider.com/chinas-tax-blacklist-shames-debtors-2017-12

Article is talking about Chinese government's SCS, mentions Sesame Credit as they are an implementation partner. It's also possible that parts of Sesame Credit's system will in used in SCS (as some sources claim SCS is a patchwork of systems, rather than a total unified system)

 

3) https://www.wired.co.uk/article/chinese-government-social-credit-score-privacy-invasion

As per Business Insider reference.

 

Jonpatterns (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Other countries

I have added UK's Disclosure and Barring Service. Still there is FICO in the US etc., dozens of "No Fly" EU lists, and I guess hundreds more. See wolf ticket in 1920s USSR. -》 Shall we link to a comprehensive separate wiki article? (Is there any?) Or elaborate here?

I plan to write a book about these. Zezen (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The prison @ legal gamification system seems to be another example or maybe even source. See e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_conduct_time Zezen (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

links

http://www.315soso.org/ https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/simp/chinese-news-45886126 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/01/china-bans-23m-discredited-citizens-from-buying-travel-tickets-social-credit-system Kaihsu (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

New lede for article (July 2018)

I've updated the lede to reflect new developments and sources:

The Social Credit System (社会信用体系 shèhuì xìnyòng tǐxì) is a national reputation system being developed by the Chinese government. By 2020, it is intended to standardise the assessment of citizen's and business's economic and social reputation, or 'credit'. As of mid-2018, it is unclear whether the system will be an 'ecosystem' of various scores and blacklists run by both government agencies and private companies, or if it will be one unified system. It is also unclear whether there will be a single system-wide social credit score for each citizen and business. By 2018, some restrictions had been placed on citizens, which state-media described as the first step toward creating a national social credit system.

The system is a form of mass surveillance which uses big data analysis technology.

Comments and suggestions welcome. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Even though it rates people, the reason why it is not named "Social Rating System" but instead is a "Social Credit System" is because people can add credits based upon actions that demonstrate trustworthiness to the country just as credits are subtracted if the person does untrustworthy actions such as bad finances, skipping work to play games, posting fake news that is damaging to the country or reputation of chinese companies, etcetera. In 2018, it still seemed to be treated as an ecosystem because some tier 1 city municipalities had their own unique subsystem of rating individuals for their faults. And based upon those faults that government would then submit data up the chain to the national level for modification of the social credit score.

Before more people post in the main page, they should all read the same set of news articles. This may help standardize TIMELINE perspectives because the implementation still seems to be evolving. A section of the article should be about the Chilling Effect. A significant part of the Social Credit System is the government's use of the Chilling Effect to compel people to self-censor their actions which leads to a loss of freedoms later on as laws change to remove no-longer-used freedoms. Additionally, that section should describe the effects of social credit score chilling effects upon the education system and the news publishing. Certainly, forums where users speak badly about government actions may feel the chilling effect. Why is it import to have a section on this? If it isn't written down, pretty soon news articles and peoples' posts on the subject may disappear due to the chilling effect. To cite proof from China, there needs to be bibliographic references, but as the chilling effect increases, those articles will dry up and disappear.AnimeJanai (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Macau

• Does the Chinese Social Credit System Geographic region only applied on Mainland China, and not applied on Hong Kong and Macau ? This Chinese news media says there are official document says the china social credit system are planning for apply to Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area. For details, please see(Chinese version only): 一國一制又出招！ 香港3年內引進「信用評分系統」(English Translation: One country one system: Hong Kong may introduce social credit system within 3 years.), also this article 香港信用評分系統 3 年內澳門香港廣東三地互通資料 (English Translation: Hong Kong, Macau, Guangdong province will share social credit system within 3 years.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeccho (talk • contribs) 07:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Update: Hong Kong government officially announced that social credit system will not implement now in Hong Kong. See No social credit system in HK from Hong Kong Government official News. Despite there have Guangdong official government document ask for implement social credit system on the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area, which is published in this official government website 广东印发推进粤港澳大湾区建设三年行动计划（2018-2020年）(English Translate: Guangdong published promoting The Greater Bay Area 3 year plan) on point 75. Joeccho (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

unuseful propaganda

As usual, Wikipedia, like most other websites put out a whole wall of propaganda without getting into the details of what you can do to raise your credit score, or how your score will be lowered. At least we know in the western credit system, if you take out loans, and pay them back, your credit score rises. If you borrow money, and don't pay back, then your score goes down. But so far, the internet has not informed us at all as to how this social system actually works. One would assume that if you help an old lady cross the street, your social credit score goes up, but there is no way to tell by reading useless internet websites. What honestly is the point of creating such a system if you don't know what you can do to gain, or lose points? Can you lose points for making alot of noise and disturbing your neighbors?

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four#Surveillance  
  Well if you follow the party line and chinese laws ,even if they change over time , you'll probably have a       good score. I think  The point is mantaining the party in control of  china of course.

Misconception on the credit system

Recently, mainstream medias are picking up on those misconceptions of the social credit system, including two pieces from WIRED and Foreign Policy. Truth are misunderstood regarding the system because of language barrier, lack of fact-checking and on the ground reporting. Although as a mass surveillance system, the social credit system is already pretty scary. But the current situation is far more complicated and I would say that most part of "what we think" is actually different than "what it actually is".

For example, the system called for an establishment of national record number (the credit is actually a identification number, not a value) instead of an actual score that rates citizens. That's a big difference, making the system become more like a record keeping surveillance system than "1984" "Black Mirror" science fictions. Also, the sesame credit is Alibaba's royalty program instead of a "citizen credit score", and there're seven other companies involved in the early testing phase. What are those companies? These facts are not reflected on this wikipedia article at all.

I suggest that we need to be more cautious on the fact-checking and editing. -Loned (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• NYT and other outlets recently published new article on the project, too. But they still seem to be off on the system as a whole. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/22/business/china-social-credit-business.html -Loned (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Misconception should be individually list. And the summary still lists incorrect information.

The credit system is closely related to China's mass surveillance which uses facial recognition system and big data analysis technology, and the regulatory method is primarily based on blacklisting and whitelisting. In 2019, it is estimated that 200 million monitoring CCTV cameras of the "Skynet" network have been put to use in mainland China, with eight Chinese cities ranked among the world's top ten most monitored cities, while the number of surveillance cameras is expected to reach 626 million by 2020 when the Social Credit System becomes fully effective.

1. Regulatory method on is not "primarily" based on blacklisting and whitelisting, because the two are the only options. There isn't a numerical score of the system and multiple new reports confirmed this. There're conflicted reporting, and I argue the report made by WIRED and Foreign Policy in 2019 is much more reliable as it shows evidences that early reports from major media outlets were wrong. As per wikipedia's editoral recommendation Wikipedia:Conflicting sources, both side of source should be kept but the historical development needs to be mentioned. So I will add emphasis in the summary that social credit system is not numerical score system.

2. All sources related to the estimation of 200 million monitoring CCTV and "Skynet", although scary, has nothing to do with the regulatory method of social credit system. According to sources, Big data is used for data collection and it's a form of surveillance for sure. But it has nothing to with cameras the mass surveillance effort made by the Chinese government. The source 1 from Washington Post claims the social credit system is mass surveillance, and this is true. The Source 2 from Fortune also states that SCS is mass surveillance. The source 3 from TIMES states that SCS uses camera and facial recognition system (although it is outdated as it depicted Sesame credit as part of SCS). But there's no point in the article says that social credit system is connected to Skynet surveillance. SCS = big data and mass surveillance; Skynet = big data and mass surveillance; But SCS =/= Skynet. Conclusion that 200 million cameras has something to do with SCS is Template:Original research. Not to mention, none of the article that illustrates Skynet system made any connection to SCS system. They're simply two different system.

I will make change to the article accordingly. --Loned (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

1) There is a numerical score. I don't know if you have read the article carefully. Go to the section of "Examples of Policies" and read the policies of Suzhou and Jinan. If you can understand Chinese, you should see that sources directly describe how the points or scores work. More examples are described in: [2]. If you need help understand Chinese, I will list the translated texts below. These are the most authoritative, first-hand sources from various local governments in China.

2) Again, do you really understand how the system works? Are you an expert in this field? The Social Credit System is largely based on surveillance, and Skynet is the official name of the video surveillance system that uses facial recognition tech and big data (what's more, "Skynet" has also been used by Chinese government in some other surveillance areas other than video [3]). A concrete example is when traffic violation is caught by Skynet, the person may get a bad credit record or lose some credit points (again, see "Examples of Policies" in the article). So Social Credit System is inseparable from Skynet. This is not Template:Original research. This is simple fact. More English sources can be added [4]. All sources well supported the statement. Again, do you understand Chinese? China's Skynet is being applied in the Credit System. There are other articles in Chinese describing the connections: [5][6][7][8][9][10]. There is even a website called "Skynet Credit" [11], though I'm not entirely sure if this "Skynet" means the aforementioned "Skynet Project".SCreditC (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your responses, if you check the archive of the talkpage, you would say that I've long been focus on searching the evidence and reality of SCS. I have exterminated your sources, and I agree that Skynet is collecting data to track the people that have been put on the blacklist. We could say that Skynet is assisting SCS. But the SCS doesn't require Skynet to operate. For example, your first source is from Chinese Sohu news, which quotes Creemers [12] (2018) and Mistreans's research paper. Creemers is an important scholar on the investigation of the system. I've read Creemers paper (it is in the revision I posted earlier, and I've added the summary of the paper: "Rogier Creemers of Leiden University states that despite Chinese government has intentions of utilizing big data and artificial intelligence, the regulatory method of SCS remains relatively crude. His research concluded that "[P]erhaps more accurate to conceive of the SCS as an ecosystem of initiatives broadly sharing a similar underlying logic, than a fully unified and integrated machine for social control.") So in the research paper, it didn't mention the skynet system at all. In fact, many of the blacklisting and whitelisting is done manually. Skynet could contributes data to SCS, in order to make tracking of "untrustworthy" person easier, but they're separate system and the later is not required. Moreover, your source 4 [13] Taiwanese research center also list "Internet Censorship", "Social Credit System", "Skynet System" and "DNA Collection system" as four different social control/mass surveillance scheme. So I don't agree that Skynet is inseparable part of SCS, at least there's no 'direct evidence' that SCS is part of Skynet or Skynet is part of SCS. They're two separate system that could work together, or not. In the current summary, it's framed like Skynet is part of SCS, which I disagree.

The nation's source [14] (talking about the mechanism of sesame score as if it is SCS), while it does technically support the current summary. Anyone has done research on the topic in the past several months knows that sesame credit is not part of SCS and the mechanism is not used. In the "misconception" segment of my revision, you could read related article from WIRED and FP.

As Rogier Creemers and other later reports from WIRED, FP mentioned: the policies of Suzhou and Jinan doesn't represent the nation wide system, and many pilot program is deemed insufficient to operate especially for the "score" system. I see you have quiet knowledge on the system, so you must know that Sesame system is not granted license for SCS and it's no longer part of the system. Your source 5 [15] is titled ""当AI技术和社会信用体系结合，生活会变成什么样？ "What happens if we combine AI technology and social credit system". This article is from Sohu blog (搜狐号) [16], a personal commentary. This is not reliable WP:SOURCE. The next source is Tencent News [17], which only explains the implementation of Skynet system, so no social credit system is mentioned in the article. The next source [18] is quoting Wall Street Journal, from this article: [19]. As you can see, WSJ article talks about how social credit system utilize facial recognition technology to capture jaywalkers' face. The Chinese article mentions both SCS and Skynet, but it doesn't confirm that they're the same system. WSJ's article mentions China wants to set up SCS in 2020, but it doesn't mention Skynet at all.

Your source 9 from Taiwan Yahoo [20], also clearly states that: "在「天網」之外，中國大陸也利用大數據推動「社會信用體系」" (OTHER THAN Skynet system, Chinese mainland ALSO push big data technology "social credit system"). So, source 9 confirms that they're two different mass surveillance scheme. The last source "Skynet Credit" looks like a government PSA site that pushes out trustworthiness related news and announcement. It looks like a propaganda website instead of SCS or Skynet system's website.

In conclusion, I believe SCS and Skynet are both part of China's mass surveillance effort, and two systems can help each other by sharing data. But they're not the same system. Skynet is also not the only mass surveillance system in China (there're also great firewall, internet censorship, DNA collection and so on), which means Skynet =/= Chinese mass surveillance. If you want to talk both SCS and Skynet together, wiki page Mass surveillance in China might be a better place. --Loned (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

There's one of the source that clarify about the score thing: "In response to the misreporting, several researchers have attempted to correct the narrative with well-documented examples of where foreign press coverage gets things wrong. Common mistakes include the assumption that all surveillance technology in China feeds into a centralized database, that every recordable action is assigned a point value and deducted from a comprehensive score, and that everyone in China receives such a score." --[21] Please read this article as it comprehensively covers the misconception and misreporting, Mr.SCreditC (talk · contribs). --Loned (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

There are two topics we are discussing. After reading your inputs, I believe consensus is not hard to achieve. I'll clarify some misunderstandings.

1) Again, there are social credit scores in many cities, although I agree that a nationwide, centralized score system may not exist as of now (by the way, my first source above [22] was listed to support the existence of social credit scores, not "Skynet"). Some of the examples of policies described in this Wiki article have shown clearly how the score system works in several cities. Put simply, in these cities, a high social score may bring benefits - all the way up to being whitelisted (in fact, "redlisted") - while a low score may bring bad things - all the way down to being blacklisted. Numerical scores are not contradicting with whitelist and blacklist. The detailed policies of credit scores vary among cities and provinces. Thus, saying that the regulatory method is simply based on white-listing and blacklisting is not accurate. In a word, the numerical system does exist and is being used in many cities, though different cities have different systems, and this is not just an initial inaccurate report from media or a "misconception", as you may have suggested (and listed in the new section below).

2) For "Skynet", which is a different topic, the two main sources I used above: source [23] talks about the application of Skynet in social credit system in page 13-14 (二、結合社會信用分數的新階級主義誕生) and source [24] explains some connection between Skynet and SCS. Other sources I've used above such as [25] were listed merely to offer some examples of Skynet applications in SCS; I did not intend to add them in this Wiki article. By the way, source [26] does mention the social credit system in paragraph four (此外，合肥将营造与“大湖名城、创新高地”建设相适应的社会治理内容，建立覆盖全社会的信用体系，社会治理信息库和综合管理服务平台建设完成，全面实现大数据平台信息共享). Please note that I never said Skynet was a part of SCS or SCS was a part of the Skynet. All I meant was that Skynet has wide applications in SCS, to a level that the latter is inseparable from the former. The example I've mentioned already was the traffic violation system, which has been carried out in many cities and is directly using the Skynet surveillance cameras. I agree we can shorten the description of "Skynet" network in the lede in order to reduce of the risk of misleading readers, and I think your proposed version below regarding Skynet is fine. SCreditC (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed new summary (section)

Initial reports suggest the system utilizes numerical score as the reward and punishment mechanism, while recently conducted reports suggest the regulatory method is based on blacklisting and whitelisting. The credit system is closely related to China's mass surveillance effort such as Skynet, which incorporates facial recognition system and big data analysis technology.

The proposed new summary (section) will add details like Skynet, but it will not frame it as part of SCS. -Loned (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

As explained in previous section, I'm fine with your version of "Skynet" description. So this part is good. But for the numerical system, as I stated above, many cities are actually using it. So a better description is needed. SCreditC (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I've made adjustment to the summary: Initial reports suggest the system utilizes numerical score as the reward and punishment mechanism, recently conducted reports suggest the extension of usage is limited to several regional pilot programs, and regulatory method is primarily based on blacklisting and whitelisting. The credit system is closely related to China's mass surveillance effort such as Skynet, which incorporates facial recognition system and big data analysis technology. -Loned (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

This version seems fine to me. You may add this version to the article. (There's some minor grammar issue, though. I will help to improve the grammar later, if needed.) SCreditC (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: mention of Suzhou's new Civilization Code. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Protection Status

I feel this article should be protected as there is a chance it could be edited to include misinformation or remove negative facts. 2601:19B:B00:BA10:C988:54E8:33F6:F6C2 (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds okay

Sounds better than the "score" we get in the West, dictated by international bankers, that counts nothing but how much money you have. People in the West love to tout "freedom"... haha, you are not free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercster (talk • contribs) 01:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

New study in 2021

Mercator Institute for China Studies, the largest think tank in Europe that focus on China published "China’s Social Credit System in 2021: From fragmentation towards integration" on Mar 03, 2021. This report confirms several observations that already discussed in the talk section before.

• The Social Credit System itself is not tasked with conducting political surveillance of individual behavior. It's a trust-rating system similar to bank credit score that focus on financial fraud surveillance, and political surveillance is done by other system. This is widely contradicted to the notion that mainstream media held in the past five years.

• The Social Credit System is not a unified system that assigns a numerical score to every citizen of China. It has decentralized storage, decentralized data analysis, and decentralized rules. It could be standardized, but never unified, because it was not indented to be that way. This also widely contradicted to many mainstream media report, where SCS is a literal copy of the Black Mirror TV show.

• The system is not implemented in 2020. It was implemented everyday from 2014 to the future, and there is no "complete SCS system".

• The system is tasked to improve market trust, and its enforcement targets include "government". It was never meant to be an individual surveillance system. Over 73% of the enforcement action since 2014 is targeted toward business, and 13% is targeted toward government institutions. So What's the real problem?

• The system can be abused. For example, officials can threats to put other people on the SCS blacklist, even though the rule doesn't allow. And SCS is a tool to enact Chinese laws. So if a law violates human rights, then SCS helps violating human rights. But if a law is set to prevent financial fraud, then SCS can help to reduce the financial risk. In the end, the human factor is what matters, and corruption is where the problem resides.

Given Wikipedia operates on verification-based edit policy, it would be extremely difficult to rewrite the article to make it more closely resemble the truth, because most of the reference material used in the article is incorrect. Five or six in-depth, academic, detailed research articles on SCS, cannot compete with five thousands convincing but incorrect articles on the Internet. Since Wikipedia can only reflects its source, the article can only be a real record of the knowledge and reality one mainstream media catches up with the truth. --Loned (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The Diplomat Article in 2021

The Diplomat published "China’s Social Credit System: Speculation vs. Reality" on 30 March 2021"China's Social Credit System: Speculation vs. Reality". The Diplomat. Archived from the original on 4 May 2021.</ref>. This article reconfirmed many observation mentioned in the pervious sections in the talk page. "It may come as a surprise to many in the West who read of China’s plans to apply social credit to all spheres of society that China’s social credit system is in fact said to be an extension of bond issuance risk assessment credit ratings introduced in China in the 1980s" - the article mentions the misconception of the system. Such misinformation or misconception is published regularly by major news website such as Business Insider as late as May 2021. Again, these news site repeats the confusion that SCS assigns a magic score to people that changes based on how many video games people play, or simply confuses the social credit system with Zhima Credit, a royalty program of Jack Ma's Alibaba. SCS system is a credit rating system (for approving loans) like those ones in the West. However, the credit rating can apply to both business, government, and individuals. For now, business is the primary user of the system. The system has an extended function, but these functions are not "gamifying your life" but additional ways to apply for loans or being punished for not paying loans like e.g. flight ban. From top-to-down, this is a financial rating system, not a surveillance machine, and not a game competition to gain points.

This article provides important update on the system condition as of end of 2020.

"...by the end of 2020, the “corporate” aspects of the social credit system appear to be more advanced than other strata of use, including government self-discipline and the discipline of individuals... during its first phase, the “Corporate Social Credit System” has been the primary focus of government attention."

" Social credit was utilized at both the national and provincial level as a key method to “nudge” business behaviors, firstly to encourage containment and to punish COVID-19-related crimes." "In April 2020, relief measures (in this case regarding the waiving of migrant workers’ usual deposit) were announced for eligible construction companies with good social credit records resulting from paying workers on time."

"General Administration of Customs offered significantly lower customs inspection rates for general enterprises than discredited enterprises in 2019 (2.44 percent vs. 84.76 percent, respectively)" -Loned (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Not only China, also Australian

Please add Australian Government Creates Social Credit System here here, it is not only China, also the "Democratics States", i call it not democratic. --178.8.249.234 (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

redundant section in enforcement and implications

Amigao, Regarding your revert on the "For Citizen" section. You mentioned the two part should be "woven together". However, if you read the article closely, you will find out:

For citizen section: "...A person with a bad social credit score may be denied employment in places as banks, State-owned enterprises, or as a business executive. The Chinese Government encourages people to consult the blacklist before making hiring decision."

"For individual" section: "...A person with a bad social credit score may be denied employment in places as banks, State-owned enterprises, or as a business executive. The Chinese Government encourages people to consult the blacklist before making hiring decisions"

The "For citizen" section are completely copied from the "For individuals" section with additional Level 4 headings, which I argue decreases the readability. Regarding your opinion: "one or the other should be outright removed". We should keep the "For individuals" section, because 1. The readability is better as it includes proper sentences and summary for the enforcement data and implications to individuals. 2. The Social Credit System doesn't use "citizen" in Chinese to describe its enforced entities. It uses "失信人" (Dishonesty individuals), not "公民" (citizen). Thus for consistency purpose, the section should be named as "For individuals". 3. Individuals enforcement takes up 10.3% of all enforcement action, ranking third in all four enforcement categories. 4. "For individuals" section doesn't contain any dubious sources, unlike the "For citizens" section.-Loned (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Information is out of date (2021) & some definitions are unclear

The whole article needs an overhaul in terms of developments after 2019. A lot of sections mention “future plans for 2020”.

Also there are a lot of empty sentences only mentioning a Chinese term without clarifying what it means or providing a hyperlink to an explanation, like “ The Social Credit System is an example of China's "top-level design" (顶层设计) approach.” In this case the link only leads to the Wiktionary entry for each character individually. Üütsche (talk) 07:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Üütsche, please feel free to make any such improvements. - Amigao (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Translation of 失信 as "untrustworthy" vs "dishonest"

This article mostly uses "untrustworthy" as a translation for 失信, but I think that translating it as "dishonest" would be more accurate not only to the original since English Language legal publications tend to use "dishonest", especially in the case of the "list of dishonest persons subject to enforcement", the official name of the blacklist mentioned in the article. -TypeKnight03 (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Displaying social credit score

I think the following statement is actually incorrect "Certain websites allow users to display their social credit score as a prestige symbol. For example, China's biggest matchmaking service, Baihe, allows its users to publish their own score." From it's own cited article, Baihe uses Sesame Credit as their score. This score has been shown after that article's publication to be completely separate from the government's social credit system. It's Alibaba's score for users and is now really just a rewards program. There is even a wikipedia article on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhima_Credit

I think it's a confusing topic because of the overlap in terminology about the social credit score.

Am I interpreting this correctly? 50.101.120.163 (talk) 05:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

punishment system or not?

The article contradicts itself.

One section is keen to clarify that the idea that the system is used to punish people is all a big misunderstanding:

"The prominent example includes widespread misassumption that Chinese citizens are rewarded and punished based on a numerical score assigned by the system."

Later on, there is a section entitled "Rewards and Punishments" that explains in some detail how it does exactly that. 49.3.35.6 (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

"Not Orwellian"

“Social Credit System being an Orwellian surveillance system held by Western observers exaggerates the reality and purpose of the system in real life.”

“primarily serves the function of a financial risk assessment tool.”

-> "rewarding individuals for aiding authorities in enforcing restrictions of religious practices”

-> "public humiliation is used as a mechanism to deter poor social credit scores”

-> "there are other behaviors that some cities have officially listed as negative factors of credit ratings includes playing loud music or eating in rapid transits”

-> "The credit system is closely related to China's mass surveillance systems such as Skynet”

Okay Grandma, let’s get you back to bed. 71.84.175.188 (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Is this real?

I'm Chinese and never heard of this sh** — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:1396:9520:952A:E229:DEAD:5C11 (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Article needs total rewrite

The entire article starts with the basis that the original proposal for an AI-driven personal social credit score that saw limited pilot programs within cities has continued its path towards implementation when in reality the entire thing has been significantly scaled down (if it'll ever even see an actual implementation) since the initial pilot programs.

I suggest reading this article by a German think-tank as well as the numerous sources cited in the "misconceptions" section.

If no one minds I will try to rewrite the entire thing one section at a time, but I'm new to Wikipedia editing. Pasta Enjoyer (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Anecdotal examples

I noticed in the Criticism section, there are anecdotal examples of the policies enforcement like:

People have already faced various punishments for violating social protocols. As of June 2019, the system has already been used to block the purchase of over 26 million domestic flight tickets from people who were deemed "dishonest". While still in the preliminary stages, the system has been used to ban people and their children from certain private schools, prevent low scorers from renting hotels, using credit cards, and blacklist individuals from being able to procure employment.

However they do not seem directly related to the topic of criticism. It might be worth moving them to the For individuals section, but I am even wondering if there might be a more appropriate section for anecdotal examples the policy. Maybe we even start a new table titled Examples of enforcement. Zaurus (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Social credit systems are not just for China

I'm concerned that this article describes a single example of a social credit system as though that example is the idea itself. It's like going to a page on "operating systems" and finding that it describes an operating system as another name for Microsoft Windows. While China may have the only current government implementation (sort of) of a social credit system, social credit systems are an idea that could be implemented by many other authorities in a myriad of ways. Social credit systems could be implemented not just by other governments (and at any level of government), but by institutional communities such as schools, hospitals, or workplaces, as well as by online social platforms. I'm not a frequent enough editor on Wikipedia to know how one handles it when an article requires this kind of revision. Any input from more experienced editors here? I'm also not an expert on social credit systems to author a major revision--I actually came here to learn more about the history of the idea. I could not do much more than reorganize the page to make China's system an example. I am willing to do that, if that's the right thing to do in this case. Or perhaps China's social credit system should get its own page as a child concept (or whatever you call that kind of relationship in Wikipedia's ontology). 173.66.95.108 (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC) Edited to add a couple missing words after cut and pasting incorrectly.

Severe bias

This article is seriously biased, it needs to be corrected as soon as possible. Almost no mention of the individual Social Credit systems, neither their role with the surveillance of the Uyghurs. The political role of the Social Credit score systems is also completely absent from the article. Overall, there is a lot of crucial topics that are missing, or not sufficiently developped. The tone of the article also isn't neutral. The needs to be completely restructured, in order for it to be as neutral and complete as possible. UntilTill (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

To the contrary, the article places too much weight on the misconceptions or fears which have not come to fruition. To emphasize these even more would raise the issue of WP:FALSEBALANCE. China's credit systems have shown to be fairly ordinary. JArthur1984 (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

It is not a matter of False Balance here, the political role of the credit systems is widely discussed. It is neither an "extraordinary claim" nor a "minority view", but an important aspect of the topic. We are not speaking about some shadowy conspiracy theory here, but about documented facts and events.

"China's credit systems have shown to be fairly ordinary" And I don't quite understand what you mean by that ? Chinese credit systems are unique and they are impacting chinese citizens both in real life and online. I think you are misinterpreting the social credit systems as some basic tools the governement uses in order to make sure its citizens are respecting the law. Mass surveillance isn't "fairly ordinary". Thus, it is crucial for this article to be more documented and adopt a more neutral point of view and tone. UntilTill (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Social credit system isn't one of the systems used against Uyghurs; you might want to check the Uyghur genocide article to see what kind of tools the government uses in their crackdown. I would refer you to this article, which, as I noticed above, was written by an institute that has been sanctioned by the Chinese government because it says it "severely harm[s] China's sovereignty and interests and maliciously spread[s] lies and disinformation". The Account 2 (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The use of Big Data by the governement and the numerous mass surveillance systems are linked both to the Uyghur's repression and to social credit systems. My message wasn't clear, sorry, I meant to do a parallel between the two topics. Could you answer my previous message though, and adress the totality of my claims ? UntilTill (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Here is an article by Le Monde, it'll make my message more intelligible. https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2019/11/25/china-cables-au-xinjiang-le-big-data-au-service-d-une-surveillance-totale-des-ouigours_6020404_3210.htmlUntilTill (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I don't think anyone seriously disputes that China has a very large mass surveillance system, which is covered in Wikipedia in various articles such as this one. The problem, however, is questioning whether they're connected to the "social credit system" (which does in fact exist in some form). From my understanding, many news and analysts about China broadly accept that before 2020-21, there were serious mistranslations and misunderstanding of this system, which led to a very distorted picture of the system. Many of the articles I see after 2020 are generally aimed against previous reporting of the SCS, not the system itself. It is also very important to note that major news about China almost never talk about the SCS anymore, and the system is not mentioned in recent analysis for the country's human rights situation, which is very important to note since it surely would've gotten at least some coverage if it exerted such a large-scale influence on the Chinese population. This does not mean China is not using mass surveillance on its population; the broader mass surveillance apparatus exist independently of the SCS. It just means that this particular program has been sensationalized a lot. The Account 2 (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

My message about the Uyghurs wasn't really clear nor relevant, apologies for that. I think we should include in the article that there are, in fact, several misconceptions about the SCS but I believe its political role is not developped enough. The blacklist system, among others, have been against lawyers, intellectuals, and generally political opponents. You can check Xu Xiaodong case, his SCS played a big role in how the state repressed him for his "anti-patriotic" activities. In fact, the SCS system itself isn't synonym of repression, but the blacklist is. UntilTill (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes I agree, I think that's a way it should be written in the article. My problem was that in popular imagination, SCS has been made to look something right out of Black Mirror, including tropes such as "playing too many games impacting whether you can get a house"; I think since that aspect still remains prevalent in the popular imagination, we should make it clear to our readers that it's not really true. However, what you say make sense and I will try to find sources about it. The Account 2 (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Misconceptions

The "misconceptions" parts are obviously written by a CCP shill. Please remove or adjust. 77.248.235.127 (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Didn't know the Jamestown Foundation or an institute sanctioned by China were "CCP shills". Even people very critical of the Chinese government say that the system is very different than some people think (look at his Twitter history if you like, he isn't pro-CCP). There's a reason why there's almost no coverage of this system these days and why no credible experts on China mention it. The Account 2 (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I currently live and go to university in China, and I can confirm that the memes of "+500 Social Credit Points" etc. are bogus. However, there is a social credit system, but it's pretty boring compared to how it is in a lot of English-speaking Internet users' minds. For example, business licences and 发票 will have a 统一社会信用代码 on them as an identification number of the establishment or individual. There's no "do this and you get points" or anything like that that the government does. (Zhima Credit by Alibaba doesn't count.) Félix An (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I have to admit that having misconceptions in the lead with no opposing views is pretty sus. Clearly there are people who have alternative views on this, so "translation errors, sensationalism, conflicting information and lack of comprehensive analysis" in the lead needs to be balanced with something. Vyvagaba (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The article already mentions the claims of the aforementioned news article. Even the Insider article you linked to states,

"But at the moment the system is piecemeal and voluntary. Since China doesn't have a central social credit system, many local government agencies have been experimenting with what the system could look like.

Right now, China does not use a central algorithm to measure credit worthiness, according to the MIT Tech Review. It's a fairly low-tech method that has been conducted at times by "information gathers" who walk around villages and write down its residents' good deeds, says the MIT Tech Review."

If you click the first link that they provided to see the MIT Tech Review, it says,

"So is there a centralized social credit score computed for every Chinese citizen?

No. Contrary to popular belief, there’s no central social credit score for individuals. And frankly, the Chinese central government has never talked about wanting one."

which I, as a student in China with Chinese family members, can confirm is true. Plus, MIT is a renowned university, so they are a WP:RS. Félix An (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

"I" isn't a valid source on Wikipedia. Overall, the tone of the article is not neutral at all.UntilTill (talk) 11:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:BUSINESSINSIDER, that isn't a reliable enough source for this. The Account 2 (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I know I am not a reliable source, LOL. But MIT is definitely one. Félix An (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Confusion in the article

The article appears to be self-contradictory in several places. One example is the initial paragraph under "Enforcement and implications" where it is suggested that the credit system would be implemented by 2020, then later down a single sentence mentions a draft was posted for one month in 2022 citing a source that states in its own right that no credit system was enacted right next to the place that is used for the citation (stating in the given text that a draft was suggested by the end of 2022). 2A02:1210:1CA7:D700:55D9:70A2:9175:2264 (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

EU considers banning as high-risk dangerous AI social credit systems like that in China

The article completely ignores the analyses done by European legislative bodies on this issue, including its impact on human rights, civil liberties, and potential for ethno-social discrimination. See [CNBC news article pointing to further references] 24.6.18.19 (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you need to reread this article and you need to examine your source critically.

Firstly, the article has a section about all of that. It's the criticism section. Please read that section and add info you think is missing.

Secondly, the article linked really doesnt discuss specifics of the social credit system, just that academics are concerned and then there's some links to other cnbc articles that also mostly avoid specifics. Feel free to add the article in the criticism section, CNBC is generally considered a reliable source, but I don't think it's saying what you think it is. Carlp941 (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

UK Credit System

The article states as fact - "The difference between the two systems is that the credit rating system in the UK is just for loaning of monies from organisation to individuals based on their previous financial activities...". This is incorrect, since the credit rating system in the UK takes into a account a range of non-financial factors, not least of which is presence on the electoral register. Geekpie (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

This proposition was not sourced and had been templated close to a year, so I have simply deleted it. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Social Credit System clarification

I think it's long overdue to clarify and correct a few outdated or even blatantly misleading claims made in the Wikipedia article. Let's briefly go over some of the parts that should be corrected.

"There has been a history of misreporting and speculative misconceptions in English-language mass media due to translation errors, sensationalism, conflicting information and lack of comprehensive analysis."

This claim is supported by 3 sources that are old and outdated, and a 4th one that is more recent but does not at all support the claim being made (it is a long-form video of 4 different individuals talking about the nuances of the system). In fact, that source provides credence to the "draconian" implementations of the system that would supposedly be a myth.

"One of the popular misconceptions is that the Social Credit System involves China giving every citizen a “score" based on what they did right and wrong, and then punishing those who have low scores."

This claim is blatantly wrong as well. It's a shame that I cannot immediately find good English sources that go over this, but the 2019 pilots like the one in Rongcheng verifiably show this to be false. Local governments have some room in how exactly the system is applied, but in many of the pilot rollouts individual citizens were in fact given personal scores. This can be verified through the framework document for the Rongcheng pilot, though it is in Chinese: https://archive.org/details/china-social-credit-2019/page/n19/mode/2up Additionally, there are unofficial translation available of this document. Although not useful as a source for the article, it can at least inform the discussion here: https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughCommieSpam/comments/16ii09y/a_comprehensive_overview_of_chinas_social_credit/

"Jeremy Daum, a Senior Fellow of the Yale Law School Paul Tsai China Center, who has studied social credit system for a number of years, said such misunderstandings are frequently propagated by western media, and explains that the system's "intended effect is actually primarily for "deregulation and reducing corporate malfeasance"."

This final sentence of the paragraph is especially problematic as it is backed by a questionable source, of yet again a set of individuals speaking on the matter and making a whole range of false and misleading claims without providing much of any support. This Jeremy Daum person in particular seems to be willfully misrepresenting what the social credit system is. In a different interview he says:

"There are a few local pilots that do give people scores, that do seem to be a sort of “citizenship score.” The idea is this will in some way tell you how good a person this is. It considers a lot of different things like doing charity work and volunteer work. I view those primarily from my main research focus where I’m a criminal procedure researcher and I look to see how state power is used to enforce these lists. What I found is that in all of these point systems, there are no consequences of a “bad score.” There are some minimal rewards for “good scores” – often things like you get your lawn mowed for free or you don’t have to participate in some other mandatory obligation of sorting recycling or something to this effect. (https://chinalawandpolicy.com/2018/11/12/whats-the-t-on-chinas-social-credit-system-jeremy-daum-explains-part-1-of-2/)"

Which is absolutely wrong and hard to see as anything else than intentional misinformation. If he has seen the policy documents of the local governments covering their punishments and rewards, then he has seen that punishments have an extensive range and go from simple fines to blacklists, bans, mandatory visits from officials and so on.

For all intends and purposes, there are two main sources we should be using for this part of the article: the available official policy documents that specifically outline how the system works in the various cities and pilots where it has been rolled out so far, and media sources that report first-hand experiences of individuals with the system rather than sources that just make baseless claims of this system being misunderstood. Importantly, the strategy of the CCP to have this system be as decentralized and fragmented as it is clearly intentional, as it allows various malicious actors to say things such as: "Oh well, a few local pilots have draconian implementations but I'm not really looking at those."

Useful sources:

- https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/giving-credit-2-carrots-and-sticks/ Useful for finding translations of various related documents

- https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3096090/what-chinas-social-credit-system-and-why-it-controversial Useful source for confirming many of the "debunked" aspects of the social credit system, such as personal scores, punishments tied to scores, extensive surveillance, and so on.

- https://joinhorizons.com/china-social-credit-system-explained/ Extensive overview of all known information about the system from various sources

- https://www.businessinsider.com/china-social-credit-affects-childs-university-enrolment-2018-7?r=DE&IR=T Important example of a student being refused entry to a university because of a family member's low score

- Important example of punishments enacted on millions of citizens due to low scores: https://apnews.com/article/9d43f4b74260411797043ddd391c13d8

As a closing note, please be aware that one cannot disconnect court judgements and resulting "unpaid fines" from the social credit system, as many bad-faith actors seem to be doing. First of all, China's courts are not independent, but hopefully we're all well-aware of that. Next then, the courts also cover offenses that are offenses within the social credit system. It is inherently connected to the social credit system as it is a means to punish people for actions that lower their score - on top of their score being lowered which brings its own additional long-term punishments. It's a messy and confusing system but anyone saying: "Oh well, those flight bans are just for individuals who didn't pay their court fine" should then please explain what crimes those court fines were issued for (social credit offenses, breaking "public trust", spreading "inciteful" information, and so on). HoboDyerProjection (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

You have misread some of the statements in the article that trouble you. For example, the article observes that a frequent misconception is that all Chinese are given a "score." You then point to pilot programs that gave participants scores. But these are not inconsistent facts.

You have another comment that reflects a misunderstanding of what proper sources for the purpose of Wikipedia is. You say we should rely on the official policy documents. Certainly I encourage anyone interested in this topic to do so, and recommend the China Law Translate blog. But primary source documents are strongly disfavored on Wikipedia, as these give rise to concerns about cherry-picking or synthesizing, or original research. I agree that they are extremely valuable generally, but our content has to focus on reliable secondary sourcing for the policy.

The notion of a social credit system continues to be badly reported in foreign media. It has not improved significantly since the sources you describe. I will add some 2023 sources discussing the may problems in foreign reportage. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@HoboDyerProjection I would advise you to actually read those articles again. They already explain the confusion stems from a few pilot programs that recieve disportionate publicity but have since been discontinued since 2019, because the gov was not happy with the program.[27] And currently there's no national wide system that actually forces scores on civillians and punish if they scored poorly. You had claimed that Jeremy Daum misrepresent the system. But what makes you an expert on this? You obviously do believe that social credit score is a real thing because of misleading outdated media posts.[28] But all you have provided is a wall of your personal opinions attacking these sources that are actually quite recent too.[29] And these sources also include well known academics like Mercator Institute for China Studies (MERICS)[30] and MIT Technology Review. [31] You have not provided even a single updated source here to disprove those academics that compulsory "social credit score" exists. But simply shown your desire to remove them, despite they are derived from high quality sources and are valid information. MarKraus (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Also you should really read this article very carefully, [32] which explains the source of confusion. People tend to confuse the "Judgement Defaulters" as being the entire social credit system. But social credit system mostly focuses on businesses however when it comes to individuals, China punishes those have defaulted on their court judgement. But they don't recieve a "score" and the only individuals getting punished are not civillians who merely "scored poorly", but have refused to oblige to court-ordered judgement. Those people are then banned from high consumption and high spending activities which includes riding on airplanes and trains. But those travel bans are only for people who failed to oblige to court judgements. They are not people who simply scored poorly on social credit score, which frankly such a (compulsory "social credit score") doesn't even exist. MarKraus (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

You are correct and I'm adding some further material to try to make sure this is more clear. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@JArthur1984 I think I understand where they are coming from but I think it's maybe a misunderstanding. You could add to the article that Melissa Heikkilä reports that China even signed a UN pledge in 2021 to "stop artificial intelligence from wreaking havoc on societies, including by banning the use of AI for "social scoring" systems."[33] A year later, she writes in MIT technology review that it's easy to make that pledge because such a system never existed in the first place and frankly they never ever talked about wanting one.[34] But seems historically the myth all started from disportionate sensational reporting over a consumer loyalty program called Sesame Credit, developed by Chinese tech company Alibaba, that was confirmed to not have any ties with the SCS since 2017.[35] Yet now many people tend to just rigidly think social credit system is synonymous to social credit score and think that the people in China are now forced to be constantly aware of a point system where if their points dip below a certain level, they can't even buy water according to social media like Twitter. But that's just not correct.[36] What this page needs is some consensus from very experienced editors of several years (not me) to establish that it's a myth to claim there is a national wide numerical "social credit score", and to quit blanking that info from the intro like one editor constantly does. MarKraus (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@HoboDyerProjection Social credit score is not how many people imagine it to be. For one, the only explicit scoring systems are from a tiny fraction of pilot programs in social credit system and not the whole thing. These point scoring system are also voluntary and not many people are even participating in it, yet they receive disportionate attention in global media which started a misconception.

These systems are partly the source of some myths about the social credit system, including a widely-shared graphic that depicts a point-based digital control system used to police citizens in every sphere of society. But in reality, not many people care about these scores, since participation is voluntary and having a low score in itself does not bring any major negative consequences, according to researchers.[37]

Unless you have a source that says that China now mandates everyone to receive and be aware of their numerical National score. And that they will be punished if their points dip below a certain amount. Then you can't do original research insisting a constant explicit score being made aware to everyone, when many experts have argued precisely against such popular misconceptions.[38] [39] [40] You keep repeating the words, of "low scores". But there is no publicly made nation-wide point scoring system and it seems you confuse social credit system with social credit score as if they're synonymous. System is for building trust and transparency. For certain people who refuse to oblige to Court judgements, the public would know about them and also be reassured they can't spend lavishly until they have paid off their debts. For companies that violates worker safety rules or other standards, are also put on a public blacklist for the public to know. That's the social credit system. However most individuals won't be told of their "social credit score" because there are no publicized national mandatory scores over there. Chinese people don't even care about "points" because the gov doesn't force an explicit point system on them.[41] And nowadays, the very few pilot programs that do still give scores, are both voluntary and not many people care in opting to it anyways as the rewards are too trivial. Most don't even know about it let alone signing up to it. [42] In 2019, China even had to publicly issue new guidelines to make it very clear that no program can punish civillians for simply having low SCS issued "scores". And that policy has not changed.[43]MarKraus (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a good summary and I am largely in agreement.

Yes, I’ll add the UN no AI pledge. I may have an academic text that addresses it as well.

Are the other sources you list here already incorporated into the article?

I will continue to improve this article over the next week or so.

Is this a protected page that you cannot yet edit? It is clear to me you have some good suggestions and references. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

This is done. I sourced it to an academic text rather than the web article, however. Thank you for raising. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

> For one, the only explicit scoring systems are from a tiny fraction of pilot programs

This is the CCP propaganda being used to sway Western media. There is no national system, there is a national mandate with certain outlines for the framework. Coincidentally, local pilots turn it into exactly the draconian system people are warning of. That is not a coincidence, that is how this project is designed.

And do note, when we say "local pilots" we're talking about places like the 12 million people metropole of Shenzhen.

Additionally, I'm not at all sure how the current version of the article is able to say the social credit system pilots do not have consequences for low scores, when that is verifiably completely false. We have numerous reports of this as well as the official policy documents clearly outlining punishments or otherwise government meddling in the lives of low-score individuals.

Lastly, please have a look at the (translated) version of the Chinese page about the same system: https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%A4%BE%E4%BC%9A%E4%BF%A1%E7%94%A8%E4%BD%93%E7%B3%BB

The disconnect between Western interpretations of this system, and actual lived experiences is just incredible.

Edit: I think this article does a really good job summarizing just how wrong and/or disingenuous Western media is about the CSCS: https://credit.mot.gov.cn/xinyongzhishi/202210/t20221027_3701043.html

You'll have to use google translate to read it sadly, but trust me it's worth it. A few notable quotes:

"The social credit law in Western countries is mainly applicable to the field of financial property. However, as far as my country's social credit legal system is concerned, its applicable objects are not limited to the financial field, but include all aspects of the production and life of social subjects."

"(3) China's Legal Framework for Social Credit System Strives to Implement Robust Reward and Sanction Mechanisms

The social credit system aims to foster a culture of integrity within society. To this end, China's legal framework for the social ::credit system endeavors to institute potent measures to incentivize trustworthiness and penalize dishonesty. By enforcing ::regulations that ensure any breach of trust can have far-reaching implications, it underscores the gravity of maintaining integrity ::for all societal entities. The efficacy of these measures lies in their capacity to discourage dishonest conduct through stringent ::penalties and by promoting the comprehensive sharing of data related to breaches of trust.

Therefore, the focal point of China's social credit legal framework is building and enforcing a systematic reward and sanction ::mechanism that encourages compliance and punishes breaches, thereby facilitating smoother operations for those who uphold their ::commitments. On one hand, it seeks to foster an environment conducive to upholding trustworthiness through legislation. On the ::other hand, it aims to deter dishonest behaviors by imposing harsh penalties. This includes restrictions in various sectors such as ::securing bank loans, professional responsibilities, and property transactions.

By employing stringent measures to stem the tide of dishonest behaviors, it aims to enhance the precision of social governance. ::Concurrently, the legal framework seeks to establish a unified social credit code mechanism. This allows parties involved in ::transactions to legally access and review credit information associated with these codes, thereby gaining a comprehensive ::understanding of the creditworthiness and record of the other party. This, in turn, bolsters the trust and transparency in market ::transactions."

HoboDyerProjection (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Responding to: "I'm not at all sure how the current version of the article is able to say the social credit system pilots do not have consequences for low scores, when that is verifiably completely false. We have numerous reports of this as well as the official policy documents clearly outlining punishments or otherwise government meddling in the lives of low-score individuals."

Indeed, there have been a few cities that have experimented with penalties for scores, Rongcheng being the most infamous experiment that you yourself refer to. However, Rongcheng's experiment has since received serious criticism in China and has been significantly amended since. You can, for instance, compare the 2019 and 2021 versions of their scoring system:

- 2019: https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/rongeng-society-members-credit-scoring-and-credit-appraisal-management-measures/

- 2021: https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/18133-2/

(you can click the Chinese flag to see the Chinese original, in case you do not trust the translator)

The most significant changes include:

- Scoring is voluntary (articles 6-7). Without consent, no scores are dished out.

- No penalties for low scores (article 6 touches on this a bit vaguely, but this is now a national requirement)

- Major changes to the types of information that can be collected (the table shows points deductions now only relate to [relatively major] violations of administrative regulations, whereas the 2019 version's appendix included penalties for "electric bikes not yielding at zebra-stripes" or "using Wechat ... to publish and transmit negative information").

Similar changes have happened to other scoring systems, as they were directed by national-level policy documents. These changes more broadly have been documented in great detail in recent scholarly publications, such as https://brill.com/view/journals/clsr/6/2/article-p181_003.xml (specifically the section on "Reform and Tightening Up"). For a more popular-language introduction, I can recommend: https://merics.org/en/comment/chinas-social-credit-score-untangling-myth-reality. The institute publishing this (MERICS) has been imposed sanctions by China's government for being too critical, so it definitely does not write positively about China for money. The author of this piece also discussed elsewhere why a "Social Credit Score" might not even be that useful to China's government: https://www.9dashline.com/article/in-conversation-with-vincent-brussee.

Of course, severe and occasionally quite problematic penalties continue to exist in the social credit system, which the current version of the article already reflects in a good level of detail. They're just not based on scores. 62.166.174.191 (talk) 11:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The example of the meme

User:Belbury, thanks for making a nice version of the meme to illustrate it, however, as a Chinese speaker, the text doesn't really match. The text says "Good job!" However, the score and the emoji show something bad happening. I think it should show the score going up in green and a happy face/thumbs up emoji to better match the Chinese text. Or was sarcasm intended? Félix An (talk) 01:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It's a literal redraw of a random example taken from a Google Image search, I assumed that the text (which I'd autotranslated out of curiosity) was indeed meant to be sarcastic.

Happy to amend the illustration if someone familiar with the meme's usage can confirm that I've accidentally picked an outlier, though. Belbury (talk) 08:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

There needs to be a section under "Misconceptions" explaining how Zhima Credit used to be confused with Social Credit.

User:JArthur1984, you seem to be knowledgeable about this subject. Could you please add this piece of info? Thanks!

Here is an example of this from NBC: https://youtube.com/watch?v=0cGB8dCDf3c?feature=shared&t=68

Félix An (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Good idea, thank you, I’ll take a look to see if I have an RS addressing this point. JArthur1984 (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Félix An I've made an addition to address this point and misconceptions arising from the other 2015 private pilot programs. I'm glad you raised this issue, thank you. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Social credit score is a myth

Social credit score shouldn't be confused with social credit system. It a myth yet on the introduction, there is a terrible explanation for that. It's too wordy and doesn't get to the point. It is simply not written well and should be improved without overwhelming or trying to fit everything in except ironically the most important part. The sad thing is that people are quoting the Wikipedia article as proof that social credit score is real because the article is not clear enough. And so it needs to be improved. 49.186.64.179 (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if I was too harsh. Rest of article is decent and responsible to the facts. But made one key improvement to dispel a common myth of social credit score, and emphasized the system doesn’t monitor or punish people for having a low score. And MERICS explains system only punishes legal violations, not low scores. And it does not constantly monitor individual behavior. I believe such clarifications will dispel the myth instead of accidentally perpetrating it like with previous version. 49.186.64.179 (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)