Russia’s higher education and technology landscape has recently seen the emergence of the We social rating system, developed by Russian State Social University. Reports from Afisha Daily indicate that the project has moved from concept to testing phases, with early pilots under way at the university itself. The initiative aims to explore how a composite personal profile could influence, or reflect, a person’s social footprint within a broader civic ecosystem.
The initial testers for the program were university students. During onboarding, participants complete a comprehensive survey that delves into education, family status, income sources, benefits, credit history, and any criminal records. The questionnaire also probes digital presence, such as social media accounts, language proficiency, and other personal indicators that might contribute to a user’s overall profile. This level of data collection is designed to build a multi-dimensional view of an individual’s social position and potential civic engagement.
Afisha Daily reports that the We project was first presented to Russian State Social University in 2022, with the understanding that the completed data would be delivered as a two-component scoring code. This code is intended to quantify what the publication describes as a person’s social status and social level. The distinction implies that one part of the score would reflect earned social merits, while the other would translate a person’s expectations or aspirations into a measurable digit.
Illustratively, the publication notes a sample construct such as 47–29, where the first component represents social status, a reflection of a person’s merits, and the second component represents social level, an articulation of expected social outcomes expressed in numeric form. The proposed system would then be integrated into official records by associating the generated code with existing identifiers such as SNILS, Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN), passport details, and contact numbers. This integration would enable a unified, digitized profile that could be referenced across administrative processes and services.
In the broader context, discussions around social rating mechanisms intersect with concerns about privacy, governance, and the potential for algorithmic bias. Observers emphasize the importance of transparent methodology, robust data protection, and clear governance frameworks to guard against misuse or unintended disparities in access to public services. While supporters argue that such systems could streamline administrative workflows and personalize citizen interactions, critics warn of risks to individual autonomy and the possibility of stigmatization based on opaque scoring criteria. Contemporary commentary highlights the need for ongoing oversight, public debate, and safeguards that ensure proportionality and accountability in any deployment of social rating constructs.
Beyond the specific project in Russia, analysts note that social scoring concepts have appeared in various forms around the world, often sparking intense discussions about ethics, data sovereignty, and the balance between efficiency and civil liberties. Proponents point to potential improvements in service delivery, risk assessment, and targeted policy design, while opponents warn of potential chilling effects, where individuals alter behavior due to perceived surveillance or scoring implications. As digital identification and data interoperability expand, institutions and policymakers are urged to establish clear consent mechanisms, purpose limitations, and redress options for individuals who believe their scores have been miscalculated or misapplied. The evolving landscape invites careful scrutiny to ensure that any future applications respect human rights, protect sensitive information, and uphold the principles of fairness and transparency for all citizens.