> The only difference between your phone and China's social credit system is that China tells you what they're doing.

And that I have a choice of phones, or even no phone at all, and none of my phone options is legally permitted to execute me.

Further down, the article argues that switching costs between private companies are ‘enormous.’ I don’t know if they are that large, but however painful it is to switch from Apple to Google, it’s orders of magnitude easier than moving between nation-states.

It notes that private systems ‘increasingly collaborate.’ Sure, and that can be a problem. But there’s a huge difference between a patchwork of systems which collaborate and a pervasive, inescapable State.

Finally, it notes that governments purchase private data. Sure, but are they using that data to restrict fundamental freedoms? They may be (Canada’s restriction of economic rights for folks who donated to protesters comes to mind — although I don’t think that was actually enabled by purchasing private ‘social credit’ data).

> Utah's House passed a law banning social credit systems, despite none existing in America.

Does the article contend that Americans live in a social credit system, or that none exists in America? It can’t have it both ways!

Finally, the article leads with a definition of ‘social credit’ as evolving beyond an original definition of ‘distributing industry profits to consumers to increase purchasing power.’ Whatever that might mean, it seems completely irrelevant to the meaning of the phrase under discussion, as relevant as mentioning in a discussion on O.J. Simpson that ‘O.J.’ can mean ‘orange juice’ (in Mr. Simpson’s case, it stood for ‘Orenthal James.’