3 ms·

The main difference between this and the US is that US citizens are compliant enough not to warrant such explicit measures. In the US, if a citizen is suspecte

The main difference between this and the US is that US citizens are compliant enough not to warrant such explicit measures. In the US, if a citizen is suspected of getting out of line, all social media data, phone metadata, all bank transactions, etc., for that individual and all of his/her friends or acquaintances, which for most people is tens of thousands of people, is available for review by law enforcement, with no doubt that a warrant will be obtained. FWIW, in the US, anyone within 100 miles of a border (which is the majority of people) has no 4th amendment right against arbitrary search. There is most definitely a social credit system in the US to the extent that one is necessary, but due to the success of other social control mechanisms it is not necessary for it to be as overt as China's. This sort of anti-China propaganda has been building over time and this story has been tested and revised a few times, but per the article below, is not actually true: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/11/19/chinas-orwellian-social-credit-score-isnt-real/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/11/19/c...

ryanwaggoner 8y ago
As usual, here come the comments claiming that the US is just as bad. Had HN been around at the end of WWII, I’m sure the news of millions of Jews being killed in concentration camps would have been met with “Yeah, well we put Japanese people in internment camps. We do it differently, but we still oppress people, so who are we to judge.” You’re wrong about there being no doubt that a warrant can be obtained to examine the records of tens of thousands of people because one person “got out of line”, except in the most extreme cases. Well, depending on how you define “getting out of line”, maybe extreme national security but that’s relatively rare. I’d like to see a source showing that such warrants are widespread. And that’s not how the 100 miles from the border / 4th amendment thing works either. Not that it’s not a complete clusterfuck, but it’s not as simple as you describe: https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone Edit: to clarify for the dead comment in response to mine: America does all kinds of terrible shit. We always have. Internment camps are a stain on this country. And the stuff we do in the name of national security spits on the spirit of the constitution. But that doesn’t mean it’s on the same level as all atrocities by other governments, or that we’re robbed of our moral authority to condemn human rights violations because we’re imperfect. And the lazy whataboutism that’s dragged out every time there’s a story about a truly horrific authoritarian regime trampling on its citizens is galling. It’s ignorant and useless.
- fleshfly 8y ago
  And here comes the comments saying all other nations violations of civil liberties are human rights issues and only in the US are they genuine concerns over national and state security. How did you bring up Japanese internment camps with a straight face?
- resters 8y ago
  > we’re robbed of our moral authority to condemn human rights violations I think you've hit the nail on the head by describing it as a form of moral authority. American exceptionalism is a religion, and the idea that America's actions are morally justifiable no matter what their humanitarian cost is one of the fundamental tenets of the religion. To be clear, American exceptionalism is among the most destructive and horrible religious regimes ever to exist, and has caused untold suffering all over the modern world. Keep in mind we live in 2018 when most disease and scarcity that once prevented human populations from flourishing have been eradicated. Yet America is engaged in countless wars abroad and coerces its allies to collaborate in the enactment of inhumane sanctions aimed at all sorts of populations of innocents all around the world. Their crime? Not giving up their lives to overthrow whatever dictator has taken power. Meanwhile we sit back and watch it all on CNN or Fox and praise the bold, morally principled actions of our political leaders whose moralizing led to the sanctions, bombs, drones, etc. It is absolutely unconscionable for Americans or American leaders to attempt to use some sort of moral superiority as a justification for committing these kinds of acts. Why is this story being promulgated about China in spite of being oversold? Because some American leaders want to threaten China militarily and want to disturb the peace that has been achieved over the past decades. One reason American Exceptionalism may not seem to you like a religion is because it is so unbelievably widespread. Politicians are expected to pepper their remarks with platitudes about the moral righteousness of our wars and our policies. It's all complete nonsense. We act in the service of powerful interest groups, aligning with whatever dictators suit us at the moment, and never will our political leaders discuss any sort of definition of national interest. They prefer to talk in religion-esque language with platitudes about how brave our soldiers are and how virtuous our motives. But in fact, a simple clear articulation of what they claim US national interest to be would be more than enough. If it's in the US national interest to somehow engage in conflict with China, then claim it outright, don't spend years trying to paint China as totalitarian or ultra authoritarian. It's not true nor is it remotely relevant. The real cost of American exceptionalist dogma is that so many of us never think deeply about why we are supporting various wars or sanctions or dictators. We just assume that of course the US would never do anything untoward while our leaders exploit that naivete to the fullest. So please spare us the platitudes about WW2, the so-called greatest generation and all that nonsense. War is ugly and we most certainly did not enter WW2 for humanitarian reasons.

ryanwaggoner 8y ago

As usual, here come the comments claiming that the US is just as bad. Had HN been around at the end of WWII, I’m sure the news of millions of Jews being killed in concentration camps would have been met with “Yeah, well we put Japanese people in internment camps. We do it differently, but we still oppress people, so who are we to judge.” You’re wrong about there being no doubt that a warrant can be obtained to examine the records of tens of thousands of people because one person “got out of line”, except in the most extreme cases. Well, depending on how you define “getting out of line”, maybe extreme national security but that’s relatively rare. I’d like to see a source showing that such warrants are widespread. And that’s not how the 100 miles from the border / 4th amendment thing works either. Not that it’s not a complete clusterfuck, but it’s not as simple as you describe: https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone Edit: to clarify for the dead comment in response to mine: America does all kinds of terrible shit. We always have. Internment camps are a stain on this country. And the stuff we do in the name of national security spits on the spirit of the constitution. But that doesn’t mean it’s on the same level as all atrocities by other governments, or that we’re robbed of our moral authority to condemn human rights violations because we’re imperfect. And the lazy whataboutism that’s dragged out every time there’s a story about a truly horrific authoritarian regime trampling on its citizens is galling. It’s ignorant and useless.

fleshfly 8y ago
And here comes the comments saying all other nations violations of civil liberties are human rights issues and only in the US are they genuine concerns over national and state security. How did you bring up Japanese internment camps with a straight face?
resters 8y ago
> we’re robbed of our moral authority to condemn human rights violations I think you've hit the nail on the head by describing it as a form of moral authority. American exceptionalism is a religion, and the idea that America's actions are morally justifiable no matter what their humanitarian cost is one of the fundamental tenets of the religion. To be clear, American exceptionalism is among the most destructive and horrible religious regimes ever to exist, and has caused untold suffering all over the modern world. Keep in mind we live in 2018 when most disease and scarcity that once prevented human populations from flourishing have been eradicated. Yet America is engaged in countless wars abroad and coerces its allies to collaborate in the enactment of inhumane sanctions aimed at all sorts of populations of innocents all around the world. Their crime? Not giving up their lives to overthrow whatever dictator has taken power. Meanwhile we sit back and watch it all on CNN or Fox and praise the bold, morally principled actions of our political leaders whose moralizing led to the sanctions, bombs, drones, etc. It is absolutely unconscionable for Americans or American leaders to attempt to use some sort of moral superiority as a justification for committing these kinds of acts. Why is this story being promulgated about China in spite of being oversold? Because some American leaders want to threaten China militarily and want to disturb the peace that has been achieved over the past decades. One reason American Exceptionalism may not seem to you like a religion is because it is so unbelievably widespread. Politicians are expected to pepper their remarks with platitudes about the moral righteousness of our wars and our policies. It's all complete nonsense. We act in the service of powerful interest groups, aligning with whatever dictators suit us at the moment, and never will our political leaders discuss any sort of definition of national interest. They prefer to talk in religion-esque language with platitudes about how brave our soldiers are and how virtuous our motives. But in fact, a simple clear articulation of what they claim US national interest to be would be more than enough. If it's in the US national interest to somehow engage in conflict with China, then claim it outright, don't spend years trying to paint China as totalitarian or ultra authoritarian. It's not true nor is it remotely relevant. The real cost of American exceptionalist dogma is that so many of us never think deeply about why we are supporting various wars or sanctions or dictators. We just assume that of course the US would never do anything untoward while our leaders exploit that naivete to the fullest. So please spare us the platitudes about WW2, the so-called greatest generation and all that nonsense. War is ugly and we most certainly did not enter WW2 for humanitarian reasons.