1984 in 2020: Social Engineering in China

With 1.4 billion people, China is the country with the biggest population on planet Earth. Without the aggressive One-Child policy, taken by the Chinese Government to reduce the birth rate, we would certainly be facing an even more impressive figure. Honestly, to effectively manage such a large population is a task close to heroism. However, simultaneously, we must remember that China’s political, institutional and social configuration facilitates the task: the Chinese Communist Party has ruled since 1949, with a tight hand on all aspects of human life. Authoritarianism guarantees order, obedience and conformity — all of them appreciated and encouraged by current President Xi Jinping. By 2020, the Chinese government intends to establish a social credit system (SCS), a vertiginous adoption of the most shocking dystopian ideas that mankind came up with.

(…) all individuals are coerced to conform to an arbitrarily established behavioral pattern — the alternative is to gradually lose rights.

First of all, it should be emphasized that such system is already being implemented by various online platforms, although with a different purpose. Alibaba, for example, has developed Sesame credit, which evaluates users according to their behaviour. It builds trust in the trading platform based on the history of each user: if payments were fulfilled, if he delivered orders in time and so on. In fact, one of the arguments to implement the same system into Chinese society is that it will create a moral regulation of the internal market. Similar to the effect produced by Sesame credit, some claim it will force citizens to respect concepts such as food safety or intellectual property. However, in broader terms, the main problem of applying this logic to the social sphere is related to the criteria used to classify citizens. That is, what should be the moral standard that applies to each individual, plus, how can one proceed with such an evaluation? These obstacles are easily overcome by the repressive Chinese regime:

1. Simple announce their own preferred definitions;
2. Create a deeply intrusive model that disregards the dignity of the human individuality.

The SCS consists of a network of surveillance cameras, which constantly monitor all public spaces and assess the citizens — all of it based on the moral hierarchy, arbitrarily defined by the Chinese Communist Party. Certain attitudes, such as buying too much alcohol in the supermarket or littering, are seen as negative and automatically downgrade our personal score on the system. Rather than just harming the reputation of every citizen on the basis of this criteria, SCS goes even further and provides a set of tangible penalties for those who do not abide by established moral standards. Higher interest rates, limitations on mobility and even suspended access to certain state services are some of the examples. This means that, fundamentally, all individuals are coerced to conform to an arbitrarily established behavioral pattern — the alternative is to gradually lose rights. Let’s call it the most effective tool to detect compliance with arbitrary rules, a trait cherished by any authoritarian regime.

A citizen displeased with the Chinese Government that chooses to criticize it — let’s call him Ping Xi — needs to be prepared for a double punch: not only will he have to deal with the authorities, but also to face broad discrimination in all aspects of his personal life. Can his mere presence hamper the score of close friends and family, leading them to social isolation? Can Ping Xi be excluded from buying essential goods? How far can the repercussions go? Of course, the decision will take place behind the curtains, in a narrow circle of influential Chinese Communist Party figures. Yet, the situation I just described seems to be a smaller minority…according to an Ipsos poll, the Chinese population shows an abnormal confidence in the direction and political choices by the Communist administration. To put it into perspective, it is roughly the double of the US or Germany!

We are definitely not dealing with a minor detail about the future of the Chinese regime. The strategy employed — reminiscent of an involuntary, centralized and authoritarian Nosedive, should be a warning about the gloomy perspectives of new technologies for authoritarian systems. Proponents of democracy and liberal values ​​were confident that the internet would trump the intentions of repressive dictatorships in controlling the diffusion of information: it was suggested that the future of authoritarian China and parallel regimes was a progressive capitulation to Western values. In reality, we are increasingly close to the contrary, that is, to see centralized dictatorships reinforce themselves with digital tools. Now, after being caught off guard, we should reflect on our excessive optimism in technology. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

A complacent West

On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that we already know the Chinese Government is cooperating with digital platforms to obtain the technology needed to improve both the SCS and its political propaganda. First, Alibaba, which dominates the realm of e-commerce on the Asian continent, is testing the adaptation of the Sesame credit. The same team, the Ant Financial Services Group, is in charge of this project, thus contributing to develop the SCS. Second, Google is leading a project to create a search engine that is completely compatible with the Chinese Government’s censorship. The prototype of this tool, called Dragonfly, allows to amplify the propaganda of the current regime, stifling any alternative ideas that may arise on the internet — obviously, concepts such as freedom of expression, human rights or democracy would be automatically blocked. Unfortunately, we are facing another case where the West, always rhetorically intransigent in its moral standards, succumbs again when the price is sufficiently enticing. For now, Alibaba will continue to explore the liberal markets of Europe and the United States, and Google will continue to apologize in a haughty way…when will we say no?