4 ms·

You post a link to a blog entry, which doesn't even have a listed author, and which looks like something a student cobbled together from the internet. > No, I'

You post a link to a blog entry, which doesn't even have a listed author, and which looks like something a student cobbled together from the internet. > No, I'm perfectly capable of understanding what the law says. It's the language itself that is vague and open to interpretation. If you know what terms like "credit subject" and conditions like "subject to law" mean, then I suspect that the law you're reading is much less vague and open to interpretation. Legal documents like this use specialized terminology and assume a broader knowledge of the legal system and regulatory framework. Jeremy Daum, the person who actually translated the law you're citing, disagrees with your claims about the Social Credit System, which should be a tip-off that perhaps you don't understand the law you're reading. > No, thank you. I don't need an "expert" to regurgitate what the law says. Actually, you do need a legal expert to say what the law means. I don't think you're an expert on Chinese law, and when I read the law you're citing, I come to a very different interpretation. It looks to me like an attempt to limit the sorts of punishments local governments may apply to people who break certain types of laws.

imiric 2y ago
> You post a link to a blog entry, which doesn't even have a listed author, and which looks like something a student cobbled together from the internet. The post lists its sources at the bottom, and the data comes from MERICS[1]. I suppose they shouldn't be trusted either, but the experts that align with your viewpoints should. > Jeremy Daum, the person who actually translated the law you're citing, disagrees with your claims about the Social Credit System I'm not claiming anything beyond what the sources I linked to show: that a social credit system does exist, regardless if that's on a national or regional level, and that it's applied to individuals, and not just companies. Your claims that this system is entirely a myth, and later that it's only applied to companies, are patently false. Now you're moving the goalposts again that I need to be an expert in Chinese law to have an opinion about this. > I don't think you're an expert on Chinese law I don't need to be an expert to understand English. The translation is written in plain English, not some alien language only experts understand. There are surely nuances in certain phrases, and the vagueness leaves it open to interpretation, but the intent is clear. Anyway, I feel like we're going in circles here, so let's stop wasting each others time. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_Institute_for_China_Studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_Institute_for_China_S...
- DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
  > The post lists its sources at the bottom If you trust some random student's homework as an accurate summary, that's on you. > Your claims that this system is entirely a myth I never said that the existence of a system is a myth. The myth is the score. The internet meme that everyone knows and that many believe is centered around this score, and therefore has nothing to do with reality. > that it's only applied to companies I never said that it only applies to companies. I said that it's mainly focused on companies. I specifically told you one way that it could be applied to individuals: people who default on court judgments can be banned from buying certain "luxury" goods like high-speed train tickets. > I don't need to be an expert to understand English. Understanding English does not mean you'll understand a legal document written in English. I don't think you've understood the law you linked to. One major aspect of it that I think you don't appreciate is that it is focused on limiting the types of penalties that local governments may impose for certain types of crimes. Another aspect that I think you're missing is that this is focused on business regulation. When it does mention "natural persons," it's often dealing with their professional conduct. E.g., people who commit fraud may be banned from carrying out certain professions. A third aspect of the law that I think you're overlooking is that these penalties are imposed on entities or people that break the law, not for any sort of low "social credit score." This example ties together these last two points: "In accordance with laws and regulations, carry out professional bans or practice restrictions for a set period of time against natural persons that have major conduct in violation of laws or regulations in a specified sector." Local governments can ban people who violate the law in a certain business sector from practicing in that sector. This is nothing at all like the "social credit score" meme. This is like, "If you've been convicted of embezzlement, you can't work at a bank any more." It isn't, "If you post a comment online that the CCP doesn't like, you can't get a loan."

imiric 2y ago

> You post a link to a blog entry, which doesn't even have a listed author, and which looks like something a student cobbled together from the internet. The post lists its sources at the bottom, and the data comes from MERICS[1]. I suppose they shouldn't be trusted either, but the experts that align with your viewpoints should. > Jeremy Daum, the person who actually translated the law you're citing, disagrees with your claims about the Social Credit System I'm not claiming anything beyond what the sources I linked to show: that a social credit system does exist, regardless if that's on a national or regional level, and that it's applied to individuals, and not just companies. Your claims that this system is entirely a myth, and later that it's only applied to companies, are patently false. Now you're moving the goalposts again that I need to be an expert in Chinese law to have an opinion about this. > I don't think you're an expert on Chinese law I don't need to be an expert to understand English. The translation is written in plain English, not some alien language only experts understand. There are surely nuances in certain phrases, and the vagueness leaves it open to interpretation, but the intent is clear. Anyway, I feel like we're going in circles here, so let's stop wasting each others time. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_Institute_for_China_Studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_Institute_for_China_S...

DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
> The post lists its sources at the bottom If you trust some random student's homework as an accurate summary, that's on you. > Your claims that this system is entirely a myth I never said that the existence of a system is a myth. The myth is the score. The internet meme that everyone knows and that many believe is centered around this score, and therefore has nothing to do with reality. > that it's only applied to companies I never said that it only applies to companies. I said that it's mainly focused on companies. I specifically told you one way that it could be applied to individuals: people who default on court judgments can be banned from buying certain "luxury" goods like high-speed train tickets. > I don't need to be an expert to understand English. Understanding English does not mean you'll understand a legal document written in English. I don't think you've understood the law you linked to. One major aspect of it that I think you don't appreciate is that it is focused on limiting the types of penalties that local governments may impose for certain types of crimes. Another aspect that I think you're missing is that this is focused on business regulation. When it does mention "natural persons," it's often dealing with their professional conduct. E.g., people who commit fraud may be banned from carrying out certain professions. A third aspect of the law that I think you're overlooking is that these penalties are imposed on entities or people that break the law, not for any sort of low "social credit score." This example ties together these last two points: "In accordance with laws and regulations, carry out professional bans or practice restrictions for a set period of time against natural persons that have major conduct in violation of laws or regulations in a specified sector." Local governments can ban people who violate the law in a certain business sector from practicing in that sector. This is nothing at all like the "social credit score" meme. This is like, "If you've been convicted of embezzlement, you can't work at a bank any more." It isn't, "If you post a comment online that the CCP doesn't like, you can't get a loan."