There was something distressingly appropriate in the untimely death earlier this month of internet pioneer John Perry Barlow. The Grateful Dead lyricist gained iconic stature in the early days of the internet as author of the ringing Declaration of Cyberspace Independence, and inspired a generation of liberty-focused digital visionaries. He has passed on just as the entire enterprise is in danger of turning turtle.
We should hardly be surprised that it is China, the would-be global hegemon, that’s threatening to crush the last petals of digital flower power. The People’s Republic is working on the most comprehensive project for social control that has ever been devised.
The Beijing project combines the business reviewing (credit ratings) and peer reviewing (AirBnb) to create the ultimate Klout score: a measure of the trustworthiness so beloved of the Chinese Communist Party. This information is then immediately accessible upon the scanning of someone’s face. Welcome to the Social Credit System: “basically a big data gamified version of the Communist Party’s surveillance methods”1.
The original plan for the “Social Credit” project goes back to 2014, when it was laid out in a document approved by the Chinese State Council. Despite some delays, after an initial period of voluntary participation, a full – and compulsory – rollout is planned for 2020.
The project is brilliantly simple – and singularly sinister.
Any one thing of which they disapprove will have an impact in every other area of your life.
This from Rachel Botsman’s book Who Can You Trust?
… people with low ratings will have slower internet speeds; restricted access to restaurants, nightclubs or golf courses; and the removal of the right to travel freely abroad with, I quote, ‘restrictive control on consumption within holiday areas or travel businesses’. Scores will influence a person’s rental applications, their ability to get insurance or a loan and even social-security benefits. Citizens with low scores will not be hired by certain employers and will be forbidden from obtaining some jobs, including in the civil service, journalism and legal fields, where of course you must be deemed trustworthy. Low-rating citizens will also be restricted when it comes to enrolling themselves or their children in high-paying private schools…. As the government document states, the social credit system will ‘allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step’.
It is happening already:
In February 2017, the country’s Supreme People’s Court announced that 6.15 million of its citizens had been banned from taking flights over the past four years for social misdeeds…. Another 1.65 million blacklisted people cannot take trains.
As The Conversation reports:
Being a “good citizen” is well rewarded. In some regions, citizens with high social credit scores can enjoy free gym facilities, cheaper public transport, and shorter wait times in hospitals. Those with low scores, on the other hand, may face restrictions to their travel and public service access2.
And here’s an update from Rodion Ebbighausen on the German website Die Welt:
People who don’t visit their aging parents regularly, for example, will get minus points. The same goes for people who cross the street on a red light or illegally dump their garbage3.
If you watched the Nosedive episode of the Netflix sci-fi series Black Mirror, this may sound familiar. Though while the Nosedive set-up is nowhere near as comprehensive (or as threatening) as the Chinese project, the core idea is the same: peer evaluations in real time assign significance to everyone.
China may only be the start. As the article in Die Welt notes, China may now export their system to other (repressive) regimes around the world.
It could hardly be more different from the vision of the early internet pioneers, as captured by John Perry Barlow in his 1996 manifesto:
“Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.”
This is not Google Glass, but facial recognition glass connected to Chinese police database. Deployed to a Zhengzhou railway station 5 days ago, it has detected at least 7 fugitives and 26 fake ID holders. #surveillance pic.twitter.com/eXrzRgORam
— FAN Wenxin (@xinwenfan) February 6, 2018
FOOTNOTES
- Rachel Botsman, Wired, October 21, 2017, “Big data meets Big Brother as China moves to rate its citizens.” Adapted from her book, Who Can You Trust? How Technology Brought Us Together and Why It Might Drive Us Apart (Penguin Portfolio, 2017)
- “China’s Social Credit System puts its people under pressure to be model citizen”, The Conversation, January 21, 2018
- Rodion Ebbighausen, “China experiments with sweeping Social Credit System,” Die Welt, January 4, 2018
Nigel Cameron writes about technology, society, and the future. In 2007 he founded the Washington think tank The Center for Policy on Emerging Technologies. His most recent book is Will Robots Take Your Job?
nigelcameron 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeSo now they’re coming for Pinker, who is about as ‘progressive’ as you can get.
Progressive,yes. Woke, emphatically not.
Not really coming for Pinker, but sending a message to more junior, less established, less secure academics.
Pinker has a rather charitable interpretation of (or excuse for) the tactics of woke’ism, identity politics and political correctness, and so forth. These are pure bigotry — ruthless application of stereotypes to individuals regardless of any inappropriateness or gross inaccuracy/inapplicability, requiring either malign intent or absolute ignorance or brainwashing (by professors or the press or activists) with a false narrative combined with an overriding tendency and ability to engage in confirmation bias (to continue to support the narrative in one’s imagination).
I consider the culture-war activist and campus nonsense to be pure fraud by self-interested parties who are some combination of Leninist/Marxist and fascist, more or less. I believe that the leaders of these loosely defined and organized “movements” know exactly what they are pushing, and have no utopian notions whatsoever, but well understand that they can utilize the ignorance of many to lure with utopian appeal.
There appears to be a tremendous instinctive appeal of the utopian promise of socialism/communism/fascism (all variants of the same basic theme) that is built into human nature. It requires some historical knowledge to disabuse one of the idea that the utopia is even remotely possible, and to recognize that certain types of people will always be attracted to the kind of authoritarian or totalitarian power necessitated by real-life attempts to implement these ideologies. These would be Stalin-like characters at best — nothing about them is good for societies, especially relatively free and prosperous ones.
There has been a frightening additional growth of (self) entitlement, infantilization and expectation of a paternalistic environment that has increased in prevalence with each successive generation since the end of WWII in Euro/American societies (at least). Appeal to this has enhanced the ability of the malcontent ideology to convince, false and phony as it is.
IMO these jerks should be ridiculed and ignored. But the press is almost totally part of the “movement”, and so there is a sort of Catch-22 problem. Too many lazy intellects will listen to a narrative or look at a “painting” and buy in, rather than developing and implementing a skepticism with the skills needed to gather valid info and separate this from all of the disinfo and misinfo — e.g. skeptical reading skills.
The pandemic has just been a microscopic example of the same social phenomena, aided by the near universality of social media now. Even most well-educated people, I find, have no idea how to draw accurate conclusions from the epidemiological data which is freely available to anyone everywhere now, at least in Euro-American countries.
Thank you Freddie for this fascinating interview with Steven Pinker. Although insightful in itself, within it are several references to the extremely important open letter published in Harper’s magazine calling for the end of cancel culture with 150+ signatories from across the political spectrum. Hopefully one of the excellent Unherd team is penning a commentary on this extremely important event in the free speech debate as we speak. I would hate to think that purely because many of the signatories are left-leaning and one line in the letter casts aspersions on President Trump that it is not deemed of sufficient interest to the Unherd readership to merit a slot within the big four daily stories on our site.
Some good discussion in here along with the meat of discussion about free speech (on which Pinker’s stand is genuinely inspiring).
1. Sayers challenges Pinker on whether the Enlightenment might be partly responsible for the Woke, gesturing at their shared attitude that the world can be re-engineered if given enough effort. Pinker responds that he views the Woke as one form of counter-Enlightenment, which I think is fair enough and true, but also it seems like he missed Sayers’ point a little, and didn’t address the similarity.
I think there is a grain of truth when you contrast this element against its (almost definitional) absence in conservative thinking, but ultimately Wokism is not special for drawing on this Enlightenment idea and using it for other purposes, and many of the radical ideological failures of the 20th century — on the left and the right — could lay equal claim to such inspiration.
2. Sayers wonders whether the Enlightenment’s relative lack of focus on subjective value and ‘nourishing the soul’ fosters populist backlash. Pinker doesn’t really seem convinced that the current moment in Anglosphere politics demonstrates that. I think I would agree with Pinker’s doubt that it clearly points to a trend of decreasing happiness. The idea is worth considering, but it also seems like it could be the function of some other element of society compatible with Enlightenment values to nourish the soul.
No Pinker was on the money with that I think.
Wokism came out of the Enlightenment only in as far as it came out of movements long after and would therefore logically have some tenuous roots in it. But even that is stretching it.
The woke are actively, explicitly and vocally rejecting the Enlightenment across the board, because for them it is seen as the root cause of most prejudice and is too white and western for their liking.
Yes, what a splendidly
acerbic, spiteful, debate that was, and the Woke “never forgive and never forget”.
However I don’t have much sympathy for Pinker, he has always “run with the hare and hunted with the hounds”.
“ªPinker states that the right populists are a bigger threat than the left ‘because they are in power’ extraordinary !! So after 4 years of Trump what has actually happened that threatens our freedom?? Meanwhile the woke establishment has been enacting and fermenting profound and deeply corrosive societal change while being kept OUT of office -that is surely a great deal more threatening ?
Things that threaten our freedom under trump:
A deeply corrupt, vindictive DOJ.
A new Postmaster General who directs local facilities to “slow down” delivery of first-class mail, meaning many people near the end of routes don’t receive any mail, or not on a regular basis. To connect the dots, this threatens our free and fair elections.
A terribly mismanaged pandemic that has made it risky to leave our homes, or to walk around unencumbered with a face mask; and has closed nearly the entire world to a US passport.
A threat to “postpone” the election, which he clarified the same day he made it was NOT meant as a joke.
I could go on.
He also strangely makes no reference to woke social media enterprises and their unaccountable control and manipulation of the public square which is beyond the reach of the democratically elected ‘populist’ politicians
I think perhaps the “I’m all right” is actually a healthy contempt.
It bothers you that a free press is able to publish freely, and you would prefer they be within the reach of your preferred politicians? That violates the first amendment.
Nothing strange about it. Nationalist/Populist movements invariably devolve into authoritarian dictatorships. A few modern places one can see this process as it happens: the Philippines, Turkey, Hungary, Russia, and Brazil. Everybody wants a strong Daddy to keep them safe and make sure everyone else behaves. Some of us are more conscious of it and able to remove it from our politics than others.
I’m assuming by “woke rebellion,” you refer to people having a modern view of older institutions and mores.
“Woke” refers to things like people taking a critical look at accepted truisms, such as “Christianity is a force for good in the world,” or “Black people have as much chance as anybody else of making it in America,” or “If Black people would only obey the (always courteous and lawful) police, no one would get beaten or killed.” In evaluating current events, “woke” refers to a preference for secular humanism and compassion, a sort of “do no harm” ethos, along with a focus on reform of unfair practices. “Understanding that terms like ‘Kung flu’ and ‘China virus’ drive bigoted behavior towards Asians, we resolve not to use them” is one current example.
We seem to be between the devil and the deep blue sea – between an arid materialistic scientism and a ‘popular’ movement that seeks to impose the primacy of raw unreflected emotion on all discourse and every aspect of society.
I guess, if by “Left orthodoxy” you mean findings derived from careful studies of child development, including the powerful “twins separated at birth” studies that amuse us by pointing out, “They both like blue-checked shirts!” and “They’re both in church choirs!” and “Look how similar their bedspreads are!” I’m a developmental psychologist who’s naturally given a lot of thought and study to the question of nature/nurture. I, like my colleagues in that field — not linguistics — have certainly not concluded that only nature is formative.
I don’t believe developmental psychologists have an interest in “cancelling” Pinker. We accept that he’s talking through his hat and ignore him, similar to how we don’t take our dirty car to a shoe shine to be cleaned.
I continue to marvel that things as apolitical on their surface as cloth face masks, to what traits are heritable and which more refined by peers and parenting, have become “left” and “right,” with “left” ideas being based on swell-designed, replicated studies, and “right” meaning “I don’t like leftists and I don’t like this idea, therefore this idea is ‘left’.”
But who the hell are these “people”
They don’t represent the majority….does democratic majority no longer have credence?
I am stunned to constantly hear that “everyone is outraged” when in fact very few give a toss and the “outraged” are dangerous minority nut jobs!
Free speech runs both ways!
You seem kind of upset. Outraged, even.
How far we can go or how deep we can search in the deepest realm of our minds depends on how much we dare release ourselves and embrace new assumptions that might lead us into a better human condition. I must say that Socrates might have been wrong but by getting him to have the hemlock he became a victim of injustice. Let’s remember that truth is not necessesarily a democratic experience.
First they came for Katie Hopkins…
He makes a good point that if certain ideas are not allowed to be scrutinised then they run the risk of gaining currency. That is something everyone on all sides of an issue would do well to ponder. Cancel ideas and the very argument you so despise is allowed to live on!
The canaille have always been there and social media is simply another street corner. What has changed is the integrity of people who have entered contracts with targets of the mob. I believe it should be possible for anyone who loses any job as a result of such mob screeching to sue the nuts off the person firing them and get exemplary damages.
Let’s play this one out. Suppose an employee is caught on tape screaming, “America is a cesspool and I hope someone bombs US back to the Dark Ages!!” It gets posted online and everyone has an opinion about this guy, many of them negative.
The online mob does their “research.” They find out who the loudmouth is. They find their employer, and deluge them with video and strong opinions. Freaked out, the employer decides he doesn’t want his business associated with this kind of speech. They’re pretty sure keeping them on will cause some customers to forsake him, and their profits will drop. This has turned into an existential threat to their business.
Is it not the employer’s right to hire and fire whomever they please?
Die Gedachten sind Frei. But open speech is not free, and it’s getting more and more costly as the Jacobins look for that handy guillotine.
Off with their heads!
My own alma mater shelters one Noam Chomsky, who also happens to be an academic linguist like Pinker. I doubt very many have read even one work by Chomsky in the field of linguistics, but of course he spouts off incessantly and ridiculously about topics he knows absolutely nothing of. The fact that a clown like Chomsky can do so as successfully as he has is also a good reflection of the susceptibility and ignorance of the society at large.