We already live in social credit, we just don't call it that

Weirdly, banks in China also use statistical algorithms when assessing their loan books!

> The government does not "track" or "access" or "use" those 3rd party scores.

This is absolutely untrue. The government is a customer of all of these companies, and can whip up a chorus of brownshirts to loudly complain about any objections to the government doing this. There's a reason everybody who talks about speech should know what a long obsolete device called a "pen register" does. It's what we now refer to as a public-private partnership.

> It's a bit like 1st amendment in the US.

It is, in that the government can pay or blackmail* companies into censoring your speech, and doesn't have to bother with prior restraint.**

-----

[*] ...through selective application of what is usually antitrust legislation.

[**] ...which the 1st Amendment never mentions, but has been bound to it by people and judges who wanted to censor speech about communism and birth control.

On the other hand, the government staying out of it makes it better, because if you're banned by the main taxi firm or housing market or [insert rhetorical third thing], there remains the chance of using some sketchy unpopular alternative service, and you're not in violation of the law if you find such a option.

The wave of CRM is CDP. Customer Data Platform. The key is that it isn't just your basic account data, but all the behavioral data across various system interactions both online and off (if applicable). Shopping Cart abandonment email campaigns are pretty benign. But the outrage around the targeted ad for baby/pregnancy products that made the news from Target a few years ago is just the start for what more insightful data signals can give you. I don't really care about most retailers knowing what I buy. I do care about them reselling that data to big aggregators that know everything I buy, where I go and when, and join that what sites I visit and what mail I get. It is too much and can be abused.

Asking a random LLM to give reasons they might do this. Again, I'm not saying they do this. I'm saying my fear that they might isn't unfounded

* To Prevent Unfair and Unfounded Ratings: Uber could argue that some riders misuse the rating system. They might give a driver a low rating for reasons outside of the driver's control, such as traffic, a bad mood, or a simple misunderstanding. This policy would be presented as a way to protect drivers from being unfairly penalized, which could affect their livelihood.

* To Combat "Rating Terrorism" or Coercion: A rider might threaten a driver with a low rating to get a free ride, demand an unscheduled stop, or force them to violate a rule. By banning riders who frequently give low scores, Uber would be taking a stance against this kind of behavior, ensuring that the rating system is used as a genuine feedback mechanism, not a tool for coercion.

* To Discourage "Troll" Behavior: Some users might be incentivized to give consistently low ratings just to cause trouble or get attention, a practice often referred to as "trolling." This policy would be framed as a way to filter out users who are not participating in the community in good faith and are instead just trying to cause problems.

* To Maintain Driver Confidence in the Platform: Drivers rely on their ratings to maintain their account status. If they feel that riders are unfairly giving them low scores without consequence, they may become disillusioned with the platform and switch to a competitor. Banning riders who give consistently low ratings would be a way to show drivers that Uber has their back.

* To Improve Service by Identifying and Removing "Unreasonable" Riders: Uber could frame this as a data-driven approach. They might claim that their internal data shows a small percentage of riders who give low ratings to virtually every driver, regardless of the quality of the service. By removing these outliers, they would be improving the overall efficiency and health of the marketplace for the vast majority of drivers and riders. The goal would be to cultivate a community of "reasonable" users who understand and use the ratings system as it was intended.

To continue, for me, my experience is I would rate low probably 7 of 8 drivers for the reasons I gave above. They all break traffic laws and drive recklessly. I kind of wish the app would let me set a driver preference. I'd chose

(*) drive at the speed limit. Don't break any laws. Drive cautiously.

others might choose

(*) get there as fast as possible - (implying ignoring speed limits, weaving through traffic, cutting people off, ignoring turn lanes, etc...)

At least that way the driver would know up front what the user expects. Me, I'd give them 5 stars for not risking my life. Others would give them 5 stars for going as fast as possible.

As it is, I don't rate them low. I just don't rate at all because of the fear of being banned.