
China bans 23M from buying travel tickets as part of 'social credit' system - EastToWest
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/01/china-bans-23m-discredited-citizens-from-buying-travel-tickets-social-credit-system
======
dTal
>The report said authorities collected more than 14m data points of
“untrustworthy conduct” last year, including scams, unpaid loans, false
advertising and occupying reserved seats on a train.

That all sounded reasonable until the last one. Textbook "Arson, Murder, and
Jaywalking".

[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArsonMurderAndJa...](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArsonMurderAndJaywalking)

~~~
PakG1
To be fair, getting punished to be unable to take trains for misbehaving on
trains. If the seats are packed in a car and some douche is sitting in your
seat and won't get up, and you're stuck standing for a few hours, I think
you'd want some justice.

That being said, a fine is probably a punishment that would make much more
sense. More revenue for the government too.

~~~
devoply
Yes a no-fly list that you can't do anything about is fascist and
totalitarian. We in the free countries, ah never mind.

~~~
dTal
You're right, the no-fly list is extra-judicial and a violation of civil
liberties, unconstitutional even. But let's not engage in a false equivalence
here - the no-fly list has maybe 100,000 people on it[1], of which supposedly
fewer than 1000 are American citizens, added over the course of nearly two
decades. The Chinese list has 23 million of their own citizens, added over the
course of a single year.

[1] recent sources are hard to find, and the list apparently grows rather fast
- I'm going off [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/20/fbi-no-
fly-...](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/20/fbi-no-fly-list-
revealed-81k-names-fewer-1k-us/)

~~~
martin_a
> has maybe 100,000 people on it, of which supposedly fewer than 1000 are
> American citizens

Your mindset is part of the problem. It's not about "them" or "us", about
"American" or "Chinese", it's about the list itself and using systems like
that.

China just seems to be more ruthless about using things like this, but in the
end, there are enough more or less totalitarian systems which would love to
have lists and procedures like this.

~~~
arcturus17
The poster you’re replying to is saying that the no-fly list is bad, but that
there are degrees of bad - the scales he exposes speak for themselves. It’s
almost like you didn’t answer to their point at all.

~~~
majewsky
Grandparent's argument is that scales are irrelevant when talking about human
rights.

Similar positions have in the past been held e.g. by the German supreme court:
In a landmark ruling, it barred authorities from shooting down planes with
terrorists. The department of defense argued that shooting down a plane that
is headed e.g. towards a stadium would save many more people compared to the
number of civilians killed. The court dismissed that opinion, arguging that
killing civilians is just something you ought not do.

I think it's the same here: When you deny even just one person a fair trail,
you're setting a dangerous precedent that can and will be expanded upon.

------
tux1968
To a less egregious extent this is happening even in western democracies. For
example people are losing access to payment processing functionality for
essentially thought-crimes. Of course, it's a bit different because it's
private sector, but the end result is the same for the individual.

~~~
JulianMorrison
*for being fascists who are pushing an ideology that leads directly to genocide, but okay.

~~~
dleslie
A price of freedom and tolerance is that you must share it with people you
don't like.

And you must remain vigilant that they do not undermine your freedom.

~~~
ceejayoz
"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to
the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those
who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society
against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed,
and tolerance with them."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)

~~~
dleslie
Even less known is that the author of the paradox advocated tolerance and only
to use violence when it is clear that discussion is impossible.

> I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance
> of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational
> argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would
> certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if
> necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not
> prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by
> denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to
> rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer
> arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim,
> in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

~~~
ceejayoz
Do let me know when PayPal starts beating up customers as part of their
offboarding process, and I will probably object to such behavior.

It's fairly clear that the various hate groups SPLC tracks "are not prepared
to meet us on the level of rational argument".

~~~
dleslie
PayPal drains linked bank accounts and locks funds. ;)

[http://www.paypalsucks.com/](http://www.paypalsucks.com/)

~~~
ceejayoz
Let's not mix up two entirely unrelated things just because they're both done
by PayPal.

------
hippich
I have a new idea for the Chinese government!

"Xinjiang* - Beijing ticket - Price: ¥1200 + 150 Social Credits".

"<blink>BEST DEAL!</blink> Beijing - Xinjiang ticket - Price: ¥400. And EARN
20 Social Credits!"

[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/opinion/uighur-muslims-
ch...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/opinion/uighur-muslims-china-
gulag.html)

------
BurningFrog
If I understand the article, it's not that 23 million are _permanently_
banned.

These seem to be temporary bans, and they either expire or you have to do some
act to regain your trusted status?

~~~
Bailin
Being added to the black list makes it harder to do almost everything
(including making money), which then means it is very hard to get off the
black list. Because of that, I'm not a fan of this system.

[https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/10/26/661163105/epis...](https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/10/26/661163105/episode-871-blacklisted-
in-china)

~~~
BurningFrog
Thanks. I'll listen to it after work.

It's hard to find first hand info on this, rather than tons of internet people
assuming it's the Black Mirror episode come to life.

------
vlozko
Reminds me of this:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosedive_(Black_Mirror)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosedive_\(Black_Mirror\))

~~~
gipp
Pretty sure you just overflowed the count of people drawing that comparison.

~~~
narrator
Just another example of how recent pop culture has the ability to program
people to expect a certain narrative outcome given certain narrative
preconditions. It's why advertising works: "Buy this soap, you'll get women."
Similarly, "I watched this show and this thing they are doing produces this
outcome, the show said so."

------
MR4D
I have a feeling that China is in the process of creating a huge unintended
consequence...

China has a middle class of roughly 450 million people. [0] My guess is that
most of those blocked are people from the middle class. (Why bother blocking
access to someone who can't afford it anyway?)

If that assumption is anywhere near correct (and it could be wrong), then
roughly 5% of the middle class were blocked from significant economic
activity.

If this continues, and grows (I'm thinking of that episode of The Orville,
where people had social credit scores on their name-tag [1]), then they could
easily be blocking 10% or more of their middle class.

This has to have negative economic consequences that impact the GDP of the
country at some point. An ironic outcome is that it could cause people to
become overly concerned about debt, and stop consuming. If that happened at a
large scale, China would face innumerable problems.

[0] - [https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/02/01/chinas-middle-class-
is-...](https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/02/01/chinas-middle-class-is-pulling-
up-the-ladder-behind-itself/) [1] -
[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6845666/](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6845666/)

~~~
glasslion
23M times, not 23M peole, the title is misleading

~~~
MR4D
Good catch - that's potentially a significant difference!

------
paulcarroty
China looks like modern country with deeply hidden Soviet Union ideals and
Lenin books under pillow.

"We've come to wish you a Very Happy Thursday," said Pooh©

------
creaghpatr
Paypal is doing this now, in partnership with the SPLC.

~~~
AlexandrB
While comparing Paypal banning a few people to China is hyperbole, you're not
entirely wrong. With Facebook/Google in the role of data gathering, I think
insurance and credit companies will slowly move us towards a distributed
version of social credit. Where doing something "bad" can affect your credit
score and insurance premiums eventually making your life impossible if you do
enough "bad" things.

~~~
leereeves
Who will define "bad"? In China, "bad" means opposing government corruption.

> When [reporter] Liu Hu recently tried to book a flight, he was told he was
> banned from flying because he was on the list of untrustworthy people. Liu
> is a journalist who was ordered by a court to apologize for a series of
> tweets he wrote and was then told his apology was insincere.

[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-social-credit-system-
surv...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-social-credit-system-surveillance-
cameras/)

> Liu had posted information about embezzlement by a local official, Ma
> Zhengqi, on his personal page on the Weibo social network because he knew
> that censorship would prevent its publication in the newspaper.

[https://rsf.org/en/hero/liu-hu](https://rsf.org/en/hero/liu-hu)

~~~
AlexandrB
> Who will define "bad"?

That's why I put it in quotes. "Bad" in this case depends on what a company
thinks makes you high-risk or otherwise undesirable as a customer.

In the case of health insurance, it may be when Google or Facebook classifying
you as having a sedentary lifestyle. In the case of banks it may be if you
take too many trips to Vegas. In the case of the NSA, it may be posting
negative things about the current administration. Because it's distributed
among many actors, it will be like the existing credit score system - mostly
opaque and unaccountable. Good luck convincing an insurance company that
Google misclassified your behaviour.

------
redleggedfrog
I feel this will make sheep. I'm not sure a population of sheep is good for a
nation.

~~~
paol
> I feel this will make sheep

That is entirely the intended outcome.

------
detuur
Free travel restricted to four-star citizens and up.

~~~
PakG1
Just to be clear, free as in freedom, not beer.

------
narrator
It seems our institutions for societal problem solving have not changed much
since the 19th century. We have prisons, the courts, and money, glorious
money: the universal and only solution to all problems.

China seems to be rearranging the rules and making things not only about
money, but also behavior.

They deal with their ethnic violence problems through reeducation camps
instead of war (e.g Chechnya) or simply giving up and trying to contain the
problem( e.g "no go zones").

They deal with their infrastructure problems by largely ignoring all legal
opposition including property rights to development.

They deal with the boom bust cycle by printing money and strictly controlling
bank behavior and severely punishing bad actors.

Now they are using social credit to control bad behavior without prisons.

It's like they are trying to invent the next level of society, while our
system thrives on growing and making industries out of its irresolvabe
conflicts.

~~~
ep103
None of these things are new things. They're things the west largely has
evolved past.

"reeducation camps" are not an alternative to war. They're slow burn racial
suppression and replacement, and used to enforce subservience through fear and
torture. Populations have been erasing rival populations over territory,
ideology and resources since the beginning of time. Since the holocaust, the
west has at least begun attempting to move in a new direction.

"ignoring all legal opposition to ... development" is not a new take on
government infrastructure programs, its a return to the medieval period where
a Lord didn't have to consider the needs of the peasants when deciding how to
use and develop their land. Even serfdom granted the masses more rights than
this.

"with boom bust cycle by printing money" \- This is just financial and
political regulation. The west values boom / bust, if only because cyclical
creation and destruction creates opportunities for those with enough resources
to play, and so long as the 'bust' isn't so large as to destabilize the
system. China values strict stability for a large number of political and
social reasons. And 'severely punishing bad actors' has very little to do with
regulating the economy, and very, very much to do with ensuring the stability
and status quo (of the hierarchy) of the one party system.

"using social credit to control bad behavior without prisons" \- Does it
matter if you have prisons, if you have turned your entire country into a
prison? The purpose of the social credit system is not to control bad
behavior, it is to control behavior.

"it's like they are trying to invent the next level of society, while our
system thrives on growing and making industries out of its irresolvabe
conflicts" \- They are trying to create a different society, though it is
hardly a "new" or "next level" one. They are recreating the same type of
dynastic society they have had for thousands of years, in a modern setting.

As for us, our system thrives on the assumption that cyclical war/peace,
famine/growth, boom/bust creates opportunity for those who survive to innovate
the society. Our downsides are that when we entire long periods of peace,
growth, and stability we tend to become overly lax and allow our most major
economic actors to attempt to warp the system to lock in their dominant
positions. If that then settles into a stagnant, stable or regressive economic
period where such opportunity is increasingly unavailable, large segments of
the population will desire to ditch the system entirely and desire radical
change, usually to a strong-man system, such as the one once found in Germany,
or currently found in China.

~~~
narrator
If you look at the history of China and the Taiping rebellion[1] 20 - 30
million died over essentially a religious extremism driven civil war. If China
can stop religious uprising with minimal damage to society and death, isn't
that an improvement, or are big civil wars somehow more fair?

In all things they take a pragmatic cost/benefit approach instead of solely
thinking about dictums handed down from ancient books as the religious
extremists do. The key question is: what is to stop all this from working?

In the 20s, Hayek and Von Mises wrote "Economic Calculation in the Socialist
Commonwealth"[2] and gave a great criticism of Socialism that eventually
predicted its collapse. Mainly that planning without prices would be extremely
inefficient. There really isn't a good argument that doesn't rely on natural
rights to explain why China's system won't work from a utilitarian
perspective, only ones that pull on the heart strings.

For example, I often argue with Nazis on racist boards in order to talk them
out of their false beliefs in the master race theories of the Nazis and how
those false theories directly led to their downfall. The Nazis thought they
could take over the world because they were a superior race and exterminating
certain classes of people would solve all their problems. They really believed
that. Those theories though were wrong, not only in a moral sense, but in a
practical sense too. They invaded Russia in the winter thinking it would be
easy and also did a lot of other really stupid tactical errors because they
got high on their own supply. Many Jewish scientists immigrated and helped
develop key technologies that gave the west massive advantages in the war,
etc.

Point being, you have to not just rely on emotional arguments if you really
want to deeply understand the forces underlying and changing history instead
of focusing on what makes one feel morally justified. Feeling morally
justified is good, but a lot of people who end up participating in their own
failure to achieve their goals feel morally justified, but what they are doing
is not working.

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiping_Rebellion)

[2][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Calculation_in_the_So...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Calculation_in_the_Socialist_Commonwealth)

~~~
ep103
I wrote you a very long response, I will have to split it into 2 separate
posts.

Post 1/2 :

I appreciate the response to my comment that you've made here, and the links
provided to sources, though they weren't necessary in this case : )

To respond to your post, I think we need to break it down into its constituent
parts. I think you made 5 smaller points, each of which I would like to
refute, and one larger, overall point, which I would like to address.

With no intention of reducing or summarizing the substance of your post above,
I will refer to your points as 1-5, with each rephrased as the following:

1) If a society has a history of mass death and suffering, but the society
organizes itself in a such a way as to reduce the chance of mass death and
suffering in the future, does that not justify whichever way the society
chooses to so organize itself? Or more simply: Is the evil of mass death and
warfare not sufficiently morally awful to justify all attempts to prevent such
strife?

2) What makes us think the Chinese model will not work?

3) Societal organization is not the same as an engineering blueprint. Societal
organization induces certain behaviors among its people, who then influence
their government, which then influences its people. This cycle is a resonance
point, a catch-22, that means even similar societies with small differences
can have larger social and cultural differences which may themselves be very
good or bad. These second order effects are just as important as the initial
on-paper social organization of the society itself, but they also tend to be
unpredictable.

4) Moral philosophy is nice, but ultimately what really matters in this world
is not whether things work on paper, but whether things work in reality. A
thing that works in reality, is many times more important and more meaningful
than something that seems better, but hasn't been proven. Particularly in
topics as complex as politics, where point #3 comes into play very strongly,
and the stakes are so high (as mentioned in point #1)

5) You then impugned my character. But I believe this was mostly unintended
and a result of your wording as you attempted to explain point #4. You also
lightly imply that change is not possible, but the result of the narrative of
history, which may be true on the macro sense, but is not what we are
discussing here today, and does not impact your ability to decide your
thoughts after having this conversation.

So ignoring that last point, I understand your argument to be:

China's model works. With so many people in the country, small changes can
result in mass death and suffering, but the Chinese model keeps the Chinese
people safe. We may not like the Chinese model, but we have no reason to
believe it will not work. In fact, it appears to be working. And any change we
introduce is likely to have 2nd and 3rd order effects which we cannot predict,
but which, because they are unpredictable, potentially reintroduce the
possibility of political fracture, and suffering back into the Chinese system.
So don't fix what isn't broken. Moral justifications and ideological musings
are important, but more important, is keeping 1 billion people alive and happy
and not risking their lives on unproven reform.

\------------------------

My responses below will be to each of your points one at a time. Starting with
your #1 above, and continuing in order:

1) This argument only validates that some form of governance is _needed_ and
that that form of governance is only acceptable if it can keep the people
within it safe and provide decent lives. It is not a sufficient argument to
promote one form of government over another. All governments keep their people
safe from uprisings and civil war! That is one of the primary purposes of
governments!

If your objective is to keep people safe, then, we must ask whether the
current structure of government is the best method of doing so. While I agree
that, particularly so soon after China's bloody most recent civil war there
is, and should, be significant resistance to major political overhaul in China
itself... fundamentally the question still stands: of the types of government
available, is the current form of government the best at, or even good at,
keeping its people safe? If the answer is no, then some form of movement from
the current type of government to a better version, even if in the form of
small, incremental reform, I would argue is warranted. The exact degree of
reform the populace should or would be willing to risk and experience will
vary, but whether or not the populace should attempt such a thing is not.

If this seems like a counter-intuitive, or overly naive viewpoint, I would
argue two separate things. 1) all governments are constantly changing. The
current Chinese model is currently under reformation. The question is not
whether a government and society should change, but whether it is doing so in
a positive direction, and the speed at which the change is occurring. If you
are unwilling to consider the ways in which other governments may do a better
job than your own, then you will also be unable to see the ways in which your
own system will need to be improved in order to solve the problems your
country faces.

I would also point out, that you specifically point out two major problems
that are facing the Chinese government currently, namely religious extremism,
and the potential for civil war. But my counter, is that both of those things
are only the main threats to stability in china... BECAUSE of the type of
government that it has. Similarly to what you mentioned in your point #3,
different forms of government have different forms of weakness. Historically,
systems close to the Chinese system have a GREATER chance of exacerbating
religious fundamentalism and violent revolt than most other governmental
types, or said another way, if China was not an authoritarian government these
particular threats would not be threats that need worrying about. As such, if
your desire is to keep people safe, and prevent a future Taiping rebellion,
then your goal should be to move China _away_ from an authoritarian model, not
further towards it. In short: increasing the possibility of non-violent reform
decreases the possibility of mass violence, radicalism, and extremism.

~~~
ep103
Post 2/2

2) Nothing suggests to me that the Chinese model will not work. Similarly, I
disagree with you that Nazi ideology does not work. Yes, Nazi leadership in
the 20th century ultimately lost, and they did so in no small part due to
their own hubris, but I think you are sorely mistaken if you believe that this
means that Nazi ideology is not a workable political model. There have been
many, many nations and empires built upon the concepts that a certain class or
race of people were superior, and that the rich deserved to rule the nation,
among the other aspects of fascist ideology. Given a different time, country,
or leadership, there could still be a Nazi government alive and well in Europe
today. In fact, I would point to the fact that there is such a large
international Nazi movement alive and well today, despite such gigantic
attempts to constrain it, as a good indication that it is a workable and
viable political movement.

It is also, however, simply NOT a world I would want to live in. The fall of
the Nazis did not prove that one race was or was not stronger or "better" than
another. It partially proved that the world wanted to live in a world that did
not have to contend with such a competition between governments, peoples and
races. It was a fundamentally moral question about what type of world we want
to live in. I do not want to live in a world where Nazi ideology is the
dominant ideology, and would give my life to prevent it. But this is not
because I do not think Nazi ideology is a workable form of government, or that
Nazi ideology would not keep its chosen people safe. It is because I
fundamentally do not want to live in that world, and do not believe that that
is a world humanity, or at least myself, needs to accept.

I feel similarly about post-Leninist, or post-Maoist one party rule as I do
living under a monarch, or living under a dictator, a theocracy, or a fascist
government. It is not that these systems do not work. It is that I do not
believe these governments to be ideal or good types of governance, for either
moral or quality-of-life reasons for the people thus ruled.

3) I agree with your point #3. However, you then use this as a reason to argue
against change and reform. But as I stated earlier, all governments are always
in a state of change and reform, so this is an invalid step of logic.

But there's a more insidious aspect to this argument, that I'm not sure you
considered. Your argument here takes as an assumption that no matter what the
effects are of political/organizational change and reform are, that the people
involved are powerless to either correct the mistakes, or decide for
themselves.

In short, it implies that the people within a country have no capability of
determining their own lives. That people are purely a product of their
environment, and thus must be shaped by a greater force or person with power
in order to improve.

Ironically, historically, systems organized in this way almost always result
in the people making the decisions being the people who are the most isolated,
pampered, richest, and farthest removed from the effects of their decisions in
the society. That in turn does usually mean that the country is unable to
course-correct when negative reforms are made, due to the simple fact that
those making the decisions are too far removed from the results of their
decisions to intelligently know when to course correct.

But if we throw out that underlying assumption to begin with, and assume that
people do have the ability to comprehend what is good and bad in their own
lives, to at least some degree, then the fear of second order effects you are
mentioning is severely mitigated, and possibly ceases to exist outright.

Allow me to put this another way: reform and change always occurs within a
country. If that reform and change is not recognized by a country's
organization, then it will happen informally and quietly in the hands of
individuals with power, likely for their own benefit at the expense of the
rest, and likely without recourse or the ability to correct mistakes. If,
however, the country has a political process by which to reform itself, then
that means that there is also, by definition, a way for some people in the
country to undo reforms that do not work out.

In other words, you do not need to worry about reform leading to the death and
misery of the people. Those that have the power to reform, by definition, will
have the power to undo reform that is seen as negative. What you need to worry
about, are allowing the wrong people to have this power in an unaccountable
way, or organizing your society in a manner where such reform is impossible
and the only possibility is eventual revolution and bloodshed. Ironically,
both of these things become substantially more likely the more and more
authoritarian a country is.

4) I believe I also addressed this in the previous point.

So to summarize:

5) Yes, the Chinese model likely works. With so many people in China,
stability is greatly needed, and that is important, because the stakes are so
unfathomably high. But a belief that the current Chinese model is the only
model that could work for China is wrong. Indeed, a counter argument could be
easily made (as it could be for almost all governments) that the majority of
major problems China currently faces is the result of its current political
structure, not solved or benefited by it. The only way to address those
problems, is through academic study and comparison to other political systems
so that one might identify how Chinese governance must be reformed in order to
solve those problems. But the belief that change is not warranted and is
unsafe both ignores the fact that change is always occurring, and dooms the
country to its current path. And since its current path is one of increasing
authoritarianism, the natural result of your argument, is, ironically, that
the Chinese people, and the world, are less safe from the fears you mentioned
at the beginning of your post as a result, not better.

Or to put it another way: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to
purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety, and
will soon have Neither."

~~~
jjcc
Great writeup. Save it for now. Will think about your points later because a
little bit long.

HNers are most rational netizens as I know. However quite lot of us still
believe misinformation about China unintentionally spread by Western
journalists and some travellers with their simplified misinterpretation upon a
huge complex topic. Sometimes those who look intelligent behave like
superstitious cult believer that there’s no way to have discord discussion.
Your input is valuable. Maybe not always have correct source of information.
For example you believe Chinese are less informed about individual liberty
because they haven’t read books from George Orwell. On the contrarily some
Chinese who still promote George Orwell’s books and open society meme are
considered by other fellow Chinese as simple minded blind followers of old
idea with their beliefs can not be bayersianly updated on new facts. Both
groups are still very small educated portion of whole population that’s why
you don’t know them. Most people are not aware of both groups but only care
about daily life like all other societies over the world.

Anyway thank you for your idea.

~~~
ep103
I would very much love to learn about the educated viewpoints you mentioned
here. What are the new facts that make people feel like Orwell is outdated?

I definitely do not have great sources of information for life inside China. I
am just a developer that has grown interested in china since the 'trade wars'
started. But I would like to learn more. My hope was if I could foster
discussion here, and I might learn more along the way.

Do you have any suggestions for better sources?

~~~
jjcc
It's difficult to express "educated" view (What I said was views of small
portion of educated people) in a short paragraph. But what I would give a
brief abstract description with some sacrifice of accuracy:

Some correct ideas with the tree scope could be totally wrong when observed
from the forest scope but here's no way a tree can understand forest (Maybe it
can if the tree have learnt Godel theorem. Just kidding). The great idea of
open society might have different out comes on different areas of forest based
on nature conditions . If the democracy /open society can be pin pointed to be
the root cause of sever consequence like millions of life lost, then democracy
would be averted. It's not against concept of open society/individual liberty
but rather choose less evil. That’s why a lot of Chinese who know Owell still
support the totalitarian regime.

BTW, I didn't mean Owell's thoughts is outdate itself but the people within
China still promote Owell's work usually built their belief about democracy
have outdate understanding about China and democracy. Some of groups (more
specific, those who originated from democracy movement that triggered 1989
crackdown by government. Now most of them are overseas Chinese dissidents )
even have consistent integrity problems. (Why Chinese democracy activists have
extremely high percentage of liar caused my curiosity that wasted a lot of
time but that's beyond the topic).

As to new facts that lead some Chinese think twice about democracy, there are
many: The simplest other new facts include failure practise of democracy in
different areas like middle east, east Europa, and very important one which
west media won't report: the government election experiments in village (The
totalitarian regimen did tried to follow the great universal value promoted by
western leaders instead of keep them in power, do you believe it), Taiwan's
democracy (I'm not saying that the democracy failed but a lot of observation
of what happened during all the process that can draw some conclusion that
could be extrapolated). There new facts even get some new explanation about
many old facts.

The sources of information is quite spread among many WeChat groups, moments
etc. So it's difficult to get single source so it's not practical to really
collect comprehensive understanding of big picture of Chinese society with so
many segmented small pockets. However there are a couple of good source you
can have a peek. Here's a famous rational nationalist community.
[http://www.m4.cn](http://www.m4.cn)

(There are many more irrationally nationalist within China in terms of
population. I personally don't support nationalist weather rational or
irrational) The sponsor of the community include a VC who has a famous TED
talk which might also helpful
[https://www.ted.com/talks/eric_x_li_a_tale_of_two_political_...](https://www.ted.com/talks/eric_x_li_a_tale_of_two_political_systems)

Other source in general about China, there are many online but stay away any
main stream media instead looking for alternative source for balance. Like
moon of Alabama(not many about China but quite accurate for those related
about China) , global security. Quora is a good place that there are many
educated normal Chinese is there. a couple of recent piece on YouTube:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-XDxCb92X4&t=3s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-XDxCb92X4&t=3s)
for domestic

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIvC_Kdvc4E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIvC_Kdvc4E)
for international Look at comment section. That’s more interesting than video

~~~
ep103
Thank you very much of the links. I will go through them all over the course
of this coming week. Thank you : )

> very important one which west media won't report: the government election
> experiments in village (The totalitarian regimen did tried to follow the
> great universal value promoted by western leaders instead of keep them in
> power, do you believe it)

I would LOVE to read about this. Is there any place where I could do so? This
would be extremely interesting to read.

My initial reaction, however, is that this wouldn't be possible to succeed?
Democracies do not work if people believe that they might be punished at some
point in the future for submitting a wrong answer, and when democracies are
created for the first time they have a tendency to react directly against
whatever the status quo was right before they were created... like a person
testing out their strength for the first time. Most democracies don't ever get
past this stage, before more powerful nearby nations destroy or undermine the
democracy out of fear. See as an example, a history of the middle east.

> new facts include failure practice of democracy in different areas like
> middle east, east Europa

These are all regions where democracy was specifically undermined by rival
powers in the interest of ensuring that they serve as client states. You could
have added most of South and Central America to this list as well. The United
States regularly undermines democracies in oil producing countries, and Russia
regularly undermines or invades democracies in Eastern Europe as a defense
against NATO. Neither region has much hope for democratization, outside powers
do not allow it.

The only democratically aspiring nation who's democratic attempts haven't been
undermined and destroyed by outside powers since the Arab Spring, that I am
aware of, in the Middle East, is Kurdistan, strictly because they proved
themselves so valuable to America's anti-ISIS efforts. But here you have an
example of an extremely democratic society, that is thriving, despite being in
the middle east, and despite the fact that it is currently facing completely
genocide from Turkey, abandonment by Trump, and massive foreign power attempts
to destabalize.

> Taiwan's democracy (I'm not saying that the democracy failed

What is wrong with Taiwan's democracy? I know almost nothing about the island

> If the democracy /open society can be pin pointed to be the root cause of
> sever consequence like millions of life lost, then democracy would be
> averted. It's not against concept of open society/individual liberty but
> rather choose less evil. That’s why a lot of Chinese who know Orwell still
> support the totalitarian regime.

I agree with the original premise, IE: if you can prove that democracy will
result in millions of deaths, then you shouldn't be a democracy. But I don't
understand how you went from that sentence to the last one. The last
democracies I am aware of that resulted in deaths of the sort you are talking
about are all pre-holocaust, the progroms of Europe. But this has been a
solved problem since Immanuel Kant, and is why democracies are always created
with constitutions.

> Why Chinese democracy activists have extremely high percentage of liar
> caused my curiosity that wasted a lot of time but that's beyond the topic

I am curious about this, if you would be willing to speak more? In the United
States, we call this phenomenon COINTELPRO.

------
sova
You can clear your name by doing "good deeds" and restore your government-
approved reputation, allowing you to ride trains and you know, be human

~~~
nickthemagicman
Good Deeds? Basically unpaid labor?

~~~
wil421
Is it much different than having to do community service for a misdemeanor? I
would think disorderly conduct or public drunkenness are similar to _some_ of
these social credit deductions.

*I do not agree with social credit just attempting to draw comparisons to the US.

------
zachguo
Sensationalization aside, imagine, everyday, you have to interact with
hundreds of people and have a million strangers passing in front of you. If
you've taken BART or VTA in Bay Area, imagine the amount of people is 100
times bigger. Your chance of running into an a*hole is super high, what would
you do about it?

------
theredbox
Through influence and money China can impose social credit on foreigners or
businesses. You did talk shit about CCP or China ? You can say adieu to your
license or ability to do joint ventures in China.

------
skilled
Dude.. People are literally paying the government money (tax) to have them
brainwashed.

Society in 2019 sure as hell is fun..

~~~
tapland
Whoever is governing has always had the opportunity to influence others,
because whatever media of the time reports in some way about what is happening
at the governing levels of society.

This is not a 2019 problem.

~~~
justaguyhere
The scale, ease, speed and reach of the tools for media manipulation in 2019
is very scary compared to those in the past. And it is only going to get
worse. Russia is said to have spent very little money in meddling with other
countries' elections using the media, for a fantastic ROI. This wasn't
possible in the past.

~~~
tapland
Yes. Streamlining communication doesn't always bring benefits. We need to sort
something out that works when everything is instant.

------
nickthemagicman
That's some next level dystopian stuff there.

~~~
Miner49er
I'm curious how this is worse then what the United States does, for example.
Nearly all the "crimes" listed here can be punished with jail in the U.S.,
which is obviously way worse, and far more violent.

~~~
taway483
"Social credit offences range from [...] to spreading false information" \-
this is what it's really about. Force citizens to spread government propaganda
and make it impossible to challenge those in power.

------
nathan_f77
I don't think this is such a bad idea in principle, but I disagree with a lot
of these rules. I've tried to find a few examples from various articles and
see if I agree or disagree with them.

Note: [𝗫] means that I agree with the rule.

\----------------

[] Spending too long playing video games (or watching too much TV)

I don't know how long is "too long", but I wouldn't criticize anyone for
playing in the evenings after work, or longer on the weekends. And what if
someone is or unable to work, or financially independent? The government
shouldn't be telling people how to spend their time.

[] Wasting money on frivolous purchases

This is a very strange thing to measure and judge.

[] Posting on social media

This is bizarre.

[𝗫] Trying to ride a train with no ticket

[𝗫] Loitering in front of boarding gates

[𝗫] Smoking in no-smoking areas.

[] People who refused military service

Forced conscription is an awful idea and should be banned by the UN. (I found
this [1].)

[𝗫] "Pet owners get points deducted if the dog is walked without a leash..."

[] "... or causes public disturbances"

I don't know about that. Don't penalize someone because their dog starts
barking at something.

[𝗫] Some crimes, like fraud and embezzlement, would also have a big effect on
social credit.

[𝗫] Not paying individual taxes or fines.

[𝗫 in a western country, but not in China] - Spreading false information

I wouldn't trust the Chinese government to enforce this. Maybe in Canada, US,
UK, Aus, NZ.

Taking drugs: 𝗫 for all Class A drugs, but not for marijuana, ecstacy, LSD,
mushrooms, etc.

\----------------

I'm assuming that the following criteria exist, although I didn't find
anything online:

[] Using a VPN to get past the Great Firewall

I truly don't understand why China feels the need for censorship and blocking
websites with the Great Firewall. It just doesn't make any sense to me. It's
not like the rest of the world has fallen into anarchy because we can say
whatever we want.

[𝗫] Downloading pirated movies, music, games, and software

I'm thinking about this from a western point of view, where we have access to
Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, Google Play, iTunes, etc. There's no valid reason to
torrent things anymore. People should be able to afford to rent movies or TV
shows instead of pirating them.

[] Organizing a pro-democracy rally / protesting communism

It's just strange that people get in trouble for this, and I presume that they
lose a lot of their social credit points.

[] Practicing Islam, Christianity, Falun Gong

I think this is the far more dystopian side of China, and far more terrible
than the social credit system.

[] Referring to Xi Jinping as Winnie the Pooh

It just doesn't seem like such a big deal. Same for the Erdogan / Gollum
picture. These people just need to lighten up and take a joke. (But I
understand it's a different culture.)

[] Taking big risks to start a new company

I still can't believe that entrepreneurship was illegal in the Soviet Union. I
would like to learn more about the history of entrepreneurship in China, but I
believe it's very accepted now, especially in cities like Shenzhen. I included
this because I feel like everyone would be expected to go to university, get a
good job, and have a peaceful life, and you might lose some social credit if
you veer off that path. That's definitely not a world I want to live in.

[] Relationship problems, divorce, infidelity

Should have nothing to do with the government.

\----------------

Anyway, I think the social credit system could work in a better country with
better laws. My main problem with China is the terrible human rights
violations, lack of free speech, censorship, and no freedom of religion.

[1]
[https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/RuleOfLaw/Pages/Conscientiou...](https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/RuleOfLaw/Pages/ConscientiousObjection.aspx)

~~~
BubRoss
There will always be something you disagree with in granular 'social credit'
system like this. We already have the justice system to disincentive bad
behavior. All of the things you agreed with already have some sort of
punishment in many places.

------
cat199
robotpeople's republic of china

~~~
sctb
We've asked you before to please stop trolling. We eventually ban accounts, so
could you please review the guidelines and stop?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
cat199
get that this was not a good post. apologies. will be more cognizant of
guidelines, which i was not before.

that said, not a troller or a troll account.

is there any metaprocess here for reviewing flags and/or flagging a bad flag?

(which, to be clear, i'm not saying this is, and infact, the contrary)

4+ pages of comment review doesn't show me any 'ask before', and I'd hate to
get mis-banned by being too irritable in an actually better/on topic/etc
post.. (which, to be clear this isn't)

