The assumption that maintaining trust is laudable and betraying trust is shameful is intended to be reinforced by a social credit structure. This social credit system would utilize the technology to gather data on all residents and score their behaviour, encompassing their moral character and financial creditworthiness. In 2014, it was first made public since China was preparing to implement the new system (Kostka 1566). On the other hand, a society that does not conduct monetary operations with paper or coin money is said to be a cashless society. The only form of payment accepted is by electronic means, such as Alibaba, or credit or debit cards (Kostka 1570).
Although many nations are headed in this trend, it is tough to predict which ones will completely phase out cash. Integrating both in the current society bears more negativity than good for people because it would not universally serve as people prefer different things; hence comfort will not be an assurance.
Financial independence can entail different things to various individuals, and having a social credit system means that people turn over their earnings to the government, as it is a requirement for gauging and monitoring (Pan 165). There have been many situations where businesses or individuals have not declared their entire wealth since privacy is at the core of freedom, and having a cashless society and a society dependent on social credit scores will only affect their financial freedom negatively due to lack of privacy as all their wealth is monitored by the government. Cash currency is becoming less popular due to numerous technological and sociological shifts toward digital and virtual financial transactions. Only time will tell whether currency still has a special place in society, as the move toward a completely cashless society has numerous potential pitfalls. Certain firms would stand to gain the most from a cashless society.
Businesses profit from handling costs when customers use their applications and platforms to transfer and receive payments, even though some people use debit and credit to money for convenience. Switching to contactless transactions will help firms save money and simplify accounting because handling cash is pricey. But from a personal perspective, it would be cumbersome as the government would continuously monitor and use their findings to gauge individuals on the social credit structure. Ultimately, social credit systems fully nullify the chances of leading private lives. What gives people their variant individuality is their way of doing things, which is well crafted privately. Exposing people’s way of earning would make many people in any given society less comfortable and happy. It would be sensical to mention that cashless platforms will be a significant attributor to creating social credit structures, as credit stands at its core.
Based on information gathered from five primary elements, the method, which is a supposition, assigns individuals a value ranging from zero to one hundred in percentage form through credit rating. This determines if the individual makes on-time payments on their debts. The government analyzes paper trails left behind by cashless transactions to determine this. Social credit scores analyze personal information such as individual mobile phone numbers, work and home addresses, and social security numbers, which many consider a breach of their freedom. This gives the government access to ban one from making certain purchases or payments, which negatively affects financial freedom.
Monitoring social credit scores involves observing behaviour and inclination, which are judged based on what the person purchases. Those who purchase diapers would seem to have a better mark since parents are more likely to be accountable, while those who devote many hours a day engaging in computer games receive a lower rating. These negatively impact the financial freedom of those with low credit scores since they have minimal access to loans, discounts and any other monetary benefit that those with a high credit score have access to.
Except for what they purchase and the amount of tax they owe, most people are not accustomed to having their everyday activities routinely observed and analyzed. Many people would be agitated by having their television viewing habits, website visits, whereabouts, level of activity, and friends and how they interact with them tracked. In today’s environment, such observation would typically be carried out through social networking sites, particularly those involving transactions. Although some things are beneficial, most are not because some people feel uneasy about sharing their data with businesses and governments.
The social credit system is based on information obtained through cashless transactions made through mobile payment platforms, which most people currently use to pay for almost everything. Many would argue that having a high social credit score is perceived as a status thing and entitles one to benefits from businesses such as gift cards, quicker check-ins at resorts and terminals, and no reservation requirements for rental vehicles (Wang et al.). While ostracizing for minor offences, traffic infractions, declining to see ageing parents, failing to sort trash into the proper containers, or skipping train fares might all be noted on social credit files (Wang et al.). Social valuation on such attributes is biased as they do not ultimately show one’s values and personality. Creating a perception on such bases eliminates the possibility of altering how society thinks of them as it would imprint a particular irrefutable notion about them, which is not entirely true.
Combining social credit with cashless systems would not benefit everyone, as various people have varied preferences. As a result, there would be more harm than gain for people. The harmful effects of combining the issues mentioned earlier are that privacy rights are abused, unsolicited surveillance transpires in even the most unlikely places, and utterly erroneous status placement over how people live. It is best to rid society of vices, but not at the expense of breaching people’s rights to privacy.
Work Cited
Kostka, Genia. “China’s Social Credit Systems and Public Opinion: Explaining High Levels of Approval.” New Media & Society, vol. 21, no. 7, 2019, pp. 1565–1593. Web.
Pan, Jennifer. “Becoming a Digital Dictatorship.” Welfare for Autocrats, 2020, pp. 163–178. Web.
Wang, Jing, et al. “Envisioning a Credit Society: Social Credit Systems and the Institutionalization of Moral Standards in China.” Media, Culture & Society, 2022. Web.