China's Chilling 'Social Credit System' Is Straight Out of Dystopian Sci-Fi, And It's Already On

[ShinkanPo]

https://www.sciencealert.com/china-...mirror-mass-surveillance-digital-dictatorship

This is straight outta of a horror movie!

And more people wants to live in an illusion.

 

[Ruprecht]

Our media is going for this. The left is going for this. The right? The establishment right may secretly be going for this.

It doesn't need to be proactively embraced by government to happen, it's primarily technologically driven.
Private enterprise is pushing similar systems, just on a market basis.
The tech companies have been talking about digital convergence and the Internet of Things for decades, but it's only recently that it's gotten far beyond tech demos and gimmicks, and the implications are becoming more obvious.

Edit: Oh and if you think it'll be simple to just opt out, think again. I'm not sure if you've ever tried to do certain sorts of financial transaction when you've never had a credit card, never taken a loan or even a contract for a fleet car or mobile phone. The lack of credit rating is limiting.
Apply a similar dynamic to everything from health insurance and vehicle insurance, through to home owner's groups, rental applications, school applications, job applications and more. With an expected pool of Big Data from nearly everything you interact with, not just credit history or what you might broadcast on social media.

 

[KnightTemplar]

Their lives are better now that government is more involved

Said no one, ever.

 

[Stranger Come Knocking]

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...-black-mirror-email-phone-fraud-a8546051.html

Apple doing something similar. Trust scores.

 

[7437]

On topic -that’s some fucked up shit. We should be using tech innovation to do awesome shit, not taking people’s lives away, making them more difficult, and putting them under a microscope.

it is awesome, if you are very rich

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

it is awesome, if you are very rich

I’m assuming even a rich person could fuck up and lose their social status like anyone else in this system.

 

[LatFlare]

I'm all for a database which tells me who is a piece of shit but losing points for jaywalking seems a bit extreme.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

It’s only a matter of time before our online history/use starts being used against us. They already use algorithms to advertise to us based off information collected about searches and such.


Glad I still have a box with hard copies of some porn vids and mags that can’t be traced lmao

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

I'm all for a database which tells me who is a piece of shit but losing points for jaywalking seems a bit extreme.

You might be considered a piece of shit for posting here in such a database.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

It doesn't need to be proactively embraced by government to happen, it's primarily technologically driven.
Private enterprise is pushing similar systems, just on a market basis.
The tech companies have been talking about digital convergence and the Internet of Things for decades, but it's only recently that it's gotten far beyond tech demos and gimmicks, and the implications are becoming more obvious.

Edit: Oh and if you think it'll be simple to just opt out, think again. I'm not sure if you've ever tried to do certain sorts of financial transaction when you've never had a credit card, never taken a loan or even a contract for a fleet car or mobile phone. The lack of credit rating is limiting.
Apply a similar dynamic to everything from health insurance and vehicle insurance, through to home owner's groups, rental applications, school applications, job applications and more. With an expected pool of Big Data from nearly everything you interact with, not just credit history or what you might broadcast on social media.

Only a matter of time before you’re sitting across from a car salesmen checking your credit and.. ‘ok, so this guy is into cuck porn and cat vids, no biggie. Posts on Sherdog tho, that’s gonna be a problem..’

 

[LatFlare]

You might be considered a piece of shit for posting here in such a database.

Na ima black belt fam

 

[Leagon]

Look at this little slave begging to be oppressed by an algorithm. Judge me, computer daddy, judge me!

It also literally said in the article it targets political dissidents.

I'm going to disagree with you here.

I've previously compared the gun debate to the issue of free speech. For some reason, liberal Americans agree that everyone having guns is bad and the "a good guy with a gun beats a bad guy with a gun" is great in theory but lawless and uncivilized in practice.

Ideas are far more dangerous than guns, and that is the perspective from which China governs.

I had an amateur fight in China. It was my first fight on a card full of people having their first fight. There were no knockouts. No professional fighters. The video was six hours long, most of which was downtime between fights.

It had over 1.5 million views within a week.

The speed at which ideas can spread these days, especially in China's closed circuit internet, is insane. A bad idea spreading that fast can fuck up tens of thousands of lives in a blink. Yes, China treats their political dissidents inhumanely, but it's not out of wanton cruelty. Having just emerged from their dark ages, they understand how fragile civilization is and they have no desire to let some moron with a Youku account undo decades of cultural progress. Overzealous, perhaps, but not unreasonable.

As the US grows and political instability increases, I think it is inevitable that we adopt a similar system. We already have such things via education, credit score, etc. There are many places that will not hire you unless you went to an Ivy league school. There are many places you simply cannot live in unless your credit score is over 800. China's system, to me, sounds like what our system would be if our population quadrupled in the next few decades and we had an enormous uneducated, impoverished underclass.

At the risk of invoking Madmick's anti-totalitarian ire, sometimes oppression is practical.

 

[tonni]

I'm going to disagree with you here.

I've previously compared the gun debate to the issue of free speech. For some reason, liberal Americans agree that everyone having guns is bad and the "a good guy with a gun beats a bad guy with a gun" is great in theory but lawless and uncivilized in practice.

Ideas are far more dangerous than guns, and that is the perspective from which China governs.

I had an amateur fight in China. It was my first fight on a card full of people having their first fight. There were no knockouts. The video was six hours long, most of which was downtime between fights.

It had over 1.5 million views within a week.

The speed at which ideas can spread these days, especially in China's closed circuit internet, is insane. A bad idea spreading that fast can fuck up tens of thousands of lives in a blink. Yes, China treats their political dissidents inhumanely, but it's not out of wanton cruelty. Having just emerged from their dark ages, they understand how fragile civilization is and they have no desire to let some moron with a Youku account undo decades of cultural progress. Overzealous, perhaps, but not unreasonable.

As the US grows and political instability increases, I think it is inevitable that we adopt a similar system. We already have such things via education, credit score, etc. There are many places that will not hire you unless you went to an Ivy league school. There are many places you simply cannot live in unless your credit score is over 800. China's system, to me, sounds like what our system would be if our population quadrupled in the next few decades and we had an enormous uneducated, impoverished underclass.

At the risk of invoking Madmick's anti-totalitarian ire, sometimes oppression is practical.

Which idea is dangerous enough to warrant mass surveillance and oppression?

Let's assume that the practical part of this problem has been solved (e.g. it is possible to stop "bad ideas" like nazism or pedophilia). In what way has the Chinese government shown itself to be on the side of good ideas and justice? They have a track record of incredibly poor treatment of their and neighboring citizens. They don't shun extreme violence and are in the habit of harvesting prisoners and political dissidents for organs.

The ways in which this system can and will be abused is beyond imagination and clearly does not outweigh the theoretical benefit of controlling "bad ideas".

In fact, the whole system is a "bad idea".

 

[Leagon]

Which idea is dangerous enough to warrant mass surveillance and oppression?

Let's assume that the practical part of this problem has been solved (e.g. it is possible to stop "bad ideas" like nazism or pedophilia). In what way has the Chinese government shown itself to be on the side of good ideas and justice? They have a track record of incredibly poor treatment of their and neighboring citizens. They don't shun extreme violence and are in the habit of harvesting prisoners and political dissidents for organs.

The ways in which this system can and will be abused is beyond imagination and clearly does not outweigh the theoretical benefit of controlling "bad ideas".

In fact, the whole system is a "bad idea".

Valid argument.

I always point to China's incredibly low violent crime rates. They have a gender imbalance of men, mainly young men. Many of these young men are unemployed and uneducated and have few marriage prospects. In almost any other society on Earth, this would result in a ghastly violent crime rate.

China, however, doesn't have the same culture of violence that many other societies do. The reason why is probably more complex than I understand, but preserving this social peace and stability is essential to the function of their society and they prioritize it in the same way that innovation is the lifeblood of America.

What bad things will be happening under this system that are currently not happening in China? It isn't a mind reader. If you are a political dissident and you keep your thoughts to yourself, you're fine. If you're a political dissident and you create public unrest, you're fucked. What's new?

On the other hand, the positives are obviously substantial. Not only are people being rewarded for prosocial behavior (as opposed to simply profitous behavior), but you also have a system that offers social mobility to those of lower economic classes.

 

[unimackpass]

Valid argument.

I always point to China's incredibly low violent crime rates. They have a gender imbalance of men, mainly young men. Many of these young men are unemployed and uneducated and have few marriage prospects. In almost any other society on Earth, this would result in a ghastly violent crime rate.

China, however, doesn't have the same culture of violence that many other societies do. The reason why is probably more complex than I understand, but preserving this social peace and stability is essential to the function of their society and they prioritize it in the same way that innovation is the lifeblood of America.

What bad things will be happening under this system that are currently not happening in China? It isn't a mind reader. If you are a political dissident and you keep your thoughts to yourself, you're fine. If you're a political dissident and you create public unrest, you're fucked. What's new?

On the other hand, the positives are obviously substantial. Not only are people being rewarded for prosocial behavior (as opposed to simply profitous behavior), but you also have a system that offers social mobility to those of lower economic classes.

The problem is how do you define "political dissedent"? If criticizing the government in even the slightest way causes someone to "loose points" is that worth the trade off for social stability?
That's always been the discussion, how much freedom are people willing to trade for security.

 

[Ruprecht]

Valid argument.

I always point to China's incredibly low violent crime rates. They have a gender imbalance of men, mainly young men. Many of these young men are unemployed and uneducated and have few marriage prospects. In almost any other society on Earth, this would result in a ghastly violent crime rate.

China, however, doesn't have the same culture of violence that many other societies do. The reason why is probably more complex than I understand, but preserving this social peace and stability is essential to the function of their society and they prioritize it in the same way that innovation is the lifeblood of America.

What bad things will be happening under this system that are currently not happening in China? It isn't a mind reader. If you are a political dissident and you keep your thoughts to yourself, you're fine. If you're a political dissident and you create public unrest, you're fucked. What's new?

On the other hand, the positives are obviously substantial. Not only are people being rewarded for prosocial behavior (as opposed to simply profitous behavior), but you also have a system that offers social mobility to those of lower economic classes.

Singapore's a nice place to visit. Kinda stifling though. As I've said before, a totalitarian shopping mall (although they've relaxed a little since I lived there). That sort of micromanagement is the CCP's dream.

 

[Leagon]

Singapore's a nice place to visit. Kinda stifling though. As I've said before, a totalitarian shopping mall (although they've relaxed a little since I lived there). That sort of micromanagement is the CCP's dream.

Yeah, but I think a lot of people, especially Westerners, overstate how bad living under such a government can be. I always say that if people want to know true freedom, they should go to Sub Saharan Africa, where many governments are essentially absent. Where any five dudes who form a militia can pillage for months without being discovered. If you wanna test your own ingenuity and make a fortune via your own exceptionalism, go live where you only get clean water if you dig for it.

The truth is that most people, by definition, are average. They aren't very smart. They aren't very capable. Given modest resources, they will accomplish a modest living and given many resources, they will become corrupt and self destructive.

For the vast majority of people, countries like Singapore and, to a lesser extent, China, allow you to live a decent life without succumbing to your own inadequacy. It is indeed stifling or even oppresive for those who deviate far from the norm, but those people are a small percentage of humanity and, honestly, those people probably don't need help anyway and will find their own path in life.

There have been some interesting articles from members of the IDW about the tyranny of high IQ civilizations and how low IQ Westerners are increasingly being crushed by the demands of a society that is biased toward the exceptional. It's an interesting debate.

 

[Ruprecht]

Yeah, but I think a lot of people, especially Westerners, overstate how bad living under such a government can be. I always say that if people want to know true freedom, they should go to Sub Saharan Africa, where many governments are essentially absent. Where any five dudes who form a militia can pillage for months without being discovered. If you wanna test your own ingenuity and make a fortune via your own exceptionalism, go live where you only get clean water if you dig for it.

The truth is that most people, by definition, are average. They aren't very smart. They aren't very capable. Given modest resources, they will accomplish a modest living and given many resources, they will become corrupt and self destructive.

For the vast majority of people, countries like Singapore and, to a lesser extent, China, allow you to live a decent life without succumbing to your own inadequacy. It is indeed stifling or even oppresive for those who deviate far from the norm, but those people are a small percentage of humanity and, honestly, those people probably don't need help anyway and will find their own path in life.

There have been some interesting articles from members of the IDW about the tyranny of high IQ civilizations and how low IQ Westerners are increasingly being crushed by the demands of a society that is biased toward the exceptional. It's an interesting debate.

I wasn't really talking about the more abstract political freedoms, or the omnipresence of Temasek, so much as the level of conformity. That's ever present in both the social, legal and political sense. Even religion in Singapore had that to a large degree (at least with churches like New Creation and City Harvest).
Mandatory social mixers, with your employer informed of non-attendence, isn't my idea of acceptable levels of Government intervention. Even the newer Government dating agencies are dubious.
I know quite a few people who are probably not far above average in intelligence, but still manage to live their own distinct and fulfilling lifestyles.
I have my doubts about whether they'd have managed it in a more conformist, micromanaged society.

 

[Leagon]

I wasn't really talking about the more abstract political freedoms, or the omnipresence of Temasek, so much as the level of conformity. That's ever present in both the social, legal and political sense. Even religion in Singapore had that to a large degree (at least with churches like New Creation and City Harvest).
Mandatory social mixers with your employer informed of non-attendence, isn't my idea of acceptable levels of Government intervention. Even the newer Government dating agencies are dubious.
I know quite a few people who are probably not far above average in intelligence, but still manage to live their own distinct and fulfilling lifestyles.
I have my doubts about whether they'd have managed it in a more conformist, micromanaged society.

Tbf, I've never lived or worked in Singapore. When I visited it was lovely, but I can see how the social structure could also be stifling.

Almost by definition, a system that micromanages life will be more favorable toward low IQ people, though. Dumb people can't manage complex things, that's how we know they're dumb.

I remember when I was filing my taxes abroad years back and a British friend was like "wtf are you doing?" I had to explain our tax system and they were baffled. When I think about it in the context of intelligence, the American tax system is unfairly punishing to stupid people, which is why the really smart (and really rich) often find workarounds while regular, hardworking people pay their fair share or have to spend a lot of time and energy trying to find a way around it.

 

[Leagon]

The problem is how do you define "political dissedent"? If criticizing the government in even the slightest way causes someone to "loose points" is that worth the trade off for social stability?
That's always been the discussion, how much freedom are people willing to trade for security.

Well that's up to them for figure out, no? I tweet out now that I'm going to kill the president, I will be investigated. Is that a fair trade for social stability, that I can't even say what I want on my own social media?

Obviously China is more restrictive than that, but every system has its limits. It is up to the government, as respresentative of the people, to enfore those limits. Just because I think threats against public figures should be protected speech doesn't mean my house won't get raided if I keep talking shit.