
Beijing to Judge Every Resident Based on Behavior by End of 2020 - lunchbreak
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-21/beijing-to-judge-every-resident-based-on-behavior-by-end-of-2020
======
yosito
I've been frustrated lately that my rating as a passenger in Uber is at 4.78
and falling despite my own preception of always being an excellent passenger.
I can't imagine how frustrating it would be to have your entire life
controlled by this type of rating system. I listened to a podcast that dug
into how once you get into a hole with this type of rating system it's self-
reinforcing and practically impossible to get out of. This can't be a good
thing for civil liberties.

~~~
paraditedc
Unlike Uber (or even HN for that matter), China's social credit system is
_transparent and explicit_ in the way it rewards or deducts points.

You know what you did wrongly to lose points, so that you can avoid it next
time.

You also know what are good things that you can do to improve your score.

~~~
ndnxhs
Which is perfect for the government because everyone will change their
behaviours to match what the government wants.

~~~
throwaway34924
But the government is made up of people. If I recall, there are something like
90 million members in the CCP. And really, any Chinese citizen can join and
move up the ranks.

~~~
mtgx
So we're pretending Xi is not a dictator now? Did we forget how he arrested
all of his real opponents and critics before re-election? You make it sound
like China is almost a democracy which couldn't be farther from the truth.

------
pmoriarty
Every resident, or just those who don't bribe the right people to improve
their ranking, or those who aren't high enough in the political pecking order?

It almost goes without saying that such a system is ripe for abuse and puts in
to the hands of the powerful a new tool for control over the powerless.

The average citizen will now have to jump even higher when their masters tell
them to jump, while those at the top of the political hierarchy are very
likely to be exempt.

~~~
whatshisface
Even if the system applies equally to everyone, the biggest problem will be
that civil disobedience is now completely banned. The government is now able
to do whatever they want with impunity, and the citizens can't do anything
about it.

~~~
fossuser
Maybe they’ll be a new subculture of unrated or poorly rated people that
supply their own market and services? That’s if the government doesn’t just
start killing them.

~~~
pmoriarty
This reminds me of Blank Reg[1], from 1984's Max Headroom.[2]

The Blanks were people who have no record in the system.

Now that was a prescient TV show if I ever saw one.

[1] -
[http://www.maxheadroom.com/index.php?title=Episode_ABC.1.6:_...](http://www.maxheadroom.com/index.php?title=Episode_ABC.1.6:_%22Blanks%22)

[2] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Headroom:_20_Minutes_into_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Headroom:_20_Minutes_into_the_Future)

------
NoblePublius
It you think this is dystopian, you probably have good credit. Try setting up
home internet with a FICO under 600. Try renting an apartment in Williamsburg
with an Experian score under 750. Try getting a civil service job while your
gas bill is overdue. America invented this.

~~~
berberous
Some of these seem like really bad comparisons. If your credit score is bad,
you just have to pay your ISP in advance, rather than be billed monthly in
arrears, which is pretty logical. This is also just a rational response by a
private company in response to a customer’s bad credit. Not that I don’t have
lots of issues with the credit reporting agencies in America.

The Chinese system seems a whole lot more dystopian since it’s state run, and
since they are trying to link unrelated things — i.e. penalize you for certain
“anti-social” behavior that goes far beyond having poor credit.

~~~
chillacy
Ironically this is what the American credit system was designed to avoid. Pre
modern credit score, bank loans were given out based on things like “moral
character”, the theory being that alcoholics shouldn’t get loans, but it turns
out this has a high false negative rate. Most hurt were of course minorities.
After the credit system access to credit exploded, whether for better or
worse.

------
fuscy
China doesn’t have a good track record of policies: the pest control, the one
child. One could also argue that their economy is also showing a crisis in the
future.

This system if it is unstable and has side effects will probably screw up two
generations at least.

The main issue I see is that people with low scores can “infect” other
people’s scores. Considering this like a viral phenomenon the score will be
impacted starting with family, friends, colleagues, strangers. I can’t see a
solution except going the old route of “killing the nine family relations”.

I can see some kind of ghetto of low social score people doing barter and what
not.

There are some contradictions like donating blood giving good score but what
if for someone with a low score. There goes empathy if punished.

Or some exploits like colluding and creating cartels of increasing social
score artificially.

------
pg_bot
Society will no longer be able to function if you can't break rules. I can
easily see the people who are impacted by this system starting a revolution.

~~~
whatshisface
The entire point of the system is to make revolution, or any change at all,
impossible. The people no longer have anything to bring in on their side of
the negotiation.

~~~
ndnxhs
Also there will be no way to organise one because the government will drop
your social score for even thinking about it of talking to anyone else with a
low score.

------
kstenerud
Once this phase is complete, the true manacles will come out: targeted
collective punishment. If your family member or friend is a bad actor, you are
guilty by association, and your score suffers.

This will also make you reachable even if you're not living in China. Say
something China doesn't like? Your family and friends score suffers in China.
Do it for too long and they disown you for their own self preservation.

------
preommr
A part of me feels like this can't possibly be a good thing.

But who knows, maybe this will work out and be a net positive for society at
the cost of the few people that will fall through the cracks and be evaluated
unfairly. It seems like this is going to happen one way or another, so here's
hoping for the best.

~~~
xbmcuser
Like all things this will have it's negatives and it positives. Will result in
decrease in crime cleaner streets better behaved citizens. One major problem
China faces is that they have advanced too quickly from rural to urban for the
people habits and behaviours to have changed. Now this will force people to
change. But at the same time the restrictions that people will be living under
will result in mental problems in the future. My thought is taking this at
face value and not considering how this will be abused as that is another
argument which everyone else is doing.

------
nobody271
In the future identities will belong to groups of people, not individuals. It
will be like that episode of cracked where everyone is one of the characters
on friends. Something weird is happening with society where as the internet
connects us there are ways of doing things that win out on huge scales. It's
like we're outsourcing our personalities, hobbies, likes and dislikes, etc.
Powers that be want more control. They don't want us to be individuals. They
want us to be neurons. We're taking a sick turn that's a hundred times worse
than anything Orwell could have imagined.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Can you expound on this? I’m not sure I follow but I’m interested.

~~~
nobody271
Okay but please understand you're asking me to spend a half an hour
decompressing and interleaving several different ideas I have into one. I
don't mind if you really are interested but this is the internet and it
wouldn't be the first time I did to his only to no response or to have it
start an argument that I don't want to participate in.

~~~
rak00n
Another way to see it is we're interested in what you were saying and we're
giving you the podium.

~~~
nobody271
As information about people will be easier to access (think Google Glass) it
will be natural to start grouping strangers together based on various scores.
So when you see someone in the store their profile gets pulled up and you see
an assessment about them. At that point the individual goes away and their
AIDs (Aggregate Identities) become more important because it's just easier.
From there instead of trying to grow as an individual people will try to grow
in these identities or try and get the right scores to switch identities. If
we enter into an age of abundance there will have to be a means of dividing up
resources. Since there will be fewer jobs for many people (I ask you to assume
this in a broad context but we could unpack it further to see if it has legs)
they will fall back on their AIDs to determine what their share of resources
should be. There won't be a reward for doing your own thing because doing your
own thing won't be recognized in any of these identities. At that point you're
just reading from whichever script you believe will get you the most points
and you cease to become a human being, you become a neuron.

Let's start with news aggregators to talk about ideas winning out on a massive
scale. One thing news aggregators do is act as a sort of activation function
for ideas. For a given news aggregator an unpopular idea within the group will
get tamped down while a popular idea within the group will get magnified. For
example, an article about how Rust is awesome will get more points on Hacker
News than an article about how Rust isn't any better than C. So when we use
news aggregators we learn how to be heard and what to avoid. It's almost so
bad that you can see an inaccurate version of history being written before
your eyes sometimes. For example, during the last presidential election Reddit
was awash with extremist left wing propaganda because those ideas were
rewarded and magnified on that site. Meanwhile any centrist or right idea was
immediately tamped down. The aggregator has spoken! Again, we see what to
avoid and what to do to get a reward. So we trade our autonomy for internet
points. I guess that is why they call it the hive mind.

To me it seems like our ideas are becoming more unified even as our population
expands. I think this is because ideas spread easily on social media. But at
the same time it's just easier to do things at scale. It's easier to build
cookie cutter houses than homes for individuals and honestly it's easier to
live in a cookie cutter house in a cookie cutter life and give up some of that
autonomy so that you can focus on what matters to you. e.g. so you can
specialize or just provide the best possible life for your family. But even in
specialties there is a strong demand to conform to popular consensus. That's
why, to me, it seems like we are outsourcing many parts of ourselves. We give
up a little autonomy here so that we can focus our energy elsewhere but when
we're expected to give up our autonomy there too we again become nothing more
than extremely hard working, unappreciated, and unfulfilled neurons. *At this
point it might sound like I am talking about myself or that I hate my job,
lol. Just to clarify, I actually do enjoy my job but I know what it's like to
work in a web development dungeon.

The last little bit about Orwell I don't think makes a whole lot of sense now
that I look at it again. He surely could have imagined a dystopian future
where a power hungry government turns its citizens into slaves by controlling
their access to resources based on invasive monitoring of their "behavior". It
just seems a little deeper than 1984 to me because of the psychological impact
of living a prescribed life and carrying around a fake smile every second of
the day.

~~~
thatoneuser
I couldn’t agree with you more. It’s been getting me down lately - how
everyone is just doing the same thing. Echoing the same thoughts (while
ironically patting themselves on the back for their perceived intelligence in
doing so). Taking the same selfie pose in the same location with the same
expression of how exhilarating the experience is.

I’m currently prepping for an interview at one of the big tech companies. It’s
hard to push aside the thought that I’m a nobody who at best will spend years
nipping at the toes of the hyper privileged individuals who are no more
capable than me (in theory), yet who, because of their birth rights (parents,
wealth, connections, etc), are in a position of power where their subjective
desires will dictate what I do and say with my life (at least 1/3 of it,
including the 1/3 where I’m unconscious). It’s even harder to think that as
time goes on, this paradigm will only grow further. Just thinking about the
updates I’ll make to my resume to pass the test, and how I’ll have to squeeze
in the right buzz words all while displaying a cheery demeanor as though this
is all a favor to me - it saddens me. And then I consider how in 5, 20, 50
years this whole process will be that much more nuanced and invasive...

It’s not the future I saw in youth. It’s the opposite. I thought the world was
one where work produced more for everyone. More wealth, more comfort, more
freedom. But it seems inevitable that in a finite space with an ever growing
population, that’s not going to be the case. It’s a constant struggle for
power. It’s not always the same individuals and groups driving it, but the
result is the same every time.

Thank you for the write up. It resonated deeply with me.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
I probably should post this from a throwaway, but whatever...burn the boats.

 _I’m currently prepping for an interview at one of the big tech companies.
It’s hard to push aside the thought that I’m a nobody who at best will spend
years nipping at the toes of the hyper privileged individuals who are no more
capable than me (in theory), yet who, because of their birth rights (parents,
wealth, connections, etc), are in a position of power where their subjective
desires will dictate what I do and say with my life (at least 1 /3 of it,
including the 1/3 where I’m unconscious). It’s even harder to think that as
time goes on, this paradigm will only grow further. Just thinking about the
updates I’ll make to my resume to pass the test, and how I’ll have to squeeze
in the right buzz words all while displaying a cheery demeanor as though this
is all a favor to me - it saddens me. And then I consider how in 5, 20, 50
years this whole process will be that much more nuanced and invasive..._

This describes me exactly. I've been self-employed for over a decade, I do
very well at it, I have a growing "side hustle" helping other freelancers and
consultants build stronger businesses, and it's close to taking over as my
dominant source of income.

But every six to twelve months I just get really, really tired and I think
about getting a job at one of the big tech companies. I think I could probably
make as much or more over the next 10-20 years as I will working for myself,
and it doesn't seem like the worst gig. It seems emotionally much easier than
what I'm doing now.

But one of the biggest things that holds me back is the feeling you describe
of just being a nobody cog in the wheel. Can I do that? It sounds crushing,
but I can't decide if that's my ego, me being unrealistic, me placing too much
value and identity on career and work and money, etc.

When I was in my 20s, I had an opportunity to go work directly for a founder
of one of these companies. Everyone knows his name. He was looking for a
family tech manager to basically manage all the technology for his houses
around the world, yachts, private jets, etc. I deliberated for days about even
interviewing for this gig. I did, but didn't get the job in the end. Maybe for
the best. But the reason I didn't know if I wanted it was that I felt pretty
sure that the billionaire across the table never would have taken that job in
his 20s. So why was I?

And one of the things I learned that day after spending an hour with this guy
was this: he's nothing special. Yeah, he's smart, and he's worked hard, but I
didn't see anything there that seemed foreign to me. And that's why I've been
self-employed for the last decade, and why I suspect I'll never have a job
again. Because it just seems unbearable to accept defeat and get a job working
for someone who got lucky, yes, but also didn't just accept defeat and get a
job when it was on the table for them.

Enough rambling, back to work!

~~~
thatoneuser
Thanks for the insight. I’ve only been working independently for a short two
years and I’m constantly wondering if I should feel as weak as I do about it.
Your analogy is very meaningful. You’re right - that billionaire never would
have taken the job. Not that my goal is to be a billionaire (a few million
would suffice XD), but more to be in a position where I get to call the shots
in my own life.

Hope things are working out for you.

------
ridgeguy
Have not read beyond the headline, so apologies if (as is likely) I missed a
critical point. However:

This seems likely to cause those who don't want or can't fit into the rated
society China is building to emigrate.

The more creative, the misfits, those square pegs who don't fit in round
holes... Send them our way.

~~~
stephen_g
I’m fairly sure that low social credit restricts their ability to travel or
leave the country, so that may not work. Unfortunately the more likely
scenario for then is probably winding up in ‘re-education’.

------
AlexandrB
Make no mistake, this is coming to "the west" as well. Just in a distributed,
capitalistic way. Someone else here mentioned Uber ratings, but that's just
the tip of the iceberg. Social media is already used as a source of data for
rentals[1] and even babysitting[2] applications. But of course the most eager
adopters are also the effective gatekeeper to so many aspects of modern life:
insurance companies[3].

Meanwhile, the algorithms used to make these decisions are often an
unaccountable, un-analyzable black box. It's going to be very possible to fall
through into an "undesirable" category without any obvious misdeeds or obvious
ways to fix the situation. I expect we're going to see a category of
consultants emerge that will help you "fix" undesirable algorithm ratings -
just like we have for credit ratings.

[1] [https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/15/naborly-lets-landlords-
scr...](https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/15/naborly-lets-landlords-screen-
tenants-automagically/)

[2] [https://venturebeat.com/2018/10/04/babysitter-screening-
app-...](https://venturebeat.com/2018/10/04/babysitter-screening-app-
predictim-uses-ai-to-sniff-out-bullies/)

[3] [https://medium.com/privacy-international/social-media-
intell...](https://medium.com/privacy-international/social-media-intelligence-
and-profiling-in-the-insurance-industry-4958fd11f86f)

~~~
exolymph
> Just in a distributed, capitalistic way.

This is a HUGE difference because you are allowed to exit a given system /
rating scheme or not use the services that require it. That may be difficult,
but it's not literally prevented by the government. You and your fellow
defectors can build alternatives. Build your own institutions.

~~~
username90
I bet your future employer would be very interested in seeing your Uber rating
before they hire you, so if a company decided to sell that information it
could get very close to what China intends to do.

------
thrower123
I can't help but think of the episode Majority Rule from The Orville, but more
sinister and less campy...

[https://m.imdb.com/title/tt6845666/](https://m.imdb.com/title/tt6845666/)

------
edoo
It is worth noting that many of the penalties the Chinese government is
pushing would be considered a direct violation of inalienable humans rights as
recognized by our constitution. Their approach should have you terrified for
their citizens.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Ha! I’m terrified for _our citizens_ , because people here apparently have no
idea how good we have it, even with all our problems. According to a bunch of
people on HN (on this post and previous ones about this subject), the fact
that we have FICO scores in America makes us just as bad, if not worse.

People have literally no idea how good they have it. If they think everything
is hell, why would they fight to protect it?

~~~
inetknght
> _the fact that we have FICO scores in America makes us just as bad, if not
> worse._

No, it makes us comparable. Not comparable like "we're the same". It makes us
comparable like "we have something similar and let me show you some of the
differences and correlations so that we might learn something".

> _People have literally no idea how good they have it._

I think you're observing us focused on the bad and it makes you think we've
lost sight of what's good.

> _If they think everything is hell, why would they fight to protect it?_

What right do we have to something which we do not wish to improve? How can we
fight to improve if we do not discuss how it's bad and what could be done to
resolve the problems? How can you resolve problems if you don't recognize them
in the first place?

~~~
ryanwaggoner
By that logic every country or organization or grouping of people in history
is “comparable”.

~~~
danharaj
You might be surprised to learn that there are entire disciplines of
scholarship dedicated to comparing countries, organizations, and groupings of
people.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Really?? Wow!

That doesn’t mean that they’re all “comparable” in any reasonable sense of the
word.

~~~
inetknght
What you find to be reasonable is not necessarily what others find to be
reasonable. For a comparison: I find @danharaj's comment to be very
reasonable.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
Probably because they're agreeing with you and I'm disagreeing with you.

Is a small tribe of Native Americans in the 1400s "comparable" to the European
Union in 2018?

Only in the sense that you _can_ compare them, but then, you can compare
anything, so literally anything is comparable in that sense, which robs the
word of all meaning.

~~~
danharaj
> Only in the sense that you can compare them, but then, you can compare
> anything, so literally anything is comparable in that sense, which robs the
> word of all meaning.

I think there's quite a bit more in common between a 1400's tribe and the EU
than say, the star Polaris and trends of Swedish Cubism in the years
1950-1980.

The point here has always been that throwing up your hands and saying the
original comparison is unreasonable is not a reasoned argument, it's flipping
the table and walking off. The systems of social control in the United States
and China are far more comparable than "anything to anything".

------
SN76477
This isn’t mature technology. It shouldn’t be opterating at this scale.

Following novelty can lead to many disasters.

I imagine that suicide and such self destructive behavior will skyrocket.

~~~
chillacy
Curious if there are small scale experiments. Like, what if reddit karma were
distributed by the mods?

------
djklanac
1984

------
resters
The main difference between this and the US is that US citizens are compliant
enough not to warrant such explicit measures.

In the US, if a citizen is suspected of getting out of line, all social media
data, phone metadata, all bank transactions, etc., for that individual and all
of his/her friends or acquaintances, which for most people is tens of
thousands of people, is available for review by law enforcement, with no doubt
that a warrant will be obtained.

FWIW, in the US, anyone within 100 miles of a border (which is the majority of
people) has no 4th amendment right against arbitrary search.

There is most definitely a social credit system in the US to the extent that
one is necessary, but due to the success of other social control mechanisms it
is not necessary for it to be as overt as China's.

This sort of anti-China propaganda has been building over time and this story
has been tested and revised a few times, but per the article below, is not
actually true:

[https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-
chaos/2018/11/19/c...](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-
chaos/2018/11/19/chinas-orwellian-social-credit-score-isnt-real/)

~~~
ryanwaggoner
As usual, here come the comments claiming that the US is just as bad. Had HN
been around at the end of WWII, I’m sure the news of millions of Jews being
killed in concentration camps would have been met with “Yeah, well we put
Japanese people in internment camps. We do it differently, but we still
oppress people, so who are we to judge.”

You’re wrong about there being no doubt that a warrant can be obtained to
examine the records of tens of thousands of people because one person “got out
of line”, except in the most extreme cases. Well, depending on how you define
“getting out of line”, maybe extreme national security but that’s relatively
rare. I’d like to see a source showing that such warrants are widespread.

And that’s not how the 100 miles from the border / 4th amendment thing works
either. Not that it’s not a complete clusterfuck, but it’s not as simple as
you describe: [https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-
zone](https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone)

Edit: to clarify for the dead comment in response to mine: America does all
kinds of terrible shit. We always have. Internment camps are a stain on this
country. And the stuff we do in the name of national security spits on the
spirit of the constitution. But that doesn’t mean it’s on the same level as
all atrocities by other governments, or that we’re robbed of our moral
authority to condemn human rights violations because we’re imperfect. And the
lazy whataboutism that’s dragged out every time there’s a story about a truly
horrific authoritarian regime trampling on its citizens is galling. It’s
ignorant and useless.

~~~
resters
> we’re robbed of our moral authority to condemn human rights violations

I think you've hit the nail on the head by describing it as a form of moral
authority. American exceptionalism is a religion, and the idea that America's
actions are morally justifiable no matter what their humanitarian cost is one
of the fundamental tenets of the religion.

To be clear, American exceptionalism is among the most destructive and
horrible religious regimes ever to exist, and has caused untold suffering all
over the modern world. Keep in mind we live in 2018 when most disease and
scarcity that once prevented human populations from flourishing have been
eradicated.

Yet America is engaged in countless wars abroad and coerces its allies to
collaborate in the enactment of inhumane sanctions aimed at all sorts of
populations of innocents all around the world. Their crime? Not giving up
their lives to overthrow whatever dictator has taken power.

Meanwhile we sit back and watch it all on CNN or Fox and praise the bold,
morally principled actions of our political leaders whose moralizing led to
the sanctions, bombs, drones, etc.

It is absolutely unconscionable for Americans or American leaders to attempt
to use some sort of moral superiority as a justification for committing these
kinds of acts. Why is this story being promulgated about China in spite of
being oversold? Because some American leaders want to threaten China
militarily and want to disturb the peace that has been achieved over the past
decades.

One reason American Exceptionalism may not seem to you like a religion is
because it is so unbelievably widespread. Politicians are expected to pepper
their remarks with platitudes about the moral righteousness of our wars and
our policies. It's all complete nonsense.

We act in the service of powerful interest groups, aligning with whatever
dictators suit us at the moment, and never will our political leaders discuss
any sort of definition of national interest. They prefer to talk in religion-
esque language with platitudes about how brave our soldiers are and how
virtuous our motives.

But in fact, a simple clear articulation of what they claim US national
interest to be would be more than enough. If it's in the US national interest
to somehow engage in conflict with China, then claim it outright, don't spend
years trying to paint China as totalitarian or ultra authoritarian. It's not
true nor is it remotely relevant.

The real cost of American exceptionalist dogma is that so many of us never
think deeply about why we are supporting various wars or sanctions or
dictators. We just assume that of course the US would never do anything
untoward while our leaders exploit that naivete to the fullest.

So please spare us the platitudes about WW2, the so-called _greatest
generation_ and all that nonsense. War is ugly and we most certainly did not
enter WW2 for humanitarian reasons.

~~~
ryanwaggoner
I think perhaps you responded to the wrong comment. Or you didn’t bother to
read mine. Yours on the other hand I’ve read a thousand times: America is the
ultimate evil, blah blah. You guys need some new material.

~~~
resters
Of course some actions of nations against their own people or against foreign
people will be worse than others.

If the consensus mechanism used in a democracy is a simple majority, that
leaves the opportunity for 49% of the population to be entirely
disenfranchised by 51%. Let's assume this is fair and reasonable for now.

Moral authority is something that has traditionally been claimed by members of
the clergy, and notably by many governments in which the political leaders are
also the religious leaders.

We've seen the many downsides of theocracy around the world, so I find it
concerning that so many Americans are willing to accept hollow moralizing from
elected leaders.

If a president said, "I woke this morning and I knew that God had spoken to
me. He said that the US must invade country X. And so it shall be done", most
people would all be appropriately freaked out.

But when instead the political leader says "Country X is led by a mentally ill
tyrant, women of country X are oppressed, and the infrastructure in country X
under the current regime is failing, resulting in high levels of disease and
infant mortality", everyone applauds the upright moral character of the
American politician.

Every day the newspapers contain a number of articles pointing to
infrastructure problems in other nations... whether it's drug violence in
south or central America, corruption in India, the smell of garbage or sewage
in China, etc. Not to mention the many articles taking aim at social ills
blamed on the ruling party in any number of nations. This writing is read by
Americans as we read celebrity gossip, as entertainment. It reinforces the
narrative of American exceptionalism.

But one might ask why it is necessary. It is done to help make Americans view
foreign people as beneath them, unable to prevent drug violence, corruption or
the smell of garbage. We are meant to read these articles and think "wow I am
sure glad I live in the US".

But in reality, the way of life for middle class people in many countries in
the world is superior to that experienced in the US. Not in the way that is
reflected by per-capita GDP, but if you go there and see how people live it is
obvious.

If Americans realized that we would tolerate a lot less from policymakers. We
might even insist on accountability for grand ideas that promise to be money
pits. If we saw the people of other nations as getting a lot of things right,
maybe even getting some things more right than we do, we might be reluctant to
allow our leaders to fly drones over their countries or scapegoat their
exporters.

The entire American security state and massive military projection of power
could not exist without the opiatic effect of the state religion of American
Exceptionalism.

So while the program going on in China may be of some minor level of concern,
we need to see through the PR campaign that is going on and realize _why_ we
are being told about this one narrow aspect of Chinese policy.

------
armitron
To me this looks like the continuation of Project Cybersyn [1] and is just
applied cybernetics on a societal scale. To call it totalitarian or dismiss it
as a simple dystopian nightmare is very superficial. I am actually quite
impressed at the guile of the Chinese state for going ahead with this.

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

To the unknown person who criticized me ("people like you are what's wrong
with the world") but later deleted his post:

To see this from a mere political angle, is to miss the point entirely. You
are deluding yourself if you think that similar cybernetic feedback loops are
not currently in play in western democratic states. The difference is that in
the west, these loops are driven by non-state actors and focus on cultivating
consumerism (look at the Black Friday hordes), apathy and lack of critical
thinking. By taking an active approach, the Chinese state could try to pre-
empt these problems on one hand and aim at creating a different kind of
citizen on the other.

