China's Big Brother Social Credit System

    • NotD

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • China's Big Brother Social Credit System

      Apparently, the Chinese government is getting ready to track every single thing each of its citizens does online, and use this information to punish or reward citizens for their behaviour.

      Anyone here heard of George Orwell? :headbanging:

      Botsman wrote:

      It's not hard to picture, because most of that already happens, thanks to all those data-collecting behemoths like Google, Facebook and Instagram or health-tracking apps such as Fitbit. But now imagine a system where all these behaviours are rated as either positive or negative and distilled into a single number, according to rules set by the government. That would create your Citizen Score and it would tell everyone whether or not you were trustworthy. Plus, your rating would be publicly ranked against that of the entire population and used to determine your eligibility for a mortgage or a job, where your children can go to school - or even just your chances of getting a date.

      ...by 2020 it will be mandatory. The behaviour of every single citizen and legal person (which includes every company or other entity) in China will be rated and ranked, whether they like it or not.

    • Yes, George Orwell was pointing out the concept of informational aggregation. His figurative take on the future of governance was not too far off from what it really became; he, of course, was unable to account for or determine the technological advances since the era he wrote his best seller.

      Have you ever talked to older and younger generations of China? The older generations revere Mao, whereas my contemporary generational comparison detests Mao. It has been so much so to the point that my supervisee told me that the younger generations are actually more proactively involved with their government.

      Now, imagine living in a world where you live judged by a bullshit "karma" system. Look at communities such as imgur, reddit, etc. and witness the xenophobic behaviours and how adamantly they believe in their "karma" system. It does not paint a pretty picture. Of course, the metrics are being developed by a governing force, but to what extent does that apply and would this make a worthy social experiment?

      To quote Jello Biafra, "Who is so cool and so smart, they have the right to decide who gets the 'black hand of filth' smeared on their record with a 'warning sticker.'"

      Trouble wrote:

      Sounds like an expert clicker to me :D

      Doc Brown wrote:

      I have read several of your posts elsewhere over a number of years. I find your mental state to be disturbing and you probably need professional help.
      What you write in the spam section doesn't have much impact on the game as a whole ... But I don't like to see you attempting to influence normal players in universe 1.
    • I'd suspect the next decade as opposed to a century. The States are encroaching a bubble-point in social dynamics (a highly diverse culture comprised of loosely fit subcultures). Adversely, the States are heading up a point of economic stratification in which the majority of economic diversification falls within the least wealthy of the populace.

      You bring up an interesting concept @North Star, in which how does a governing force maintain control of a growing population? In parallel, how do you think this will contrast - a mostly homogeneous culture like China against a heavily heterogeneous culture like the States? The concept of xenophobia may be more prevalent within the States as opposed to China. China holds the leverage of a cultural and national identity, something more typical of Old World countries. The definition of an "American," the "American way-of-life," and "American nationality" are concepts that have become relatively defunct.

      Ironically, the term "American" is being used more as a derogatory label internationally than it is used to self-identify. In fact, I've known and know several online handles that have refrained from describing themselves as "American" due to fear of persecution and harassment. I feel this will play heavily in China's favour, in terms of governance and populace control; it may very well be the summit of bureaucracy if fully implemented. Alternatively within the States, as per usual decorum involving newly implemented changes on such a scale, will probably be received with staunch negativity and passive-resistance, but ultimately accepted. This may become especially prevalent if technological advances "require" the acceptance of such practices in order to "advance" society, maintain natural habituation, and integrate with post-modern society.

      Trouble wrote:

      Sounds like an expert clicker to me :D

      Doc Brown wrote:

      I have read several of your posts elsewhere over a number of years. I find your mental state to be disturbing and you probably need professional help.
      What you write in the spam section doesn't have much impact on the game as a whole ... But I don't like to see you attempting to influence normal players in universe 1.
    • Elaborating on my previous post:

      The homogeneous culture of China primarily consists of a singular ethnic background. What is the difference between a factory employee and a multi-million USD CEO in China? The difference is the cumulative wealth each receives for their labours. Take into account the ancestral reverence the Chinese society holds in particular, and you've got 1.1-billion plus citizens who tend to follow the social mores. A tad reminiscent of the "American Dream."

      The United States is comprised of citizenry of diverse backgrounds and cultures. Most immediate perceptions in the United States heavily tie to race, and the extent to which your current life-style is perceived is often tied to your race. The way the black population views the white population in the United States creates a interpersonal friction based on superficial concepts. The concept of "white privilege" has become a highly contemporaneous term in the black community, one that is often misunderstood and misused on a regular basis. Likewise, conservative groupings of white populations often view non-white populations as "problematic."

      The cultural stratification wildly varies between race, age, wealth, residence, and even sex. Most sub-cultural grouping can be based upon age and residence; ie: the south-side of Milwaukee is considered a "ghetto," in which non-residential white people are often treated with a minor level of hostility, and even more so when the individual's perceived wealth is substantially more than the resident's. Sexism and racism, along with the underlying and widespread prejudices, has long-created interpersonal friction within the United States. At the current moment, there seems to be three or four sociopolitical groups, which are better distinguished based on political approach and awareness.

      American Traditional sociopolitical members often divide themselves based on the political-economic ideologies of conservatism and liberalism (right and left, respectively). These are often characterized by a relative zealously towards their party of choice. (Democratic/Republican) These members are typically deluded in their perceptions of the opposition through propaganda and typical paranoia, resulting in less political awareness, but a stronger approach to politics as a whole.

      American Fringe sociopolitical members are sometimes ostracized by the traditional groupings as reformists, radicals, and extremists. This grouping is without doubt the lowest populated group, often relying on informational exchange, fact/source checking, and often seek to rectify problems long-standing unresolved. Due to the limited resources, both financial and membership, strong movements from this group rely on a charismatic figurehead (ie: Bernie Sanders).

      American Ready sociopolitical members are usually called "undecided voters." They make up a majority of the geopolitical population, and often lack political approach and awareness. Often times they're the swing-voters, or the group that tends to produce the largest amount of votes based on minimal information, which can drastically alter any election result. Potential elects often manipulate this group with minor spam ads, simplified statements, libelous and slanderous statements, and other means of childish manipulation.

      American Apathetic sociopolitical members are the non-voting population - exclusionary of convicted felons, non-registered voters, non-residents, and children - that consciously choose not to vote. These members are completely lacking in political approach and awareness (sometimes one of the two) and prefer to not cast votes during elections due to a variety of reasons including admission of a lack of political awareness.

      In the elections that have passed, starting with the 2008 election of McCain versus Obama, the American Ready and American Fringe groups have become even more active than prior elections. A large portion of the black community admits to voting for Obama simply on the premise that he himself was black, the same can be said of the 2012 election. In the most recent election, 2016, a large portion of the black community openly admitted to voting for Hillary Clinton simply because she wasn't a white male. Despite her obvious felonious crimes which she was proven guilty of, but acquitted due to laws tying to election interference, she was able to procure nearly a base of 50% of the necessary delegate votes in the DNC primary well before the caucuses had taken place. This shows the level of importance of the swing-voter population, and the depth of interracial friction, which may definitely pose a problem for the future leaders of the United States.

      Note: Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but Trump still won.

      Trouble wrote:

      Sounds like an expert clicker to me :D

      Doc Brown wrote:

      I have read several of your posts elsewhere over a number of years. I find your mental state to be disturbing and you probably need professional help.
      What you write in the spam section doesn't have much impact on the game as a whole ... But I don't like to see you attempting to influence normal players in universe 1.
    • Revolutionary Lancer wrote:

      Despite her obvious felonious crimes which she was proven guilty of, but acquitted due to laws tying to election interference, she was able to procure nearly a base of 50% of the necessary delegate votes in the DNC primary well before the caucuses had taken place.

      That's a pretty serious accusation to throw out there without any sources listed. Can you provide reasonable and credible documentation to back it up? I'm genuinely interested.
    • Also, can we maybe NOT define 'liberalism' as a leftwing ideology? It is absolutely not, in any way shape or form, left of the middle philosophically. In traditional political philosophy, the 'trinity' of fundamental ideas is the balance between freedom (liberalism), equality (socialism) and security (conservatism). Liberalism and conservatism traditionally find themselves to the right of the middle, while socialism is left of the middle.

      Adam Smith, one of the founders of free market economic theory, was one of the primary voices of liberalism. The emphasis on individual freedom, whether it is economic liberalism or social liberalism, is in no context inherently "left-leaning". Before the advancement of neo-conservatism, it was the very corner stone of Republicanism. I realise that in America the use of "libertarianism" has been pushed forward to make up for a blatant misuse of a century-old philosophical concept, but that doesn't make that misuse any more correct. Libertarianism is the belief in 'free will' and is a metaphysical/ontological concept (ie the belief in the existence of free will), not an economic ideology as it is often used today. Laissez faire, a key concept of classical liberalism, is the belief that government intervention in the market (regulation, subsidies, tariffs) should be removed. Those are hardly ideals congruent with fundamental left-wing beliefs, and should not be termed as such.

      TL;DR: Liberalism is not left-wing. If anything, the belief in minimal state intervention tends to push right of center.
    • TL;DR:


      If you aren't going to show the courtesy nor the respect to wholly or willfully partake in any discussion, feel free to leave out your input. I honestly couldn't follow your second post, seemingly coming from outfield, hence your liberal use of "TL;DR." You didn't take the appropriate time to read the discussion, yet you felt premise to give input?

      I'd cite the sources - in response to your first post - but I haven't that freedom from my current location. Hilarious you call them accusations, when these "accusations" are more-so of the affront towards the general American population in regards to affluence, as well as social and political status. It is neither here nor there, however, as this was tagged "NotD," and deviates from the thread.

      End/Withdrawal

      Trouble wrote:

      Sounds like an expert clicker to me :D

      Doc Brown wrote:

      I have read several of your posts elsewhere over a number of years. I find your mental state to be disturbing and you probably need professional help.
      What you write in the spam section doesn't have much impact on the game as a whole ... But I don't like to see you attempting to influence normal players in universe 1.