4 ms·

I am not sure I could ever advocate the restriction of the right of movement on "unsocial behavior/associations". That generally only happens to people on paro

• loceng 8y ago
  I didn't say I'm neutral - I simply said I'm not arguing for against it with the statement to follow; I didn't want to put a weight one way or the other of my thoughts/feelings relating to the "social credit" system, in part because I'm not familiar enough with it. Also, wasn't me who downvoted you.
  • anfilt 8y ago
    Okay how would you feel if your score went down because someone you knew was "sketchy" (may just be the beliefs) to this system. Like this has made people cut ties with other people.
    • TheTruth321 8y ago
      Well ... that'd be just like the f@ckers moderating HN Hope you're listening.
    • loceng 8y ago
      It's not good. That's what natural trust networks are meant for, and developing your own skill to protecting yourself, your family, the circle of people for whom you bring or consider within your circle - of whom you associate with hopefully without external pressure, although it certainly happens because of bias or vested interests. It shows a lack of integrity of the individual, and is a slippery and dangerous slope as Hitler and and the SS would want or require you to report your neighbours, etc - and it sounds like this is all without due process. If the Chinese people knew this literature, this history: I don't know if they do know, or what version they know, or if they know the similarities between what China is doing and what Nazi Germany did - which is where the grave concern for the system/layer of censorship is what I pointed out. I do have compassion and understand that if merely associating with someone with a "low social credit" brings your own credit score down, that based on if people do indeed know and are quiet about not talking negatively about government, then they may be doing so to protect themselves. They won't however know then if they distance themselves from these people what happens to them, if they are taken off in trains to "rehabilitation camps" for "rehabilitation" or murder.
• dis-sys 8y ago
  > restriction of the right of movement on "unsocial behavior/associations" denying someone's access to tax funded public transport (airports/train stations in this case) as a result of his/her refusal to pay tax is now considered as "restriction of the right of movement"?
  • anfilt 8y ago
    The score takes more into account than just taxes. Plus usually tax problems in the US only become criminal if you refuse to rectify them. Also while it is china we are talking about, the bulk of those are plane ticket, and the some of it probably privatized with government over site. Not exactly public funded. caveat being I don't entirely know how this structured in china and could entirely be publicly funded. Like this is government literally saying you can't purchase the means to travel. I am not sure how that is not interfering with freedom of movement. if it was you can't use public funded plains and trains that might be little different. Still a lot the things this score considers should never be in the purview of any government.
    • dis-sys 8y ago
      > Like this is government literally saying you can't purchase the means to travel. I am not sure how that is not interfering with freedom of movement. No, they never stop you from walking/riding a bicycle/driving your own car/hiring a taxi/swim across the ocean.
      • anfilt 8y ago
        Generally, buying a plane ticket is the same category as a taxi. This also like saying can't buy/rent a car/bike.