How do you like this idea in the spirit of a dystopia like 1984:
* A state reliability index is maintained for each citizen
* The absolute value of the index is inaccessible to anyone
* Comparative values are accessible. It works like this: you enter N surnames, you get a ranking. For example, you hire the first person on the list
* The index changes based on recommendations and denunciations from more reliable people. If the index continues to rise, it also rises for the recommenders. Denouncers receive recommendations or denunciations in response to their reports, after verification. If unconfirmed, the denouncer receives a significant demerit. If the index drops after a good recommendation, it also begins to drop for the recommender.
* There are no notifications about changes in the absolute index. The relative index, however, can change for at least two reasons – skyrocketing of someone’s comparative index.
* Automatic recommendations and denunciations are regularly issued for everyone, including the homeless, the elite, and recluses, altering their absolute index somehow according to rules common to all. For instance, non-participation in community life, prolonged absence of positive recommendations, etc., reduces the rating. The logic of such a system is not disclosed, but it is assumed to be fair since it applies to everyone, from the elite to the homeless. If it were to malfunction, it would affect everyone at once, or very large groups, which generally wouldn’t be noticeable in relative positions.
* The automatic system includes machine learning to improve algorithms through result analysis and rule adjustments.
Of course, this is just a thought experiment. The question is, could such a system be “hacked” if it existed? Would it lead to a better society or reinforce a mechanism of negative selection?
Update:
The first major problem – who are the judges? Who evaluates the recommendations and inputs the decisions into the system? On a national scale, the number of recommendations and denunciations would destroy any fair system, and maintaining its viability would require so much money that it would be immediately optimized into unfairness.
The second problem lies in the criteria of what is good and what is bad. This is simply indescribable