Your article China's Social Credit System, is very well written @akiroq,
Nice job.
This particular excerpt outlines my thoughts/questions pretty well:
Since when does being of a different ethnicity, culture, or religion require behavior modification? What implies that these citizens are not trustworthy, or good citizens? Who decides what is acceptable and unacceptable?
If the citizens have no say over the parameters of the system, as in what is right and what is wrong, then does it not become a control based governance system, based solely on compliance? (Not trust.)
To modify behavior,¹ increase trustworthiness¹ and to promote good citizenship.⁵
Taking it a step further, we can omit the last part of that sentence and set the focal point towards these two statements:
Modify behavior/Increase trustworthiness.
How could any citizen trust a person or government who's definition of increasing trust is to do so by modifying behavior?
It might only be my opinion, but when you really look at the social credit system, it reeks of control, psychological manipulation, and fear mongering. Trust is the last thing that comes to mind when reviewing this system.
I think if the world doesn't take a serious look at this system, and what it entails, the entire planet will be at risk for this kind of control system. Some countries it will likely be more subtle. Like "Earn points if you tell Alexa she rocks.." Get people hooked and dependent, and a control system can easily be implemented and the majority will accept it.
Thanks for the thought provoking article @akiroq. I hope more Steemian's take the time to read this.
.