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.
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.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...king-blacklisted-beijing-points-a8646316.html
Almost does deserve it's own thread though.
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.Big data was always going to lead to this. China just does it in a straightforward manner without pontificating and feeling shame.
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.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.
Not sure if you read all of the articleSure, 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.
This is clearly well beyond the realm of financial/debtor credibility and well into the realm of Don't Be a DissidentPeople are awarded credit points for activities such as undertaking volunteer work and giving blood donations while those who violate traffic laws and charge “under-the-table” fees are punished.
Other infractions reportedly include smoking in non-smoking zones, buying too many video games and posting fake news online.
Of course it's bad. It's astonishing to me that this is even a question.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.
Oh yeah. I agree.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
- 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 detestableOh 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.
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.Of course it's bad. It's astonishing to me that this is even a question.
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'.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"?
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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'.
It should be obvious at this point that I vigorously disagree with you.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.