4 ms·

Orwellian and insane as fuck. Who decides what is a “credit” and what is a “debt?” What recourse or due-process do people have to challenge this evidence-free,

Orwellian and insane as fuck. Who decides what is a “credit” and what is a “debt?” What recourse or due-process do people have to challenge this evidence-free, glorified thought-policing? Those were rhetorical questions because this sort of whole social-engineering is totalitarian, ludicrous and the textbook definition of evil; also look at internet and media censorship, Xi installing himself as Emperor, lack of property rights and the supposedly “anti-corruption” campaign. What shred of moral authority can one have when they install themselves as supreme dictator?

gooien201807 8y ago
Exactly. This is horrifying. Another insane situation is the US drone program's Social Credit Kill List [1], > In 2014, former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden said in a public debate, “We kill people based on metadata.” > According to multiple reports and leaks, death-by-metadata could be triggered, without even knowing the target’s name, if too many derogatory checks appear on their profile. “Armed military aged males” exhibiting suspicious behavior in the wrong place can become targets, as can someone “seen to be giving out orders.” Such mathematics-based assassinations have come to be known as “signature strikes.” > “When I learned about signature strikes, that was incredible,” Faisal says. “If the criteria is being armed or having a beard – that is everyone in Yemen.” Governments need to be more transparent on how social credits are "credited" and "debited". 1. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/how-to-survive-americas-kill-list-699334/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/how-...
- mlthoughts2018 8y ago
  Thank you for sharing that Rolling Stone link. It is harrowing and absolutely terrifying, and indeed a clear and irrefutable description of how the U.S. has already been using a form of algorithmic social credit system for years to select assassination targets in the middle east. Highly relevant for a thread like this one duscussing additional (less lethal) types of damage from social credit systems.
est 8y ago
> Who decides what is a “credit” and what is a “debt?” What recourse or due-process do people have to challenge this evidence-free, glorified thought-policing? While I agree that the whole "credit system" is nonsense, but for this particular question, I'd blame bad journalism.

gooien201807 8y ago

Exactly. This is horrifying. Another insane situation is the US drone program's Social Credit Kill List [1], > In 2014, former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden said in a public debate, “We kill people based on metadata.” > According to multiple reports and leaks, death-by-metadata could be triggered, without even knowing the target’s name, if too many derogatory checks appear on their profile. “Armed military aged males” exhibiting suspicious behavior in the wrong place can become targets, as can someone “seen to be giving out orders.” Such mathematics-based assassinations have come to be known as “signature strikes.” > “When I learned about signature strikes, that was incredible,” Faisal says. “If the criteria is being armed or having a beard – that is everyone in Yemen.” Governments need to be more transparent on how social credits are "credited" and "debited". 1. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/how-to-survive-americas-kill-list-699334/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/how-...

mlthoughts2018 8y ago
Thank you for sharing that Rolling Stone link. It is harrowing and absolutely terrifying, and indeed a clear and irrefutable description of how the U.S. has already been using a form of algorithmic social credit system for years to select assassination targets in the middle east. Highly relevant for a thread like this one duscussing additional (less lethal) types of damage from social credit systems.

est 8y ago

> Who decides what is a “credit” and what is a “debt?” What recourse or due-process do people have to challenge this evidence-free, glorified thought-policing? While I agree that the whole "credit system" is nonsense, but for this particular question, I'd blame bad journalism.