Silicon valley is building a Chinese-style social credit system in America

[Cooky]

• INSURANCE COMPANIES
  The New York State Department of Financial Services announced earlier this year that life insurance companies can base premiums on what they find in your social media posts
  
  
• PatronScan helps spot fake IDs—and troublemakers. When customers arrive at a PatronScan-using bar, their ID is scanned. The company maintains a list of objectionable customers designed to protect venues from people previously removed for “fighting, sexual assault, drugs, theft, and other bad behavior,” according to its website. A “public” list is shared among all PatronScan customers. So someone who’s banned by one bar in the U.S. is potentially banned by all the bars in the U.S., the U.K., and Canada that use the PatronScan system for up to a year. (PatronScan Australia keeps a separate system.)
• UBER AND AIRBNB
  Thanks to the sharing economy, the options for travel have been extended far beyond taxis and hotels. Uber and Airbnb are leaders in providing transportation and accommodation for travelers. But there are many similar ride-sharing and peer-to-peer accommodations companies providing similar services.
  
  Airbnb—a major provider of travel accommodation and tourist activities—bragged in March that it now has more than 6 million listings in its system. That’s why a ban from Airbnb can limit travel options.
  
  Airbnb can disable your account for life for any reason it chooses, and it reserves the right to not tell you the reason. The company’s canned message includes the assertion that “This decision is irreversible and will affect any duplicated or future accounts. Please understand that we are not obligated to provide an explanation for the action taken against your account.”

Uh-oh: Silicon Valley is building a Chinese-style social credit system


....Now I'm just curious if there is any appetite to make this activity illegal in the United States...

 

[Cooky]

You can't refuse service to people based on their social media posts. That's biased, and should be illegal.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I'm not on "social media." No Facebook, no Twitter, etc. so I often have trouble even realizing what categories of information might fall into realm of what (for example) an insurance company might be looking for. Would they be looking for people reporting that they are into things like "rock climbing", "parkour" or "sky diving?" As in - things where life/health are potentially at risk? I do see a little too much opportunity in this one for insurance companies to start just denying claims or hiking rates based on tangentially-relevant life-details like "Once mentioned getting pulled over for speeding but got let off with a warning." or mentioning that they live near a factory farm that they fear is contaminating local drinking water, etc.

As for the "PatronScan" thing... I tend to frown upon people who can't seem to have a good time unless they are fighting, or got to steal something, or sexually assault others, etc., and I would rather those types not be at the places I choose to be at, honestly. And I would never be looking to get myself into such activities. So this doesn't really bother me as long as that's what it is being used for - "big ticket" offenders. Let the people who are willing to let themselves become flagrantly notorious go be "notorious" alone. Fine by me. None of the places mentioned (bars/clubs) provide people with any "necessities" - so banning people from them presents no health or well-being risks to the public.

As far as Uber and AirBNB - I don't think any private website should be forced to allow any and all members, or be forced to maintain anyone's membership or account "just because." I would say it should be left to the individual to make sure they remain in good standing with the site offering services, and if they have a "falling out" it should also be on the individual to get themselves back in the "good graces" of the company they wish to do business with. obvious exceptions would be something like verifiable racial or gender preferencing - which falls outside the realm of personal relationship/action being the cause for dismissal/blocking. And even then, woe be to the company who maintains such as part of its doing-business, for it will likely be cast aside by the general public once their unfair practices become common knowledge.

The social-credit system also presents far too many opportunities for a controlling entity to take advantage in my opinion. For one thing, where does something like that end, and do you get notified of all your "transgressions?" I also don't like the idea of one controlling entity getting to decide what a "transgression" is in the first place, especially when you get down to the minute details. And if all of this is currently being done "under the table" by corporations, then that means an individual doesn't even get notified what actions they have taken that are deemed "good" or "bad." In other words, it becomes a bit too much like the way many people report that God supposedly operates with unexplained secret rewards and punishments - which is just plain evil.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How is that like China's system? Don't like a private company's terms of use? Don't agree to them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm not on "social media."

But, yet, here you are.

 

[Cooky]

How is that like China's system? Don't like a private company's terms of use? Don't agree to them.

What if physical stores implemented the same policies? Like for example, ordering a pizza or cake from a store. Say they decided to ask your full name, and then refused you service based on your social media posts... Would you be cool with that?

 

[Cooky]

Better yet, you call back to ask about your pizza, and they just keep hanging up on you.

....This is basically what internet companies are doing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What if physical stores implemented the same policies? Like for example, ordering a pizza or cake from a store. Say they decided to ask your full name, and then refused you service based on your social media posts... Would you be cool with that?

Or say they decided to refuse you service because they disagreed with your sexual orientation...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What if physical stores implemented the same policies? Like for example, ordering a pizza or cake from a store. Say they decided to ask your full name, and then refused you service based on your social media posts... Would you be cool with that?

If someone has given a company sufficient reason to ban them, such as being belligerent towards staff and customers, I support them being able to do so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not on "social media." No Facebook, no Twitter, etc. so I often have trouble even realizing what categories of information might fall into realm of what (for example) an insurance company might be looking for. Would they be looking for people reporting that they are into things like "rock climbing", "parkour" or "sky diving?" As in - things where life/health are potentially at risk? I do see a little too much opportunity in this one for insurance companies to start just denying claims or hiking rates based on tangentially-relevant life-details like "Once mentioned getting pulled over for speeding but got let off with a warning." or mentioning that they live near a factory farm that they fear is contaminating local drinking water, etc.

It's been pretty common for years (decades?) now for auto insurance companies to check result lists for amateur motorsport events, compare it to their subscriber lists, and if they find a match to a driver and vehicle they insure, they cancel the coverage.

 

[Cooky]

Or say they decided to refuse you service because they disagreed with your sexual orientation...

Exactly. And stores can often uncover that information through your social media posts, and then use it against you.

...And some people are not bothered by this? Sheesh.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Exactly.

Funny - I could have sworn that you defended bigoted wedding cake bakers the last time the issue came up. Am I wrong?

And stores can often uncover that information through your social media posts, and then use it against you.

Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal, even if they determined your orientation through your social media posts.

...And some people are not bothered by this? Sheesh.

Out of curiosity: what have you posted on your social media that you think would get you banned from a pizza place or cake shop if they found out about it?

 

[Cooky]

If someone has given a company sufficient reason to ban them, such as being belligerent towards staff and customers, I support them being able to do so.

What about the choices you make outside of a specific company? Should businesses be able to ban you based on what you did somewhere else?

Because that's happening now too.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What about the choices you make outside of a specific company? Should businesses be able to ban you based on what you did somewhere else?

Because that's happening now too.

Life insurance companies, which aren't silicone Valley, are doing nothing more than reviewing publicly available information. You provided no examples of other companies doing that.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

But, yet, here you are.

I meant the big, unthemed, "everybody's doing it" ones. I don't know if I necessarily consider this site "social media." At least not in the way the term has been popularized in usage - but I suppose it technically is. Besides this, there is basically only one other "social media" site I actively post to, and the membership that takes part in the forums there is extremely small. No joke. I simply don't participate in these things often, nor do I see/feel the need. I don't consider what I come here for to be "socializing." I'm not here (or elsewhere on "social media") for friendly endeavors. It can be called "socializing", but again, I believe only in a very technical sense - not colloquial. Internet socializing just isn't my "thing."

 

[Cooky]

Funny - I could have sworn that you defended bigoted wedding cake bakers the last time the issue came up. Am I wrong?

Well, this is a perfect example of trying to use someone's social media posts against them, if I've ever seen it! I guess 5 or 6 years ago, I could have held that position, but I've grown, and no longer try to impose my beliefs onto others.

...But I do reject you trying to hold my history against me.

Out of curiosity: what have you posted on your social media that you think would get you banned from a pizza place or cake shop if they found out about it?

How strange to even ask that... We're talking about concepts and ideas, not personal experiences.

 

[Cooky]

Life insurance companies, which aren't silicone Valley, are doing nothing more than reviewing publicly available information. You provided no examples of other companies doing that.

I was referencing PatronScan, the second bullet point in the OP.

PatronScan is software that physical businesses use, that essentially rates customers like a credit score, based on the way customers have handled themselves in businesses previously. Now businesses can use information from the database to either let you in, or deny you service.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

...But I do reject you trying to hold my history against me.

You can "reject" it all you want, but people basically have no choice but to do so if they are to protect themselves at all. Those words I JUST TYPED are already "history," and so if we're to learn lessons about anyone's character, then we MUST consider our "history" with them, and hold them accountable for it for some (variable) amount of time. Granted, you may have changed - but how is anyone who doesn't interact with you on a consistent basis going to know this? We're all stuck with what we have done, and what we have said, and the only option we have if we don't like it is to forge ahead differently. But we can't expect people not to form opinions of us, or not to hold our feet to the fire over our past words and actions. Otherwise, you're basically asking someone to consider you as a stranger to them in every moment they interact with you... which is simply not practical or realistic.

 

[Cooky]

You can "reject" it all you want, but people basically have no choice but to do so if they are to protect themselves at all. Those words I JUST TYPED are already "history," and so if we're to learn lessons about anyone's character, then we MUST consider our "history" with them, and hold them accountable for it for some (variable) amount of time. Granted, you may have changed - but how is anyone who doesn't interact with you on a consistent basis going to know this? We're all stuck with what we have done, and what we have said, and the only option we have if we don't like it is to forge ahead differently. But we can't expect people not to form opinions of us, or not to hold our feet to the fire over our past words and actions. Otherwise, you're basically asking someone to consider you as a stranger to them in every moment they interact with you... which is simply not practical or realistic.

How bizzare that you feel entitled in gaining information about anyone's character to begin with. Do you not see how deceitful this is?

...I guess there are people so low that they would actually crack open someone's diary, just because it was laying there, and they *could*... Deceitful people who lack respect for others.

 

[Nakosis]

• INSURANCE COMPANIES
  The New York State Department of Financial Services announced earlier this year that life insurance companies can base premiums on what they find in your social media posts
  
  
• PatronScan helps spot fake IDs—and troublemakers. When customers arrive at a PatronScan-using bar, their ID is scanned. The company maintains a list of objectionable customers designed to protect venues from people previously removed for “fighting, sexual assault, drugs, theft, and other bad behavior,” according to its website. A “public” list is shared among all PatronScan customers. So someone who’s banned by one bar in the U.S. is potentially banned by all the bars in the U.S., the U.K., and Canada that use the PatronScan system for up to a year. (PatronScan Australia keeps a separate system.)
• UBER AND AIRBNB
  Thanks to the sharing economy, the options for travel have been extended far beyond taxis and hotels. Uber and Airbnb are leaders in providing transportation and accommodation for travelers. But there are many similar ride-sharing and peer-to-peer accommodations companies providing similar services.
  
  Airbnb—a major provider of travel accommodation and tourist activities—bragged in March that it now has more than 6 million listings in its system. That’s why a ban from Airbnb can limit travel options.
  
  Airbnb can disable your account for life for any reason it chooses, and it reserves the right to not tell you the reason. The company’s canned message includes the assertion that “This decision is irreversible and will affect any duplicated or future accounts. Please understand that we are not obligated to provide an explanation for the action taken against your account.”

Uh-oh: Silicon Valley is building a Chinese-style social credit system


....Now I'm just curious if there is any appetite to make this activity illegal in the United States...

If God is dead, perhaps Facebook and Twitter need to take on the mantle of holding people accountable for their actions.