4 ms·

But in the Chinese system, your number goes down if someone you're friends with on social media makes a post that the Chinese government deems politically unsav

But in the Chinese system, your number goes down if someone you're friends with on social media makes a post that the Chinese government deems politically unsavory

platinumrad 8y ago
This is true in the west as well. Especially now in 2018, if someone you're even tangentially connected to does something deemed to be unsavory you are expected to immediately and forcefully disavow them or face the social consequences. Even then, you still may be tainted by association.
- tropdrop 8y ago
  When uncle Joe in Utah posts a racist rant on Facebook, I don't get penalized. Even if he posts a political rant or conspiracy theory, I don't get penalized. I can and do still remain friends with him on this social media channel without consequence.
  - platinumrad 8y ago
    I've actually seen a lot of calls on social media to completely cut off racist family members in the last year. Could be a difference between our relative social circles. More generally, if you're Facebook friends with or a Twitter follower of someone of interest to the state security services, like a radical Islamic preacher for example, do you really not think that is being recorded somewhere?
  - 8note 8y ago
    racist uncle Joe doesn't get penalised either, so I don't think it's an apt comparison
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "This is true in the west as well. Especially now in 2018, if someone you're even tangentially connected to does something deemed to be unsavory you are expected to immediately and forcefully disavow them or face the social consequences. Even then, you still may be tainted by association." No, this is generally not true. Unless you're a public figure and only then in specific circumstances. Almost nobody holds people accountable for what their friends do. Bill Clinton's brother was a drug dealer. Barak Obama's father was a kind of unsavoury deadbeat dad. I suppose both of them would have had nary enough 'social credit' to become President. Also - it's borderline shocking to hear a casual defence of this system. Theoretically yes, I can see a rhetorical argument, but in practice it's pretty scary. In America people do have 'credit scores' but that's generally a more open thing, and you still get to vote and ride the subway if you have low credit score.
  - platinumrad 8y ago
    Please point out where I am actually defending the PRC's various "social credit" systems rather than criticizing the west for having similar systems of social control. Speaking of Clinton, is "immediately and forcefully disavow" not exactly what his Sister Souljah moment was? Ditto for Obama's Jeremiah Wright moment.
    - kizer 8y ago
      The big difference is that in the west, the public is the judge of your social standing... NOT the government. The government is an institution of power. Imagine the IRS targeting people with a low social points level because they might be more likely to cheat on their taxes. People should be able to say whatever they want and be judged by the public, but not parented by the government.
- kizer 8y ago
  Uh, no? People who know you or the person associated may judge you negatively, but the US government will not penalize you and affect which public services you can use. It's a tremendous difference...
  - 8note 8y ago
    depends what you mean by penalize. the US government doesn't give sufficient services that you can live just fine without a good credit score, so in essence, it is penalizing you. it's just a distributed punishment
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

But in the Chinese system, your number goes down if someone you're friends with on social media makes a post that the Chinese government deems politically unsavory

platinumrad 8y ago

This is true in the west as well. Especially now in 2018, if someone you're even tangentially connected to does something deemed to be unsavory you are expected to immediately and forcefully disavow them or face the social consequences. Even then, you still may be tainted by association.

tropdrop 8y ago
When uncle Joe in Utah posts a racist rant on Facebook, I don't get penalized. Even if he posts a political rant or conspiracy theory, I don't get penalized. I can and do still remain friends with him on this social media channel without consequence.
- platinumrad 8y ago
  I've actually seen a lot of calls on social media to completely cut off racist family members in the last year. Could be a difference between our relative social circles. More generally, if you're Facebook friends with or a Twitter follower of someone of interest to the state security services, like a radical Islamic preacher for example, do you really not think that is being recorded somewhere?
- 8note 8y ago
  racist uncle Joe doesn't get penalised either, so I don't think it's an apt comparison
sonnyblarney 8y ago
"This is true in the west as well. Especially now in 2018, if someone you're even tangentially connected to does something deemed to be unsavory you are expected to immediately and forcefully disavow them or face the social consequences. Even then, you still may be tainted by association." No, this is generally not true. Unless you're a public figure and only then in specific circumstances. Almost nobody holds people accountable for what their friends do. Bill Clinton's brother was a drug dealer. Barak Obama's father was a kind of unsavoury deadbeat dad. I suppose both of them would have had nary enough 'social credit' to become President. Also - it's borderline shocking to hear a casual defence of this system. Theoretically yes, I can see a rhetorical argument, but in practice it's pretty scary. In America people do have 'credit scores' but that's generally a more open thing, and you still get to vote and ride the subway if you have low credit score.
- platinumrad 8y ago
  Please point out where I am actually defending the PRC's various "social credit" systems rather than criticizing the west for having similar systems of social control. Speaking of Clinton, is "immediately and forcefully disavow" not exactly what his Sister Souljah moment was? Ditto for Obama's Jeremiah Wright moment.
  - kizer 8y ago
    The big difference is that in the west, the public is the judge of your social standing... NOT the government. The government is an institution of power. Imagine the IRS targeting people with a low social points level because they might be more likely to cheat on their taxes. People should be able to say whatever they want and be judged by the public, but not parented by the government.
kizer 8y ago
Uh, no? People who know you or the person associated may judge you negatively, but the US government will not penalize you and affect which public services you can use. It's a tremendous difference...
- 8note 8y ago
  depends what you mean by penalize. the US government doesn't give sufficient services that you can live just fine without a good credit score, so in essence, it is penalizing you. it's just a distributed punishment

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]