3 ms·

I think this is a horrible idea. Just imagine how many times we have been wrong in our judgement of the behaviour of citizens. What would the social credit sco

I think this is a horrible idea. Just imagine how many times we have been wrong in our judgement of the behaviour of citizens. What would the social credit score of Ghandi or Martin Luther Kind have been, at the time of their prominent actions? We have proven time and time again that there is no sure way to judge how "social and acceptable" something is, and the value of a behaviour to our society. What is seen as "unsocial" today may be applauded by historians in the future.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
RustySpottedCat 8y ago
Yes but saying "screw the government" on social media today, doesn't really matter if it's going to be applauded in the future, it's still going to be aimed at the government, which is the whole point of the system.
- yurie_breschnef 8y ago
  Could you elaborate?
FundThrowaway 8y ago
I'm pretty sure that's half of the point, stop any radicals from forming large followings.
- mtgx 8y ago
  Where radical means those that those the people in power in any way.
ag71668 8y ago
> What would the social credit score of Ghandi or Martin Luther Kind have been, at the time of their prominent actions? Their scores would be low. That's the whole point of these systems. Surveillance and these metrics were never about making the world a better place, they're about identifying threats to the status quo so that they can be neutralized before they become impactful. A government's definition of 'terrorist' or 'threat' is not some shady guy that wants to blow up a train station, it's literally anyone who is a credible threat to how the current system runs, anyone who could conceivably change things in a manner not approved by those currently in power. You talk about Martin Luther King, then surely you're aware to what extents the government of the time went to try to shut him down. All the major governments have invested billions of dollars into studying how uprisings and upsets happen, how to predict them, and how to curb them. The only figures that will now rise to public prominence are those that are vetted by the existing power structure.
paradite 8y ago
The irony is unreal in this comment.
- ffwacom 8y ago
  why
virtuabhi 8y ago
"Ghandi" -> Gandhi

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

RustySpottedCat 8y ago

Yes but saying "screw the government" on social media today, doesn't really matter if it's going to be applauded in the future, it's still going to be aimed at the government, which is the whole point of the system.

yurie_breschnef 8y ago
Could you elaborate?

FundThrowaway 8y ago

I'm pretty sure that's half of the point, stop any radicals from forming large followings.

mtgx 8y ago
Where radical means those that those the people in power in any way.

ag71668 8y ago

> What would the social credit score of Ghandi or Martin Luther Kind have been, at the time of their prominent actions? Their scores would be low. That's the whole point of these systems. Surveillance and these metrics were never about making the world a better place, they're about identifying threats to the status quo so that they can be neutralized before they become impactful. A government's definition of 'terrorist' or 'threat' is not some shady guy that wants to blow up a train station, it's literally anyone who is a credible threat to how the current system runs, anyone who could conceivably change things in a manner not approved by those currently in power. You talk about Martin Luther King, then surely you're aware to what extents the government of the time went to try to shut him down. All the major governments have invested billions of dollars into studying how uprisings and upsets happen, how to predict them, and how to curb them. The only figures that will now rise to public prominence are those that are vetted by the existing power structure.

paradite 8y ago

The irony is unreal in this comment.

ffwacom 8y ago
why

virtuabhi 8y ago

"Ghandi" -> Gandhi