China blacklists millions from booking flights as 'social credit' introduced • Hacker News Board

Re: China blacklists millions from booking flights as 'social credit' introduced

#241

Post by alexandercrohde » Fri, Nov 23, 2018, 9:37 PM UTC

shaobo wrote: post #179

shaobo wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The devil is always in the detail. The "buying too many video games" line came from the gamification aspect of a social network owned by a private enterprise and has nothing to do with the government scheme. And even they have backpedaled from that claim: "Hu Tao, Zhima Credit’s general manager, paints a different picture now. She says the app doesn’t monitor social media posts “nor does it attempt to measure qualita…

I'd love to know why people downvoted me with no explanation.

I can't speak for other people, and I didn't downvote you. But it sounds deliberately dishonest to pretend this is anti-terrorism when it's based on trivial misdemeanors like smoking.

Once you've established that you're not pursuing the truth your words are only poison/noise that harms the group of us who are trying very hard to figure out what is true.

Re: China blacklists millions from booking flights as 'social credit' introduced

#242

Post by fspeech » Fri, Nov 23, 2018, 9:43 PM UTC

Kaveren wrote: post #148

dnomad wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> China is unique in that it's been all about oppressing and abusing the population as heavily as possible, without pause, ever since the first emperors gave the country its foreign name. This is such complete nonsense. I think it's hilarious how totally and completely misguided about China that Westerners, and Americans in particular, actually are. It boggles the belief just how much complete nonsense is spouted her…

> "Citizens with access to benefits respond more favorably" Of course they do. These sorts of systems always offer a sizable portion of the population benefits, that's how they gain popular support. This doesn't mean that they aren't terrible ideas. You have to consider how a government affects the people who disapprove of the government, who are not part of a majority, who are not conformists. Many people don't thin…

Your criticism is very valid. But saying only the majority benefits is very different from claiming that the purpose is to oppress everyone, isn't it? That is what the gp was angered by and responding to.

Re: China blacklists millions from booking flights as 'social credit' introduced

#243

Post by ryanwaggoner » Fri, Nov 23, 2018, 9:44 PM UTC

will_brown wrote: post #235

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read your comment the same way: lazy whataboutism to handwave human rights abuses because “we’re just as bad”. You literally said “it’s just another way to skin the cat”, and implied that we should figure our stuff out before criticism of China here. Fortunately, people with influence don’t share your view, or our lack of perfection would keep us from ever calling out authoritarian regimes for their abuses, no matt…

>... or our lack of perfection would keep us from ever calling out authoritarian regimes for their abuses, no matter how horrific. Sounds like the same lazy whataboutism ...ignoring our own human rights abuses to highlight others? Seems like calling a comparative analysis a lazy whataboutism, while using a whataboutism arguement is intellectually dishonest . But I think your point about gassing people is helpful here…

You’re making my point for me, by assuming that I’m “ignoring our own human rights abuses” because I called you out for bringing up our credit system to deflect from the discussion about China’s abuses. We’re not talking about the US, and these systems are extremely different even if we were.

Re: China blacklists millions from booking flights as 'social credit' introduced

#244

Post by lifeformed » Fri, Nov 23, 2018, 9:44 PM UTC

kazagistar wrote: post #171

lifeformed wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't believe people keep equating these two systems. While there are similarities, one is a financial rating and the other is a social rating. The credit system has a lot of issues but it just does what it says on the tin, measuring the same credit card metrics, and had been around for a while without much change. The social rating system seeps into every aspect of a person's life and had no limits for expansion.…

They shouldn't be equated exactly, but the difference is one of severity, not of kind. It's important to keep in mind that the western credit system has victims too, and is a tool for behavior control too, just not nearly to the same severity, but should be carefully tracked for fear of scaling up to the exact horror the Chinese one represents, if not worse.

I agree. It seems like many disagreements come down to matters of magnitude. It's easy to conflate things for being the same kind, when they are different in scale. It's an aspect of the all-too-common black-and-white binary argumentation that is much easier to digest.

Re: China blacklists millions from booking flights as 'social credit' introduced

#245

Post by lifeformed » Fri, Nov 23, 2018, 9:57 PM UTC

Just_Smith wrote: post #177

will_brown wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I can't believe people keep equating these two systems. You want to work here? We are going to have to check your credit! Which system is it? You’re born poor and apply for your first job, a nice government job with nice government benefits, but can’t get it because you don’t have any credit established. Hell youre poor, forget credit you can’t even open a bank account, go apply for a minimum wage job, then head to…

I'm a bit surprised that people in this thread don't seem to understand the parallels between social and economic status. It's not some grand revelation either - it's pretty much common knowledge. There's obviously a distinct difference between these two systems, but to say "China's social credit system has nothing in common with America's financial credit system" is pretty ignorant to how important having good credi…

Yes they're related, but think of the differences:

US credit score = 35% payment history + 30% debt burden + 15% credit history + 10% credit types + 10% recent credit searches. Used for lending, and sometimes for leasing and employment.

Social credit system = a black box of metrics that can change at any time, relating to your speech, browsing history, political ideas, entertainment choices, shopping history, dating behavior, etc. Used to limit options in travel, education, dating, purchasing, internet speed, etc.

If the US credit system starts becoming more like the latter, then yes, that's cause for concern. But so far its problems are of a very different scale than a social credit system.

Re: China blacklists millions from booking flights as 'social credit' introduced

#246

Post by Just_Smith » Fri, Nov 23, 2018, 10:06 PM UTC

rubyfan wrote: post #239

Just_Smith wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To elaborate on your point a little further, because I think a lot of people truly don't understand this: having no credit is worse than having bad credit, so the argument that being conservative with your finances is all you need is blatantly wrong and tone-deaf. My first apartment cost me $500/mo. The deposit to turn on power was $100, $300, and $500 for good, bad, and no credit respectively. I had no credit, becau…

Those deposits are just that, deposits - you get those back. They are in lieu of a credit report. The ability for utilities, property owners and other institutions to provide services and goods that people might choose not to pay for is in fact _enabled_ by the credit system. It’s not your God given right to access these services. The credit system enables many people to leverage their recorded credit history without…

I'm not criticizing the existence of deposits, but increasing the size of deposits for high-risk customers is without a doubt a cash-grab on the poor. Deposits exist to protect the issuer of the property from a potential delinquency. When it comes to turning off someones power, the cost is fairly the same (and the cost of travel certainly doesn't increase by a fibonacci-esque rate).

Plus, I wasn't living beyond my means. Paying a power deposit equal to one month's rent is not within most peoples' means. I recently paid $50 to turn the power on in my $1400 apartment.

That aside, I'm also not sure you understand the circumstances if you think being "forced to spend beyond your means" isn't something that people in poverty regular have to go through. I'm at a place now where I can afford a credit line, but that's not the case for a lot of people. Those people shouldn't be punished from abstaining. A credit line is a commitment, no matter if you can make your payments or not

All-in-all, I think the credit system has a slew of good intentions going into it, but it has had a quite a few negative effects in regards to the poor and essential utilities. It's also used to drive where a lot of businesses set up shop (I work for one - thanks, Experian) - so the idea that this Chinese social credit system is far removed from our financial credit system just isn't true. It's not directly applied to social lives, but it's overall effects on a person's social life are abundantly clear. If anything, the financial credit system could end up being more sweeping and inter-generational, but that remains to be seen.

Re: China blacklists millions from booking flights as 'social credit' introduced

#247

Post by shadowxs76 » Fri, Nov 23, 2018, 10:11 PM UTC

lumber-pail wrote: post #106

Think of the upside if your status followed you everywhere you went, and instead of relying on human decency you could expect treatment in proportion to your behavior. Something like this will inevitably arrive in the West due to human desire for status. Not much different from a thousand little decisions you make every day getting dressed and walking down the street that show the world who you are and what your valu…

I consider this to be a potentially terrifying idea. Maybe if "status" were rigorously kept to measurements of honesty and reliability that are as objective and unbiased as possible, I could see it working reasonably well but the much more probable reality would be one of crushing conformity to established social trends and a tendency toward ostracizing people who don't follow along with them, even if those trends (by virtue of being trends) aren't at all reasonably objective measurements of good, bad or moral in a person.

Re: China blacklists millions from booking flights as 'social credit' introduced

#248

Post by bitexploder » Sat, Nov 24, 2018, 12:46 AM UTC

gumby wrote: post #221

bitexploder wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think there is much equivalency here. The credit system is a pain, but it is also very simple to have good credit. Anyone, even someone with little money can have good credit. Even if you have medical debt you can maintain your credit rating. People may not know how to do it, but it isn’t too hard. The privacy aspects of it suck, but it just isn’t that dystopian and it’s usage is relatively narrow in society.…

> Secret no fly lists: impact a very small slice of the population. ... Secret kill lists are for terrorists How can you know if they are secret? And it’s pretty cavalier to say “impact a small slice” — it’s a bit deal if you’re part of that small slice, fair or not.

They have published the size of the list periodically as well as the budget to maintain it. There are something like 40-60k names in it and only about 1000 “US persons”.

Re: China blacklists millions from booking flights as 'social credit' introduced

#249

Post by will_brown » Sat, Nov 24, 2018, 1:16 AM UTC

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #243

will_brown wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>... or our lack of perfection would keep us from ever calling out authoritarian regimes for their abuses, no matter how horrific. Sounds like the same lazy whataboutism ...ignoring our own human rights abuses to highlight others? Seems like calling a comparative analysis a lazy whataboutism, while using a whataboutism arguement is intellectually dishonest . But I think your point about gassing people is helpful here…

You’re making my point for me, by assuming that I’m “ignoring our own human rights abuses” because I called you out for bringing up our credit system to deflect from the discussion about China’s abuses. We’re not talking about the US, and these systems are extremely different even if we were.

>to deflect from the discussion about China’s abuses.

If that were true it would be whataboutism, but I didn’t do it to deflect China’s system. Many ways to skin a cat, inheriently means if I am decrying the US system as dystopian, I am doing the same with China’s (the opposite of deflection and whataboutism) while simultaneously acknowledging the difference in the mechanisms.

Again in the context of the Holocaust, if I mention modern genocides such as Sudan, it’s not inheriently a whataboutism, but a call to consider and compare modern instances of genocide. People can be outraged all they want when another example of genocide is mentioned while discussing the Holocaust, but to call Sudan not a genocide because the holocaust was at a scale orders of magnitude becomes the whataboutism arguement.

The real problem is your telling me “we are talking about China’s abuses”...no that’s what the article is talking about. Look at my very first comment, it’s in response to a top level comment comparing China’s credit system to a system from an episode of Black Mirror.

By the OP bringing up another dystopian system (from the Black Mirror episode) did the OP engage in whataboutism? No! OP offered a comparison, same as I did, both of which are helpful to discussion and interesting. What you are doing is trying to chill speech (eg don’t talk about other dystopian systems while we are chiding China’s dystopian system). And I’m not sure you know what the definition of whataboutism arguements.

Re: China blacklists millions from booking flights as 'social credit' introduced

#250

Post by rqs » Sat, Nov 24, 2018, 3:25 AM UTC

wozmirek wrote: post #189

rqs wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was a young Chinese woman there, who felt safer. Why wouldn't she? If you've installed a nuclear bomb inside a person's home and tell that person the bomb will keep him safe, he will probably feel safer either. That is as long as you don't tell him about the fact that the detonator is controlled by a nasty monkey. In China, you can only see the positive news about the system. Even when a journalist are trying…

Well, of course. It's the same as with reading any official communication from the Russian government ;) I'm talking about the premise that may appeal to 50% of the citizens. We (as in being able-bodied men, we should take into considerations people with disabilities, weaker, older, frailer) might get outvoted.

The thing is, when you ask somebody for their opinion, the most important thing you'll get out of it is not about the opinion itself, instead, it's about how and why the opinion been formed.

And most people build their opinion based on the information they're exposed to, probably including that imaginary women you made up for the comment. That's why controlling information is every government's wet dream, not just China, not just Russian, and actually, not just government.

So, the real question is not about who you asking (young women or men), it's about what's the information that women or men has received. Does she or he received all the information needed in order to make rational choice, or the information is just one sided?

BTW, In China, young women already been able to walk around most the city safely, even at night. You may take that into account.