Totalitarianism gone mad AKA the China thread

[Ausage]

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.

In what way are Facebook and Twitter "unelected"? They're entirely optional components of your life. You literally elect them every time you log in. Compare that to casing a single vote among tens of millions every 3-4 years for someone who probably won't even do what they promise when they get in. Our line of feedback to these companies is far more direct. We have far more control over the actions of the Facebooks of the world than we do our governments.

Even if you accept that government should be involved in ensuring its citizens are able to navigate the internet more freely, the position you're taking is so obviously the wrong way to go about it. Legislation around what companies can store on individuals would at least be consistent with that from an aims perspective (though I personally wouldn't be in favour). I said it before but you're advocating for petrol on the fire, a cure worse than the disease etc.

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?

No I'm not wrong. I can still post (more or less) entirely anonymously on the internet. If I start posting offensive nonsense on CW I risk my CW access, not my job, my family, my personal relationships etc. The absolute majority of people who have received real world ramifications for their online ideas are people who have tied their online persona with their offline identity. They've de-anonymised themselves. How can you possibly think de-anonymising everyone will make this problem better? Morality will still exist, it will still vary widely among the citizenry and people will still push it's boundaries.

And "Tsk tsk, naughty China" isn't a good summation of what's going on here (at least for me). "Damn that's ****ed up, we need to make sure we don't give the state that kind of power in <country I'm living in>" is a far better one.

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.

I can see a day coming where that will not be the case. It will come much much faster if people who make the argument you're making have their way.

Social moulding is necessary. That's why my I'm spending time on a cricket forum arguing against terrible ideas. It's these changes to attitudes need to occur at the ground level, rather than be imposed from above.

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.

Uh, wut?

Here's a thought. Don't be a coward just to avoid conflict. You've made extensive arguments along these lines over several posts now. Just own what you're thinking.

 

[Burgey]

The Chinese have always been ahead of the game. I think it's laudable their government cares so much about its citizens that it wants to steer them in the right direction.

 

[Spark]

We have far more control over the actions of the Facebooks of the world than we do our governments.

I have no problems with the rest of your post but this is just patently untrue, no? What evidence is there for this actually having happened?

Maybe if there was a mechanism for users to explicitly force a spill of all executive/board level positions within a short time frame, then sure.

 

[Ausage]

I have no problems with the rest of your post but this is just patently untrue, no? What evidence is there for this actually having happened?

Maybe if there was a mechanism for users to explicitly force a spill of all executive/board level positions within a short time frame, then sure.

It's stemming from the line of thinking that Facebook (or any private corporation) has to more closely align with your needs than a politician because they need your "vote" every day, while a politician needs it once every few years. If Facebook made decisions that lost them 75% of their userbase in a week you can be damn sure the issue would be resolved quickly.

Now, you could argue that their users don't exercise that power anywhere near often enough, but that's different to them not having it.

 

[Ausage]

The Chinese have always been ahead of the game. I think it's laudable their government cares so much about its citizens that it wants to steer them in the right direction.

You're consistent Burgey. I'll give you that.

 

[Spark]

It's stemming from the line of thinking that Facebook (or any private corporation) has to more closely align with your needs than a politician because they need your "vote" every day, while a politician needs it once every few years. If Facebook made decisions that lost them 75% of their userbase in a week you can be damn sure the issue would be resolved quickly.

Now, you could argue that their users don't exercise that power anywhere near often enough, but that's different to them not having it.

What practical decisions could result in this, though, being realistic? In theory sure but in the universe of the possible what you're suggesting here seems profoundly unlikely.

 

[Ausage]

What practical decisions could result in this, though, being realistic? In theory sure but in the universe of the possible what you're suggesting here seems profoundly unlikely.

75% in a week is fantastical sure. But it's not that hard to think of things they could do that would cause their market share to decrease to the level that would force change on the company. They just don't do them because they know we have the power to punish them.

I actually think a Chinese style social credit score would do it to some degree. I think that would turn enough people off that a viable competitor would gain significant market share. I'd even go as far as to say that's why FB hasn't implemented something like that, they'd have the technology.

EDIT: Or better yet, how about promoting the platform as a friendly to far-right ideology? There's no doubt a market among the far right for a friendly platform for them to socialise, likewise advertisers. They don't because the feedback from their users would be so direct that they'd suffer immediate (and likely long-lasting) material repercussions.

 

[Victor Ian]

...

Social moulding is necessary. That's why my I'm spending time on a cricket forum arguing against terrible ideas. It's these changes to attitudes need to occur at the ground level, rather than be imposed from above.


Here's a thought. Don't be a coward just to avoid conflict. You've made extensive arguments along these lines over several posts now. Just own what you're thinking.

I wish to know where the line is in useful social moulding. You agree that it is necessary, but I'm sure you also agree 'within limits'. What are those limits?

You answered my post full of heat. I'm just trying to disarm and find middle ground to discuss the actual question. But if you need me to own it, I own it. There is nothing wrong with my core question, which has been avoided to go on rant.

 

[Burgey]

I agree with Ausage that social moulding is necessary, which is why I'm putting myself forward to vet voters before they're allowed to cast a ballot. I also think the Liberal Party here should keep talking about the things which really matter to everyday Australians, like watering down the Racial Discrimination Act, and preserving religious #freedoms in the face of creeping social Marxism. It's working a treat, and it's not at all the case that people who give a **** about that type of thing basically don't have a real-world concern to deal with in their own lives.

 

[Ausage]

I wish to know where the line is in useful social moulding. You agree that it is necessary, but I'm sure you also agree 'within limits'. What are those limits?

You answered my post full of heat. I'm just trying to disarm and find middle ground to discuss the actual question. But if you need me to own it, I own it. There is nothing wrong with my core question, which has been avoided to go on rant.

The line is where you want it to be for you and your social circles. For others it will be the same. If you feel strongly enough, your line might involve being against morality based online witch hunts. Its your job to move the needle on that in your sphere of influence. You've then engaged in social moulding and no one needed to be kidnapped and locked in a cage for thought crimes.

And there's much less heat here than you think. I encounter ideas and I comment on them. I just think the idea of a government enforced moral code is a terrible idea. That's not a comment on you personally.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

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/

this seems more like at a satirical poke at the censors to me

 

[OverratedSanity]

Not surprised since it's China and all. It's like that episode of black mirror but somehow more horrifying.

 

[Victor Ian]

The line is where you want it to be for you and your social circles. For others it will be the same. If you feel strongly enough, your line might involve being against morality based online witch hunts. Its your job to move the needle on that in your sphere of influence. You've then engaged in social moulding and no one needed to be kidnapped and locked in a cage for thought crimes.

And there's much less heat here than you think. I encounter ideas and I comment on them. I just think the idea of a government enforced moral code is a terrible idea. That's not a comment on you personally.

I don't think being kidnapped and locked in a cage for thought crimes is part of the social credits system. Punishments are merely loss of privileges and only extend to what is already law That is something else entirely, that most would agree is wrong.

A government enforced moral code is a great idea. We have it here. It's called the law. But I get that you don't want the laws to extend further into people's choices. Fair enough.

I tried to imagine some laws to add for further moral moulding of Australia, though it turns out they are already laws here, and punishable, in one way or another. Don't spit. Don't litter. Don't piss on the pavement. Definitely don't take a crap on it. The problem is that these laws go unpunished, whether that be because the police get too much hate for enforcing them or because they are too menial for the disproportionate fines, I'm not sure.

Out here, the common solution for breaking a small law is that they fine you. I don't like a fine based punishment system as it creates a funding incentive for the enforcers to hand out fines and their is no leniency for 'oops'.. It makes that state financially dependent on people breaking the law, which is kind of ironic. It also has no effect on the wealthy. The part of the China system that appealed to me, that we could use out here, is that of having a few strikes up your sleeve before you are punished for small misdemeanours. It has a warning system built into it and everyone loves warnings. Throw littler, it's a strike. Spit where people walk, it's a strike. Something else - NOW you've tipped the threshold and get a non financial punishment. That actually sounds very doable, for very beneficial cultural (or moral) results and requires, in the end, less direct punishment.

 

[Spark]

I don't think being kidnapped and locked in a cage for thought crimes is part of the social credits system.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/25/us/politics/china-exit-ban.html

China's state ideology is increasingly the straightforward and absolute supremacy of the state. Why wouldn't it do that?

Not to mention the sweeping policy of locking up an entire ethnic group on what essentially amounts to quote-unquote "thought crimes".

 

[NZTailender]

Not surprised since it's China and all. It's like that episode of Community but somehow less amusing.

Fixed for accuracy.

 

[Victor Ian]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/25/us/politics/china-exit-ban.html

China's state ideology is increasingly the straightforward and absolute supremacy of the state. Why wouldn't it do that?

Not to mention the sweeping policy of locking up an entire ethnic group on what essentially amounts to quote-unquote "thought crimes".

Kidnapping is NOT part of the social credit system. That is something else, and completely wrong. Isn't THAT what I pretty much said.

FMD, way to miss the point because of a hard on of China hate. It sometimes appears to prevent you from understanding what is actually written.

 

[Ausage]

Kidnapping is NOT part of the social credit system. That is something else, and completely wrong. Isn't THAT what I pretty much said.

FMD, way to miss the point because of a hard on of China hate. It sometimes appears to prevent you from understanding what is actually written.

So what happens if I don't want to be a part of this system? In China you don't have the option, because your online activity is tied to your real identity.

Don't bother with "it'd be different in a modern, western democracy" either. Other than further overheating of the political climate I simply don't believe you.

 

[Burgey]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/25/us/politics/china-exit-ban.html

China's state ideology is increasingly the straightforward and absolute supremacy of the state. Why wouldn't it do that?

Not to mention the sweeping policy of locking up an entire ethnic group on what essentially amounts to quote-unquote "thought crimes".

Every now and again people need the guiding hand of the State to help them along. If they're ungrateful for it or show insufficient gratitude, then it's incumbent on the State to take further action.

 

[Ausage]

I can't wait for Burgey to be labelled a subversive by the Latham government for suggesting people should be allowed to unionise.

I mean, I'll still defend him because I'm actually consistent, but damn if the irony won't be just a little bit tasty.

 

[Spark]

So what happens if I don't want to be a part of this system? In China you don't have the option, because your online activity is tied to your real identity.

Don't bother with "it'd be different in a modern, western democracy" either. Other than further overheating of the political climate I simply don't believe you.

I do think it'd be different in a modern western democracy tbh, but for very different reasons here. Mostly I don't think such a system would be politically feasible in this design, and the risks would be different (more along the lines of data security first and foremost).

Kidnapping is NOT part of the social credit system. That is something else, and completely wrong. Isn't THAT what I pretty much said.

FMD, way to miss the point because of a hard on of China hate. It sometimes appears to prevent you from understanding what is actually written.

But they aren't separate at all. The social credit system, mass incarcerations and movement restrictions - the underlying logic is identical, that the individual must be entirely in subsurvience to the (Han) Chinese state. You can't separate the two here.