The Social Credit System (SCS, 社会信用体系, shèhuì xìnyòng tĭxì), is an extremely interesting, ultimately nationwide pilot project, consisting of establishing the system of social rating, which, based on ...data collected over decades and stored both analog and with the use of state-of-the-art technologies will create profiles of citizens and businesses in the People’s Republic of China. The system focuses on four main spheres – national enterprises and economy, society, the judiciary, and public administration. It is in them that a higher level of social trust and security will be ensured, law regulations better observed, corruption eliminated, and proper transparency guaranteed. In analyzing the issue of the Western world’s attitude to the mechanism of digital surveillance and control of business and social activity in China, I should seek answers to the following questions, intriguing from the cognitive and practical perspective: Which of the above interpretations seems to be closer to the truth?; can the SCS have, at least partially, a universal character in the European Union, especially in the societies with a different system of values and the countries with a different political system than the one of the PRC?
Chinese social media and big data represent an important share of the global Internet, but have received relatively less attention. This editorial examines three dominant discourses based on China's ...distinctive and complex political, economic and social realities: “Big Data” (technical focus), “Big Brother” (political focus), and “Big Profit” (economic focus). We argue that the prevailing discourse and practice of big data in China is largely technocentric, decontextualized and nonreflexive, and much less attuned to the social, political, cultural, epistemological, and ethical implications of big data that a humancentric approach would demand. Second, the authoritarian Chinese state poses incredible political challenges to big data research and practice. Third, the practice of Chinese social media and big data is imbued with a discourse of technological nationalism, driven by a handful of monopolistic “national champions.” Despite contention, the state and market players have formed a largely mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship to maximize their political and economic gains. We argue a comparative perspective to foster a global conversation on social media and big data is necessary in order to formulate collective responses to such challenges.
抽象
中国社交媒体和大数据在全球互联网中占据了重要部分, 但其受到的关注却相对较少。本篇社论考察了三大主导话语, 这三者基于中国独特而又复杂的政治现实、经济现实和社会现实。它们分别是: “大数据”(技术焦点)、“老大哥”(政治焦点)、“大利润”(经济焦点)。笔者主张, 中国大数据的普遍话语和实践在很大程度上都是以技术为中心、去语境化、不具备反思性 在很大程度上它的社会、政治、文化、认识论和道德标准与以人为本的大数据视角相违背。其次, 实行威权主义的中国对大数据研究和实践产生了极大的政治挑战。中国社交媒体和大数据实践充满了一种技术民族主义话语, 这一话语为少数实行垄断的“国家龙头企业”驱动。国家参与者和市场参与者虽然有时利益相左但它们已形成了一种互利共生的关系, 从而取得政治利益和经济利益最大化。笔者主张, 需要以一种比较的视角来促进全球在社交媒体和大数据上的交流, 从而对上述挑战形成集体响应。
Resumen
Las redes sociales chinas y los grandes datos representan una parte importante de Internet global, pero han recibido relativamente menos atención. Este editorial examina tres discursos dominantes basados en las realidades políticas, económicas y sociales distintivas y complejas de China: “Big Data” (enfoque técnico), “Big Brother” (enfoque político) y “Big Profit” (enfoque económico). Argumentamos que el discurso y la práctica predominantes del Big Data en China es en gran medida tecnocéntrico, descontextualizado y no reflexivo, y mucho menos acorde con las implicaciones sociales, políticas, culturales, epistemológicas y éticas del Big Data que un ser humano −el enfoque céntrico exigiría. En segundo lugar, el estado autoritario chino plantea desafíos políticos increíbles para la investigación y la práctica de Big Data. Tercero, la práctica de las redes sociales chinas y Big Data está imbuida de un discurso de nacionalismo tecnológico, impulsado por un puñado de “campeones nacionales” monopólicos. A pesar de la discordancia ocasional, los actores estatales y de mercado han formado una relación simbiótica mutuamente beneficiosa para maximizar sus ganancias políticas y económicas. Nosotros, que sostenemos una perspectiva comparativa para fomentar una conversación global en las redes sociales y el Big Data, es necesario para formular respuestas colectivas a tales desafíos.
Full text
Available for:
FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
The article shows the evolution of the theoretical understanding of the “monitoring revolution”, including the difference between the ideas of “post-capitalism” as the aestheticization and ...fascization of reality, heterotopia and divid (F. Jameson, J. Deleuze, F. Guattari), as well as the ideas of “cognitive capitalism” and modern concepts of “platform capitalism” (N. Srnicek, G. Lovink), “communicative capitalism” (S. Zizek, etc.). The article shows the fundamental differences between the monitoring model of the new digital society and the old Panopticon, primarily related to the formation of local and closed communities, the complexity of interaction between online and offline behavior and its assessments, the possibility of correcting the algorithm due to rapid changes in behavior patterns, as well as the ability of a person to “interact” consciously with the data collection and processing system for their own purposes. Two directions of digital monitoring are identified – “non-soft” and “soft” coer cion. In the first case, we are talking about the actual data collection and rewards for “doing the right things”, as in the version of the Chinese social credit system. The second is about creating a reality in which an individual can only act in a “set” way. It is emphasized that, contrary to forecasts, these systems do not develop along the path of “virtualization” of reality, which implies a conscious, though predetermined choice, but along the path of influencing the brain, bypassing the symbolic. Based on the analysis, the main directions of possible public control of monitoring procedures are identified. These are, first, the problems of “localization” of platforms (territorial and other “binding” of them) and the development of the concept of “citizen as user”; second, the differentiation of data classes to establish responsibility.
The Chinese social credit system (SCS) is a digital sociotechnical credit system that rewards and sanctions the economic and social behaviors of individuals and companies. This article uses classic ...social-control theories—the shaming theory and the labeling theory—to analyze the SCS, thereby contributing to a better understanding of the Chinese social-control approach to the digital transformation of society. Our research relies not only on government documents and media reports, but also on first-hand data collected from in-depth interviews conducted in China. We found that the perceived effectiveness of the shaming and labeling mechanisms is enhanced by the design of the SCS framework and the assistance of digital technology but weakened by a lack of transparency and questionable justification criteria, as well as privacy and fairness concerns.
In this paper, I theoretically examine the concept of quantified credibility in sociology. I argue that quantified credibility has components of status, reputation, and trust, which are arbitrations ...of rankings of individuals, public and private institutions to determine their trustworthiness, legitimacy, and access to resources. To illustrate the above, this paper provides an in-depth analysis of China’s Social Credit System (SOCS), as it is developing into one of the largest and comprehensive data systems in the world.
This article analyzes evolving urban governance in contemporary China, highlighting contradictory outcomes originating from the coexistence of the technologies of pervasive control, socialist ...legacies of urban entitlements, and neoliberal strategies of self-government. Based on fieldwork among low-income migrant workers in a village located on Beijing's outskirts, I investigate how the grassroots administrative practices justified the continuing privileges of local residents and discrimination against newcomers, while the evolving governance projects a better future for every individual who is willing to exert themselves. The 2014 implementation of a Social Credit System was critical for this political agenda. It offered rewards and imposed punishments corresponding to the level of reliability indicated by credit scores, thereby urging migrants to “responsibly” manage their lives. The combination of high-tech surveillance and social credit demonstrates that the notion of “market socialism”, combined with neoliberal practices, has created a new system of social control in 21st-century China.
Full text
Available for:
NUK, OILJ, SAZU, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
The Social Credit System (SCS) is on the verge of becoming a new regulatory reality. The CCP is changing its governance tools by combining social management and big data. This article provides an ...overview on the possible impact of the SCS on corporations (CSCS) and analyses its potential extraterritorial effects. The role of transnational law (TL) as a political project is discussed and TL is thus a subject of this paper. Yet, concepts of TL are also used methodologically, as an analytical framework, to make subtle extraterritorial effect and potential legal change visible. The paper places the CSCS in the centre of the analysis and considers technological development, a changing geopolitical landscape, economic interdependence and the behaviour of individuals. The CSCS is an emerging example of the strategic and flexible norm diffusion of powerful states-which underlines the importance of TL as a problem orientated and border-transcending analytical framework.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, NUK, PILJ, PRFLJ, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
This article argues that AI presents a two-pronged power challenge, introducing a different type of power relationship while simultaneously eroding the efficacy of existing procedures and ...institutions for resisting power disparities. The first prong of the challenge is analysed as consisting of three levels of power (roughly mapping onto the radical view of power proposed by Steven Lukes), namely: (i) power exercised over the individual or groups in mundane spheres of activity where certain kinds of everyday decision-making may be displaced; (ii) power impacting upon the trajectories of societal development and hence impinging upon human rights, values, and aspirations, and their track-dependencies; and (iii) power involving existential threats to humanity. The second prong of the challenge is addressed with reference to the tendency of AI both to provoke a sense of human inferiority and to erode our means of checking power. This illustrates some of the shortcomings of our existing systems which have not been revealed because they have not been tested in such a manner. Concluding, it is suggested that the focus upon responding to and regulating AI might be either overly specific or missing an important point. Rather, if the core challenges posed by AI are viewed as problems of power, this will not only unify hitherto divergent responses but also shield us from the technological dazzle that prevents us from seeing these problems clearly.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, PRFLJ, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
PDF
