Ausage
Well-known member
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...king-blacklisted-beijing-points-a8646316.html
Almost does deserve it's own thread though.
Almost does deserve it's own thread though.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Totalitarianism gone mad AKA the China thread
- Thread starter Ausage
- Start date
Spark
Global Moderator
Yeah I've posted about this a few times, IMO this and the Uyghur concentration camp network are big enough to warrant their own threads.
Spark
Global Moderator
Don't think we're going to be short of material for this thread...
https://www.kotaku.com.au/2018/11/chinese-game-site-censors-winne-the-pooh-in-kingdom-hearts-3/
https://www.kotaku.com.au/2018/11/chinese-game-site-censors-winne-the-pooh-in-kingdom-hearts-3/
Victor Ian
Well-known member
In principle, is this such a bad idea? Beyond a certain level of ****wittery things are criminal and punishable. Beneath that level there are a whole raft of things ****wits can do with impunity. This is, kind of akin to taking that bag of deplorable acts and making them have consequences, without needing jail and the like. I'm talking about the concept of labelling arseholes rather than the actual punishments being imposed. Keep in mind, in theory these arseholes can redeem themselves by performing good acts.
hendrix
Well-known member
With proper political discussion and debate you can provide checks and balances to stop things that would otherwise occur. That's kinda the whole point of political philosophy.
harsh.ag
Well-known member
Sure, but this is just an extension of credit scores. There are no new philosophical grounds being treaded here. Not paying debt is punishable and people can be excluded from future services for not paying debt etc.
hendrix
Well-known member
Not sure if you read all of the article
This is clearly well beyond the realm of financial/debtor credibility and well into the realm of Don't Be a Dissident
Ausage
Well-known member
Of course it's bad. It's astonishing to me that this is even a question.
In what world should the government be involved in imposing a universal morality? In what world should unelected suits be able to label me an untrustworthy human because I have the temerity to have an opinion on the Tienanmen Square massacre? Or following a particular Abrahamic religion? Or enjoy a responsible spot of gambling? Or playing "too many video games"?
There already are consequences for being a ****wit. Your family and personal relationships will suffer. You'll be barred from certain professions or corporations. You'll be ostracized from your community. You'll be immortalized on the internet.
The idea that this should be a space for government is completely and utterly insane.
harsh.ag
Well-known member
Oh yeah. I agree.
We will have to have a conversation about why many laws and policies exist. In my view, a lot of them exist for the purpose of essentially steering people towards behaviour which is productive and aids in nation building. China has always put out the message that, for them, all policies are about nation building. The whole society and culture is geared towards looking down upon slackers.
In the west, while slacking isn't considered that bad, the trend towards using people's various habits (using big data) to form profiles and scores and probabilities has become commonplace as well.
Now, I am almost sure no one would have a problem with a system just awarding points for undertaking volunteer work. It might even be highly celebrated (bringing non market activities into the fold etc). But, because it also takes away points for slacking, it becomes a big issue. Those are two sides of the same coin from the pov of nation building. And it's a pretty prevalent view, even in the western governmental setup imo.
Last edited:
hendrix
Well-known member
- Firstly, I absolutely, have problems with points being awarded for volunteer work. Does church work count as volunteer work? How about printing out political billboards? Speaking to the youth about certain values? It's utterly open to, and deliberately set up for political gaming. The idea that social control/cohesion should be used as a tool for nation-building is completely detestable
- Secondly the idea that social control is actually useful for the advancement of the economy is very very sketchy. No one is particularly good at predicting the economy, but certainly free thinking, diversity of ideas and interests and individualism are cornestones of a strong, diversified economy.
- Nation-building is gross anyway.
harsh.ag
Well-known member
It's actually less worse than we've been imagining:
https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2018/01/giving-credit-jeremy-daum-chinas-social-credit-system/
Must read. Still vague in some terms, as is China's wont.
https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2018/01/giving-credit-jeremy-daum-chinas-social-credit-system/
Must read. Still vague in some terms, as is China's wont.
Victor Ian
Well-known member
The reason the question was asked was because this is very real, in our enlightened west, where it operates with no boundaries and direction. A constant insidious coercion from faceless people without a planned end in sight. The crux of the question was whether planned behaviour shaping is wrong. This seems preferable to random electronic lynch mobs that react to similar things outlined in the article daily.
The very world you live in. Like to murder, rape, pillage? You can't. The government has legislated a moral code. Like to cheat, litter, pretend for ***? No worries. Where is the line? The idea suggest a points based system. You don't lose rights for an infraction. It takes a balance of probabilities to become a designated 'blight'.
Now that is worth discussion. How can I infract someone so it sticks. What evidence is needed? How does one contest this? I agree that we don't want unelected hall monitors with unfettered powers.
The idea is currently in the space of the unwashed heathen who shame lynch people on facebook daily with no evidence. I've even read some of you proclaiming people rapists in threads based upon nothing more than what you have read and surmised. That is insane. Isn't it about time that this was cleaned up and determined so everyone knows where they stand. Maybe it is a dangerous power for a government to dictate. Perhaps it is more dangerous for a government not to.
I tend to think society has always tried to mould behaviour and that this is necessary. You can not have a working civilisation without laws and moral expectations.
Spark
Global Moderator
I wouldn't be surprised if China's bureaucracy, which is still fundamentally the same beast as it has been for millenia, is better at looking impressive on paper, superficially, and in the rich coastal cities than it is in actually being applied in any meaningful sense in the hinterlands. But the intent is still clear and indisputable IMO - total control. "Western companies do it too" is not really a response, other than to suggest that much stronger scrutiny needs to be applied to the culture of secrecy within SV.
Ausage
Well-known member
While I agree that the current state of social media has a level of moral policing that is far from ideal, legislating it is literally the doomsday scenario. I don't care if some blue haired undergrad thinks I'm a Nazi because I believe in an limited government. My concern is that that person is the thin edge of the wedge, with the end game being their ideas on social coercion given form in legislature. The alt-right or the neo-cons getting hold of the system wouldn't be any fun either. Your idea is akin to saying that we should launch all our nukes in order to avoid nuclear war.
Besides, you think politics is heated now? Wait till the prize for winning elections is literal control of the moral code of the entire nation. It'll make Charlottesville look like Sunday brunch.
This is fairly basic stuff. Murder, rape and theft aren't illegal because they're a no no in some vague moral code. They're literal physical violence carried out on other humans. Playing too many video games is not. Throw in respect for property rights and you've more or less got your line.
CW style infractions are completely different. They work here because this is a private site, and the owner has trusted a team of moderators to enforce rules that will (all going well) foster a specific social environment for what amounts to a specific group of people. This is merely an extension of the enforcing of moral codes between individuals. You don't automatically get a say in how the site is run because it isn't your property and no one has any power to coerce you in any way other than how you conduct yourself on this site. Nothing wrong with a private site having rules we wouldn't want to give to the empire.
It should be obvious at this point that I vigorously disagree with you.
You should be grateful that the consequences are limited to some people disagreeing with you, rather than being publicly branded an untrustworthy individual or worse.
Victor Ian
Well-known member
I appreciate your views. I just wanted to hear other thoughts rather than my own musings on the subject. It seems to me, that one way or another, that we ARE going to be judged to the micro level on everything that is done. If for no other reason than everything we do is becoming public domain, which is unavoidable, short of going bush.
When things become unavoidable, I believe it is better to have a government (after proper public debate) legislate the scope and limitations rather than leave something like this to the people. This will need legislature, at some point, and that has always been the domain of the government. We currently have a mess with Face Book, the Media and Twitter, Credit History agencies, among others, all free to publicly shame people, all done by unelected people. Many of those examples cited in the article, I agree, seem like a step too far. However, it is no use hiding your head in the sand and saying "Naughty China" while ignoring that we are headed in a seemingly unavoidable similar direction. Keep in mind, that the supposed scope of this thing relates to what is already law. Taking kickbacks under the counter? That is already prohibited and punishable. Speeding? Already prohibited and punishable. This is just preparing a system to openly deal with the fact that this information is becoming accessible by everyone and setting guidelines for how people should react.
You are wrong that the ramifications are limited to some people disagreeing with you. We already have accounts of people being fired from their jobs for opinions said outside the scope of their job. We have accounts of people being shamed, and having all their personal details made public, effectively running them out of their lives, due to some overzealous warriors. The Chinese system would have provided flashing lights before things got to these stages. An unmanaged system has no warning lights. One day you wake up 'dead'. Harsh has pointed out that business now scours whatever they can to determine whether you are suitable for jobs. How long until universities do the same? How long until supermarkets determine who gets priority on food? In our system, there is no reward for good deeds, yet evil China has this? How so?
I wasn't trying to compare CW infractions. That was just a choice of word for which I didn't consider the obvious association. I just meant infraction in terms of the subject at hand. CW can do whatever they like (and they currently do it well)
Whilst I am currently grateful that consequences are limited to people disagreeing with me, I can see a day coming where this will not be the case. That is exactly what I am considering when asking whether social moulding is necessarily a bad thing and, consequently, how this should be dealt with and to what extent. This is not a progression that is going to end well with self regulation. It is going to need to be limited by government intervention, on our behalf, to limit what is 'right and wrong'. Personally, I'd tilt towards the limitation being placed upon the collection and use of information. However I think this will not happen. Perhaps, society will revolt and stop using every site that collects information. Perhaps it is too late as this power is already largely centralised and able to flex it's might against competitors. Too often competitors are just bought out and join the system.
For what it's worth, because some conflate my contentious ideas with my beliefs, I just do that to get some meaningful discussion. This thread was going to teach me nothing if I just agreed with everyone and said "Naughty China". I pretty much agree with you, except for thinking it unavoidable for our own governments to soon get involved to limit this, and I'm afraid without answering the question of what levels of social moulding are acceptable, they will make a mess of it, like China appears to be doing.
When things become unavoidable, I believe it is better to have a government (after proper public debate) legislate the scope and limitations rather than leave something like this to the people. This will need legislature, at some point, and that has always been the domain of the government. We currently have a mess with Face Book, the Media and Twitter, Credit History agencies, among others, all free to publicly shame people, all done by unelected people. Many of those examples cited in the article, I agree, seem like a step too far. However, it is no use hiding your head in the sand and saying "Naughty China" while ignoring that we are headed in a seemingly unavoidable similar direction. Keep in mind, that the supposed scope of this thing relates to what is already law. Taking kickbacks under the counter? That is already prohibited and punishable. Speeding? Already prohibited and punishable. This is just preparing a system to openly deal with the fact that this information is becoming accessible by everyone and setting guidelines for how people should react.
You are wrong that the ramifications are limited to some people disagreeing with you. We already have accounts of people being fired from their jobs for opinions said outside the scope of their job. We have accounts of people being shamed, and having all their personal details made public, effectively running them out of their lives, due to some overzealous warriors. The Chinese system would have provided flashing lights before things got to these stages. An unmanaged system has no warning lights. One day you wake up 'dead'. Harsh has pointed out that business now scours whatever they can to determine whether you are suitable for jobs. How long until universities do the same? How long until supermarkets determine who gets priority on food? In our system, there is no reward for good deeds, yet evil China has this? How so?
I wasn't trying to compare CW infractions. That was just a choice of word for which I didn't consider the obvious association. I just meant infraction in terms of the subject at hand. CW can do whatever they like (and they currently do it well)
Whilst I am currently grateful that consequences are limited to people disagreeing with me, I can see a day coming where this will not be the case. That is exactly what I am considering when asking whether social moulding is necessarily a bad thing and, consequently, how this should be dealt with and to what extent. This is not a progression that is going to end well with self regulation. It is going to need to be limited by government intervention, on our behalf, to limit what is 'right and wrong'. Personally, I'd tilt towards the limitation being placed upon the collection and use of information. However I think this will not happen. Perhaps, society will revolt and stop using every site that collects information. Perhaps it is too late as this power is already largely centralised and able to flex it's might against competitors. Too often competitors are just bought out and join the system.
For what it's worth, because some conflate my contentious ideas with my beliefs, I just do that to get some meaningful discussion. This thread was going to teach me nothing if I just agreed with everyone and said "Naughty China". I pretty much agree with you, except for thinking it unavoidable for our own governments to soon get involved to limit this, and I'm afraid without answering the question of what levels of social moulding are acceptable, they will make a mess of it, like China appears to be doing.