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

[Stevicus]

Should airbnb not at least investigate and if need be ban someone who is a thief? Of course there is potential for abuse, but the basic premise is really an old practice made new for e-commerce.

Are we talking about someone who is arrested, charged, and convicted of theft in a court of law?

As I said, I'm not disputing their right to do this, but there could still be consequences if they do it in a willy-nilly or whimsical manner. If they ban people "for no reason," as suggested by the OP, then it might lead other customers to feel alienated or wondering if they could be next.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Are we talking about someone who is arrested, charged, and convicted of theft in a court of law?

If the victim decides to press charges. And I really doubt people are getting banned "for no reason" in numbers large enough to be considered alarming.

 

[We Never Know]

So are you also okay with, say, Airbnb refusing service to someone based on their social media posts?

Are they a small business?

 

[Cooky]

Are they a small business?

No, it's international. Global pretty much.

 

[Cooky]

If the victim decides to press charges. And I really doubt people are getting banned "for no reason" in numbers large enough to be considered alarming.

Well, there's no way of knowing that really. That is, unless there was a way of monitoring it, which currently, there isn't.

 

[Cooky]

What if internet forums all shared information about people's IP addresses, and if your's changed, then that information would be documented, and then if you got banned, you would be banned from all forms of social media throughout the internet, globally?

...Would that not be Orwellian?

 

[Cooky]

@ADigitalArtist, or anyone else, do you think there's such thing as a "big internet" lobby group in the making? Because there are literally billions of dollars being made with the internet, and like with any big money medium, like big oil, big pharma, NRA, there always seems to be a group that tries to get involved in law and politics.

Isn't the thought of a Big Internet getting involved in and influencing politics kind of frightening though? Especially considering all the data mining on people (which Zuckerberg has already been to court over) and the fact that they actively punish people, and control speech to a degree?

...I wonder if such a thing exists yet -- Big Internet.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg began a two-day congressional inquisition Tuesday with a public apology for a privacy scandal that has roiled the social media giant he founded more than a decade ago.

Zuckerberg opened his remarks before the Senate Commerce and Judiciary committees by taking responsibility for failing to prevent Cambridge Analytica, a data-mining firm affiliated with Donald Trump's presidential campaign, from gathering personal information from 87 million users to try to influence elections.

...So with the above, you can see how firms, corporations and businesses all working interdependently, are moving toward totalitarian control through networking... Not much different from China's "Social Credit System".

 

[Cooky]

Of course, there is no way to predict the future. But working toward people's freedoms, on the most basic levels, while that may seem trivial, may have an effect on the long-term outcome of the digital world, and how it's lobbyists are to be perceived.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

@ADigitalArtist, or anyone else, do you think there's such thing as a "big internet" lobby group in the making? Because there are literally billions of dollars being made with the internet, and like with any big money medium, like big oil, big pharma, NRA, there always seems to be a group that tries to get involved in law and politics.

Isn't the thought of a Big Internet getting involved in and influencing politics kind of frightening though? Especially considering all the data mining on people (which Zuckerberg has already been to court over) and the fact that they actively punish people, and control speech to a degree?

...I wonder if such a thing exists yet -- Big Internet.

View attachment 32380

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg began a two-day congressional inquisition Tuesday with a public apology for a privacy scandal that has roiled the social media giant he founded more than a decade ago.

Zuckerberg opened his remarks before the Senate Commerce and Judiciary committees by taking responsibility for failing to prevent Cambridge Analytica, a data-mining firm affiliated with Donald Trump's presidential campaign, from gathering personal information from 87 million users to try to influence elections.

...So with the above, you can see how firms, corporations and businesses all working interdependently, are moving toward totalitarian control through networking... Not much different from China's "Social Credit System".

If you think Zuckerberg is a danger you should really look at the already existing lobbying power of internet service provider companies like Comcast and AT&T. They wield much more, both power and money.

Though I think it bears little resemblance to China's social credit system. The companies are buying and selling personal data to figure out how to advertise to people. The only behaviour they care about is the behavior that gets you to buy more of their products, and they employ snooping, psychological manipulation, squashing the voice of their competitors. Just part of the capitalist hellscape we live in.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are they a small business?

Why would that matter?

 

[Stevicus]

Isn't the thought of a Big Internet getting involved in and influencing politics kind of frightening though?

Would that be any different than the kind of influence wielded by CBS, ABC, NBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc.? As long as there's no single entity influencing, then one can say there's a semblance of "competition," which would imply a diversity of opinion.

What seems evident right now is that certain powers that be are afraid of the internet and desperately want to bring it under control. Up until the advent of the internet, the common people didn't really have much of a voice (unless one of the aforementioned outlets deigned to give them space in a letter to the editor). But now, people have the ability to work around the mainstream media and influence each other without the media's filters. No doubt this must scare the bejesus out of a lot of people.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

I've banned customers/tenants.

China's powerful singular centralized system is vastly different from
individual companies rating customers. Moreover, ecomerce wouldn't
even work well if we couldn't vet people we deal with.
Imagine ebay without a feedback rating....trust would evaporate.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

China's powerful singular centralized system is vastly different from
individual companies rating customers.

Yup. The consequences would be dire if e-commerce had no way of penalizing bad customers.

 

[We Never Know]

Why would that matter?

Because that what my original post clearly stated.

 

[Stevicus]

I've banned customers/tenants.

China's powerful singular centralized system is vastly different from
individual companies rating customers. Moreover, ecomerce wouldn't
even work well if we couldn't vet people we deal with.
Imagine ebay without a feedback rating....trust would evaporate.

Yes, although I've heard some negative criticism about Google reviews or other services like Yelp. At least for a few companies I'm personally familiar with, I would see employees of those companies posting glowing reviews of themselves.

Or someone posting negative reviews of a company which the company owner might claim as fake. There are even services to help people clean up their online reputation if someone has tried to ruin it with fake reviews and other bogus information.

Trust seems to evaporate when there's too much lying, misinformation, and BS out there - with the technology to cause it spread like wildfire.

Now, the catch phrase of the day is "fake news," indicating a serious erosion of trust in the commonly used sources of information.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because that what my original post clearly stated.

I'm not sure how the size of the business is relevant to whether it should be able to refuse certain customers, but just to play along:

Would you support a small business refusing to do business with people based on their social media profiles?

For instance, say Airbnb merely flagged potential guests for things that hosts might find objectionable, and the hosts themselves decided which flagged people to allow or refuse.

Or say a host, using the tools they already have, looks up prospective guests when they submit a request to reserve a room and might reject the guest if they find oit that they're, say, a white supremacist or anti-gay.

Any issue with that?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, although I've heard some negative criticism about Google reviews or other services like Yelp. At least for a few companies I'm personally familiar with, I would see employees of those companies posting glowing reviews of themselves.

Or someone posting negative reviews of a company which the company owner might claim as fake. There are even services to help people clean up their online reputation if someone has tried to ruin it with fake reviews and other bogus information.

Trust seems to evaporate when there's too much lying, misinformation, and BS out there - with the technology to cause it spread like wildfire.

Now, the catch phrase of the day is "fake news," indicating a serious erosion of trust in the commonly used sources of information.

Some venues lack incentives for accurate reviews.
On ebay, leaving bogus bad reviews would hurt
the reviewer's rating too.

 

[We Never Know]

I'm not sure how the size of the business is relevant to whether it should be able to refuse certain customers, but just to play along:

Would you support a small business refusing to do business with people based on their social media profiles?

For instance, say Airbnb merely flagged potential guests for things that hosts might find objectionable, and the hosts themselves decided which flagged people to allow or refuse.

Or say a host, using the tools they already have, looks up prospective guests when they submit a request to reserve a room and might reject the guest if they find oit that they're, say, a white supremacist or anti-gay.

Any issue with that?

I support small business owners/mom and pop stores/shops period. They many times struggle as it is. As I previously stated, it's their business and IMO they shouldn't be told who they should or shouldn't serve/do business with.
I may not agree with their reason but it's their small business.
What ever happened to "We have the right to refuse service to anyone"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I support small business owners/mom and pop stores/shops period. They many times struggle as it is. As I previously stated, it's their business and IMO they shouldn't be told who they should or shouldn't serve/do business with.
I may not agree with their reason but it's their small business.

So is that a "yes?"

What ever happened to "We have the right to refuse service to anyone"?

I think those signs get recognized for what they generally are: cover for racism.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Relevant: a Harvard new student from Lebanon had his Visa revoked mid flight to Boston and was deported after a lengthy interrogation which included forcing him to unlock his phone and laptop. Immigration found friends on his social media with posts that "oppose the US." Even though he had no posts doing so.

Incoming Harvard Freshman Deported After Visa Revoked | News | The Harvard Crimson

Hell, I'm a natural born citizen and I have friends with posts that oppose the US.
I kinda do too. ICE is a bunch of barely competent HS graduate badge seekers with insecurity issues and a want of power.