51–60 of 727 posts
No there is a major difference when social credit is centralized to a single authority , and people cannot use the law to protect from that authority. otherwise, people have always judged each other with any way they could
There was a comment that appeared for a few minutes before getting deleted, that vaguely lined up with what I wanted to say. It didn't reappear, so I'll just repost it: >real life also has social credit. were you an asshole to the bartender last week? that goes to your reputation at that bar. did you volunteer with a local non-profit? that goes to your reputation with that organization. even without an algorithm, peo…
One is more distributed and not controlled by any single entity, the other puts all the power over your life into the hands of a few oligarchs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can always move to new town and start again. The problem with all these social credit systems is that they're designed to follow you wherever you go forever. There is also zero recourse if a mistake was made; at least you can try and smooth things over with a bartender.
> You can always move to new town and start again. Contra: "Wherever you go, there you are." (i.e., you don't stop being an asshole just because you move.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can always move to new town and start again. The problem with all these social credit systems is that they're designed to follow you wherever you go forever. There is also zero recourse if a mistake was made; at least you can try and smooth things over with a bartender.
The following you everywhere is a major problem with these systems imo, mostly because it removed the equivalent of bankruptcy for your reputation. If you had to move across the country to leave your bad name behind, you used to be able to. And just like bankruptcy you’d start with nothing so it wasn’t exactly easy but it was at least an option. Now what recourse do people have?
Is it easy? No, but neither is declaring bankruptcy or moving across the country.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government staying out of it makes it worse . The companies have so much power over your life without any oversight.
On the other hand, the government staying out of it makes it better, because if you're banned by the main taxi firm or housing market or [insert rhetorical third thing], there remains the chance of using some sketchy unpopular alternative service, and you're not in violation of the law if you find such a option.
Regardless these arguments about whether it’s bad based on if the government is involved or not is ridiculous given how interwoven our corporations and government are. Like just doing business with any company strips your 4th amendment rights on that data.
There’s no sane way to argue that they have a clear delineation throughout society
There was a comment that appeared for a few minutes before getting deleted, that vaguely lined up with what I wanted to say. It didn't reappear, so I'll just repost it: >real life also has social credit. were you an asshole to the bartender last week? that goes to your reputation at that bar. did you volunteer with a local non-profit? that goes to your reputation with that organization. even without an algorithm, peo…
Further my interactions with the bartender aren't likely to be measured or even known about by the non-profit and vice versa. To the extent my "credit" is a factor it doesn't travel with me from location to location.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can always move to new town and start again. The problem with all these social credit systems is that they're designed to follow you wherever you go forever. There is also zero recourse if a mistake was made; at least you can try and smooth things over with a bartender.
The following you everywhere is a major problem with these systems imo, mostly because it removed the equivalent of bankruptcy for your reputation. If you had to move across the country to leave your bad name behind, you used to be able to. And just like bankruptcy you’d start with nothing so it wasn’t exactly easy but it was at least an option. Now what recourse do people have?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can always move to new town and start again. The problem with all these social credit systems is that they're designed to follow you wherever you go forever. There is also zero recourse if a mistake was made; at least you can try and smooth things over with a bartender.
The following you everywhere is a major problem with these systems imo, mostly because it removed the equivalent of bankruptcy for your reputation. If you had to move across the country to leave your bad name behind, you used to be able to. And just like bankruptcy you’d start with nothing so it wasn’t exactly easy but it was at least an option. Now what recourse do people have?
> "If you weren’t born and raised here, you’re an outsider even though you’ve lived here for thirty-five years. That’s just kind of typical in small communities." https://dokumen.pub/small-town-america-finding-community-sha...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any business vaguely money related knows exactly who you are because of KYC requirements. They don't need to ask for you phone number when they already have your full name, address, birthday, and SSN.
> Any business vaguely money related knows exactly who you are because of KYC requirements. They also will happily give your money to any thief pretending to be you, and then blame you for their mistake.
The article sounds like a damage control