4 ms·

I'm so deeply disappointed by the Chinese people right now. Here China has an opportunity to enter the 21st century as a the world's most rapidly improving coun

I'm so deeply disappointed by the Chinese people right now. Here China has an opportunity to enter the 21st century as a the world's most rapidly improving country with the world's biggest economy. Instead, this is the absolute worst of American-style private contractor bullshit (private prisons, etc.), rolled up with the absolute worst of Chinese-style opacity and oppressiveness. Who on earth would think that a hidden (known to few) objective function for being a good citizen would help create a better society? Why would anyone think that the private sector in China is even remotely transparent or credible enough to hold this kind of responsibility? Who on earth believes that China has the ability to administer this system with even a modicum of fairness (that might not be a shared value, to be fair)? Nothing is black and white on this earth, and I genuinely hope this can work, but I think it is a transparently awful idea and I am disappointed in any group of people who would yoke themselves to it. [edit] It's the worst of neither American private contractor bullshit or Chinese oppressiveness and opacity, that's a deep dark well that it would be pretty tough to scrape the bottom of. It's a crude fusion of both, and it's going to hurt a lot of people in ways little and big, but it isn't the worst of either.

duncan_bayne 9y ago
Keep an eye on that Second Amendment of yours. Odds on anyone wanting to try something like this would want to disarm you first.
- jknoepfler 9y ago
  I've never really understood liberal opposition to the possession of firearms in the United States, given the country's founding principles. That said, I'd be more concerned about the right to vote, the right of the free press, the 10th amendment (which why aren't people more angry about?), the right to privacy as currently understood by the courts, and the fact that class-action lawsuits on behalf of people harmed unlawfully by such a system would cripple any corporate version of it. I don't really understand the political spectrum in the United States, tbh. Obviously you need to be willing to take up arms against an oppressive federal government, should such a thing happen (and who would be deluded enough to think that a military coup would be categorically impossible in any country - if not now, what about a century from now?)
  - vermilingua 9y ago
    If you can’t fault the US for it’s gun laws based on its founding (which was violent revolution), then you surely can’t fault China’s human right abuses, because they are similarly a product of its founding.
    - sakuronto 9y ago
      Pardon the ignorance, but how exactly are human rights abuses part of China's foundation?
  - tdb7893 9y ago
    You need to be willing to take up arms against a government if the need arises but there's a line in how much harm you are willing to inflict now to make that happen. For an absurd example chemical weapons would help to fight an oppressive government but even if they weren't against international law it would be a little silly if they were legal for normal citizens to own.
  - bsder 9y ago
    > I've never really understood liberal opposition to the possession of firearms in the United States, given the country's founding principles. You are making an unjustified leap in assuming that "liberals" are in opposition to owning firearms. Most liberals have no real problem with people owning guns. You don't hear the vast majority of people clamoring to ban hunting rifles or shotguns. What most people (liberal and conservative) want are sensible regulations to prevent the genuinely mentally ill or disturbed from getting guns and ammo. The problem is that the NRA plays outrage politics in order generate funding for itself and this short circuits any useful discussion. Although, it is looking like the NRA has just been functioning as a Russian stooge for quite a while now. As for opposing a coup? That's gonna be tough. The US is BIG. No amount of firearms in Arizona is going to help opposition in Washington DC to fight off a coup.
- dang 9y ago
  Please don't break the HN guidelines by introducing flamewar topics. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - duncan_bayne 9y ago
    It's _highly_ relevant to this issue. Perhaps I should have been more explicit, but: it's my opinion (one widely shared) that one of the reasons this sort of programme hasn't taken root in the USA already is that your Constitution effectively prohibits it. In principle with the entire document, and in practice with the 2nd. Furthermore, I think that both the 1st and 2nd Amendments act as handy mineshaft canaries. You should mistrust the motivations of anyone who seeks to abrogate either.
    - ybrah 9y ago
      why do some comments look invisible :thinking emoji:
    - nrb 9y ago
      Not sure what you're talking about... nothing in our Constitution prevents this outright. This is already in action to some degree in the US: employers are already able to use criminal background, public records, and (in many places) credit checks to make hiring decisions. The difference is that it's primarily private companies doing this research/scoring and some states have protections in place for prospective employees. The 2nd amendment does nothing about these private companies using your information to limit your career options (indirectly restricting your free movement.) Anyone taking arms to protest this would rightly be considered a terrorist in the eyes of the law.
  - Nomentatus 9y ago
    I don't think he's introduced a new topic - clearly relevant. And I'm on the other side, mind. I'm not from the U.S., I don't agree with Jefferson that guns are necessary for liberty, don't own a gun and likely never will... but I understand that Jefferson would and did point to the ease of armed revolution as being necessary to avoid such oppressive govt behavior. It's not off-topic, and it was a new thought to me: I hadn't made the connection, perhaps only because I'm not an American.
wilsonthewhale 9y ago
You're implying that the people have any choice in this.
8note 9y ago
none of those things preclude it from being the world's most rapidly improving country, nor being the world's biggest economy.
Nomentatus 9y ago
Xi suffered during the "Cultural Revolution," so he must honestly believe this system won't progress to the same ugly state; but how that sort of mission creep could be prevented over decades hasn't been mentioned (to my knowledge) and may never even have been discussed. Perhaps Xi sees the period of the Cultural Revolution as a time when there was an absence of sufficient bureaucracy, and is therefore predisposed to view red tape (pardon the pun), control and rigidly-defined rule systems quite favorably, therefore. To him, highly-defined systems of control may seem to be the opposite of oppression since they eliminate anarchy (of the kind he experienced back then.) But rules systems can end up being highly arbitrary too, of course, especially over time. A sufficiently convoluted bureaucratic system bluntly or sloppily implemented can be anarchic (random) in its effects. Witness the Canadian policy of refusing to allow babies to board airplanes if they have the same name as someone on the "no fly list," since the rules don't make an explicit exception for babies.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  Xi suffered during the cultural revolution but was also deeply shaped by it. For example, most of his education got cut, and he was only able to get a nominal education afterwards (the first Chinese president to not even bother practicing as a non-official). Xi is basically part of the lost generation that is severely limited compared to those before and after it. The next generation of Chinese leaders will be the first modern ones to have been completely untouched by Maoism. Well, that’s assuming they are allowed to take power...
  - Nomentatus 9y ago
    Indeed, I've never known anyone who lived through the Cultural Revolution as an adult who wasn't left with a deep visceral emotional reaction to it. Even those few who got through untouched knew the axe could fall at any time.
Latteland 9y ago
The people don't have a choice, and the leaders want to maintain control. if they maintain control, and growth continues for a while, I think they are okay with it.
powerapple 9y ago
exactly, so don't view this system as black and white. It is not if (social_credit < threshold) {}.

duncan_bayne 9y ago

Keep an eye on that Second Amendment of yours. Odds on anyone wanting to try something like this would want to disarm you first.

jknoepfler 9y ago
I've never really understood liberal opposition to the possession of firearms in the United States, given the country's founding principles. That said, I'd be more concerned about the right to vote, the right of the free press, the 10th amendment (which why aren't people more angry about?), the right to privacy as currently understood by the courts, and the fact that class-action lawsuits on behalf of people harmed unlawfully by such a system would cripple any corporate version of it. I don't really understand the political spectrum in the United States, tbh. Obviously you need to be willing to take up arms against an oppressive federal government, should such a thing happen (and who would be deluded enough to think that a military coup would be categorically impossible in any country - if not now, what about a century from now?)
- vermilingua 9y ago
  If you can’t fault the US for it’s gun laws based on its founding (which was violent revolution), then you surely can’t fault China’s human right abuses, because they are similarly a product of its founding.
  - sakuronto 9y ago
    Pardon the ignorance, but how exactly are human rights abuses part of China's foundation?
- tdb7893 9y ago
  You need to be willing to take up arms against a government if the need arises but there's a line in how much harm you are willing to inflict now to make that happen. For an absurd example chemical weapons would help to fight an oppressive government but even if they weren't against international law it would be a little silly if they were legal for normal citizens to own.
- bsder 9y ago
  > I've never really understood liberal opposition to the possession of firearms in the United States, given the country's founding principles. You are making an unjustified leap in assuming that "liberals" are in opposition to owning firearms. Most liberals have no real problem with people owning guns. You don't hear the vast majority of people clamoring to ban hunting rifles or shotguns. What most people (liberal and conservative) want are sensible regulations to prevent the genuinely mentally ill or disturbed from getting guns and ammo. The problem is that the NRA plays outrage politics in order generate funding for itself and this short circuits any useful discussion. Although, it is looking like the NRA has just been functioning as a Russian stooge for quite a while now. As for opposing a coup? That's gonna be tough. The US is BIG. No amount of firearms in Arizona is going to help opposition in Washington DC to fight off a coup.
dang 9y ago
Please don't break the HN guidelines by introducing flamewar topics. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- duncan_bayne 9y ago
  It's _highly_ relevant to this issue. Perhaps I should have been more explicit, but: it's my opinion (one widely shared) that one of the reasons this sort of programme hasn't taken root in the USA already is that your Constitution effectively prohibits it. In principle with the entire document, and in practice with the 2nd. Furthermore, I think that both the 1st and 2nd Amendments act as handy mineshaft canaries. You should mistrust the motivations of anyone who seeks to abrogate either.
  - ybrah 9y ago
    why do some comments look invisible :thinking emoji:
  - nrb 9y ago
    Not sure what you're talking about... nothing in our Constitution prevents this outright. This is already in action to some degree in the US: employers are already able to use criminal background, public records, and (in many places) credit checks to make hiring decisions. The difference is that it's primarily private companies doing this research/scoring and some states have protections in place for prospective employees. The 2nd amendment does nothing about these private companies using your information to limit your career options (indirectly restricting your free movement.) Anyone taking arms to protest this would rightly be considered a terrorist in the eyes of the law.
- Nomentatus 9y ago
  I don't think he's introduced a new topic - clearly relevant. And I'm on the other side, mind. I'm not from the U.S., I don't agree with Jefferson that guns are necessary for liberty, don't own a gun and likely never will... but I understand that Jefferson would and did point to the ease of armed revolution as being necessary to avoid such oppressive govt behavior. It's not off-topic, and it was a new thought to me: I hadn't made the connection, perhaps only because I'm not an American.

wilsonthewhale 9y ago

You're implying that the people have any choice in this.

8note 9y ago

none of those things preclude it from being the world's most rapidly improving country, nor being the world's biggest economy.

Nomentatus 9y ago

Xi suffered during the "Cultural Revolution," so he must honestly believe this system won't progress to the same ugly state; but how that sort of mission creep could be prevented over decades hasn't been mentioned (to my knowledge) and may never even have been discussed. Perhaps Xi sees the period of the Cultural Revolution as a time when there was an absence of sufficient bureaucracy, and is therefore predisposed to view red tape (pardon the pun), control and rigidly-defined rule systems quite favorably, therefore. To him, highly-defined systems of control may seem to be the opposite of oppression since they eliminate anarchy (of the kind he experienced back then.) But rules systems can end up being highly arbitrary too, of course, especially over time. A sufficiently convoluted bureaucratic system bluntly or sloppily implemented can be anarchic (random) in its effects. Witness the Canadian policy of refusing to allow babies to board airplanes if they have the same name as someone on the "no fly list," since the rules don't make an explicit exception for babies.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago
Xi suffered during the cultural revolution but was also deeply shaped by it. For example, most of his education got cut, and he was only able to get a nominal education afterwards (the first Chinese president to not even bother practicing as a non-official). Xi is basically part of the lost generation that is severely limited compared to those before and after it. The next generation of Chinese leaders will be the first modern ones to have been completely untouched by Maoism. Well, that’s assuming they are allowed to take power...
- Nomentatus 9y ago
  Indeed, I've never known anyone who lived through the Cultural Revolution as an adult who wasn't left with a deep visceral emotional reaction to it. Even those few who got through untouched knew the axe could fall at any time.

Latteland 9y ago

The people don't have a choice, and the leaders want to maintain control. if they maintain control, and growth continues for a while, I think they are okay with it.

powerapple 9y ago

exactly, so don't view this system as black and white. It is not if (social_credit < threshold) {}.