Argumentative Essay: Social Credit Score Is Wrong and Counterproductive

Introduction: The Argumentative Essay is to build a writer's own argument or opinion and to use evidence and logic to convince readers. This Argumentative Essay states that Chinese social credit score is a wrong and counterproductive idea.

It is reported that Chinese government is going to build a social credit system by 2020. Each citizen will be given a credit score by their social, commercial, moral even legal behaviors. If someone fails to pay his or her loan or do something unethical, he or she will lose his or her social credit scores. Conversely, the one who obeys all the social rules can win high social credit scores. A low scorer might lose his freedom to borrow a loan, travel even attend public activities. In this case, the Chinese government can charge almost all of the personal activities of its citizens to greater the social security. A new social control is being created by the Chinese government in China.

The social credit score is a wrong and counterproductive idea in some respects.

First of all, the government tends to make a totalitarian society by the new system. Citizens’ individual privacy is exposed into surveillance of the government. Secondly, Citizens will lose their freedom under the control by the government. Furthermore, the social relationship might be spoiled by social credit scores. It is possible that people will only evaluate each other by social credit scores. Wrongdoers might rarely be accepted by the society. Thus, social credit score is supposed to be prohibited.

Firstly, using the social credit score is an invasion of individual privacy. Since the government plans to collect all of the information from every citizen, all the citizens’ lives are uncovered. The personal database, which has all the statistics from social life, such as online history, credit card records or bills, commercial activities, such as deals or money transferring record, morality behavior, such as supporting parents, growing children or helping strangers, and legal behavior or crime records, will be used as the source of social credit score. It is to say, almost all personal behaviors are recorded and withdraw as a credit score.

Definitely, privacy matters, because it is the fundament of citizen rights. “Right to privacy refers to having control over this personal information. It is the ability to limit who has this information, how this information is kept and what can be done with it” (“privacy right”). Citizens are able to have a personal space and conceal their secrets. Anyone, including the authority or the government, cannot access the individual privacy without permission. However, the social credit score is to put all the privacy on the stage. It shows one’s life, experiences even secrets to all. Therefore, using social credit score is a mandatory control beyond the right of individual privacy.

Along with privacy, the freedom of citizens will also be invaded. As the government rules all the codes of conduct, citizens have to live within governmental rules and lose their own rights to oppose the authority. Clinton Nguyen, a British journalist, described it just like the episode in British TV series “Black Mirror”. A protagonist, who behaves well, can get five stars. However, if they act negatively, they'll face one-star reviews. If someone has a low score, they might become the second-class even lower class citizens — “they're socially shunned, shuttered out of workplaces, forced to pay a premium on leases, and penalized in myriad other ways.” (“China might use data”). What the government does to their citizens just like what teachers do to their children in kindergarten. All the citizens have to follow the governmental rules and win the high social credit scores. Once someone fails to do it, he or she will take the consequence of losing his original life.

Some people, especially the rulers, may oppose my idea that citizens can acquire more freedom by obeying rules. They can access all the infrastructural freely once they have a good behavior and get high social credit scores. Albeit citizens can acquire the freedom by obeying rules, they lose the basic right-- thinking and speaking differently from the government. Every citizen has his or her own speculation which perhaps be against the government or authority. Therefore, they need the freedom to be who they are and speak out what they think. They should be allowed to show their genuine thoughts on the Internet or social media rather than following the government without thinking. In other words, this freedom is a basis of democracy. Since the Communist Government in China asserts it based on democratism, it is supposed to allow the existence of opposed ideas. A trustworthy government should accept its own “score” given by its citizens rather than control the behaviors of citizens by the social credit score. Thus, it is clear that government’s using the social credit system is regressive idea which will take the basic freedom from citizens and ruin the relationship between the government and its citizens.

In tandem with this, social credit score may spoil the social relationships in some ways. Citizens are judged by “algorithms”. No matter who you are, the “algorithmic score” is your first impression. (“The risks”). People possibly choose their partners or friends only by their social credit scores. Consequently, people might would not like to know deeply even talk more with each other. Because they have already evaluated each other by the social credit scores.

Someone perhaps says social credit social can make a safer relationship because you already know the person by his or her social credit score. It is true that social credit score can keep people away from the rogues or criminals because it will demonstrate some of the qualities of a person. However, I insist that albeit social credit score can be used to judge a person, it might make the society more apathetic than before. Since people are scored by “algorithms system”, what we can see is only an algorithmic number. (“The risks”). It is not enough to evaluate a person, because we can know a person by many ways, his or her speaking, gesture, eye contact and temperament. All these things are sentient. Only by face-in-face contact, people can know each other completely. Therefore, the social credit score, the algorithmic statistic, only tells one side, but not the all of a person. The score may reflect one’s credibility and good behavior, but it cannot represent who he or she is or what the personalities are. People might become apathetic, nerdy and discriminative by relying on the algorithm judgment. Therefore, using social credit score might bring a counterproductive effect.

Additionally, social credit score might be an injustice for the wrongdoers that also has the possibility to spoil the social relationships. Wrongdoers, such as a liar, an indecent, or a criminal, he or she will lose all the rights and freedoms in their life once he or she gets a low social credit score. If a social credit score cannot be refreshed, all the records will be a transcription for a person. The social credit scores strongly affected their life and avoid the wrongdoers rejoining the society. However, the society needs tolerance and leniency. It is impossible for a person to avoid faults. Wrongdoers should obtain a chance to be forgiven by all.

In the movie “The Shawshank Redemption”, Brooks Hatlen, a 55 years prisoner, was isolated from the outside world and commits suicide finally. Obviously, the world has a discrimination to the wrongdoers. People scorn, laugh at even fear them only because they ever did something wrong. Foreseeably, the social credit score might increase the rate of deepening the social discrimination for the wrongdoers. It is counterproductive to social relationships. Nearly all the wrongdoers will be rejected by the society because they are low scorers. The social separation is being created. Some people will be abandoned by the world due to the social credit score, the digital statistics! It is irrational and unjustified.

Someone may disagree with me that using social credit scores is a way to reduce the delinquency. A person should keep high social credit score if he or she does not want penalties. There is no doubt that social credit score can reduce the rates of crime in some ways. However, it might also become a persistent transcript or history in one’s life. The statistics on the computer will follow a wrongdoer if they cannot be erased. Conversely, if the social credit score can be refreshed, people will be not afraid of the bad records any more. In this case, the social credit score will lose its significance of social security. Therefore, it is a dilemma of social credit score systems for both wrongdoers and society.

Clearly, using social credit score to control its citizens is a wrong, counterproductive idea for the Chinese government. It will not only intervene personal lives of citizens but also cause an unnecessary discrimination in the society. Foreseeably, the government cannot get the expected benefits by the mandatory control because the idea is controversial and unpopular in some respects. It is possible that the social credit score will bring negative and counterproductive effects more than profit. Hence, the government is supposed to think twice before carrying out social credit score.

Works Cited

Nguyen, Clinton. "China might use data to create a score for each citizen based on how trustworthy they are." Businessinsider. 26 Oct. 2016. Web 7 April 2017. <http://www.businessinsider.com/china-social-credit-score-like-black-mirror-2016-10>.

Schneier, Bruce. "The risks -- and benefits -- of letting algorithms judge us." Schneier. 11 Jan. 2016. Web. 8 April 2017. <http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/opinions/schneier-china-social-scores/>.

"Why Privacy?" Privacyright. Web. 7 April 2017. <https://www.privacyrights.org/why-privacy-0>.