Yeah, the title is awful - I was happier with the article then I thought I'd be, as it did go in to some of the negative points. To point to any atomic automatic judgment of ones citizens based on their beliefs as a good thing is a bit of a weird view, however. The examples they give are all terrifying.
It's also not great that the lady they report as pro social credit is only revealed later on in the piece as being married to a high ranking party member. She's introduced as "a marketing professional" when I'd argue the most relevant facts towards her support/non-support of such a system would be that she is married to "a civil servant in the justice department, a loyal cadre to the party."
The article makes several strange emotional appeals regarding her, actually. For instance, I'm glad she "married for love", but I don't see why it would be relevant to the issue at hand unless it was an attempt to further humanize her and, by extension, this new Permanent Spotlight system.