every social system has the concept of people that are not the right sort, and that are just not allowed to be part of the prestigious organizations because of some issue.
The problem with China's social credit system is that it is a codification and automation of the prejudices of the system designed to maintain power.
This example here is just the old fashioned display of the prejudices of the organization.
Also, most social status systems developed organically from networks of trust, common experiences and mutually held values at a micro level like within a family, town, school, religious group, etc.
Comparing that organic system of social appraisal with anything like a mass scale surveillance social credit system, or international communications censoring organization like ICANN, is deeply unreasonable. It is clearly not the same thing, and centralized control of reputation by a government arguably poses huge totalitarian risks with zero offsetting benefits for citizens.
>> most social status systems developed organically from networks of trust, common experiences and mutually held values at a micro level like within a family, town, school, religious group
I don't see how size or organicity are useful factors to appraise actions by certain institutions as "unreasonable". If you have ever read the Scarlet Letter or the Crucible, those "smaller" centralized institutions (i.e. families, towns, schools, etc.) have played the part of censorious zealot just as much as the bigger ones.
The problem with China's social credit system is that it is a codification and automation of the prejudices of the system designed to maintain power.
This example here is just the old fashioned display of the prejudices of the organization.