Slashdot Mirror
Chinese Journalist Banned From Flying, Buying Property Due To 'Social Credit Score' (cbslocal.com)
schwit1 shares a report from CBS Local: China is rolling out a high-tech plan to give all of its 1.4 billion citizens a personal score, based on how they behave. But there are consequences if a score gets too low, and for some that's cause for concern. When 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. "I can't buy property. My child can't go to a private school," he said. "You feel you're being controlled by the list all the time." And the list is now getting longer as every Chinese citizen is being assigned a social credit score -- a fluctuating rating based on a range of behaviors. It's believed that community service and buying Chinese-made products can raise your score. Fraud, tax evasion and smoking in non-smoking areas can drop it.
In the US they just put you in the no-fly list with no explanation and you are pretty much screwed.
The chinese at least give you some feedback to "improve".
Look at some of the current people in our government.
The problem with your idea is that those are the people who would decide what your "social score" is. Do you really think that the people who covered up Teddy Kennedy leaving a woman to die would have counted any of his anti-social behavior against him? Or that the people who are angry about Donald Trump's alleged sexual harassment but were OK with Bill Clinton's alleged rapes would have evenly applied "social scores"?
Basically, the concept only works if you have honest, trustworthy people to implement it, but if you have such people in positions of power, you don't need it.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Even if Ted diddo that, he simply wasn't emotionally equiped to deal with the problem and has to be forgiven. After all, he is a Kennedy and they are all high IQ geniuses. The people that did the cover-up are the guilty one by hiding the truth from us.
See how easy it is to shift your social score to someone else?
The other smart Kennedy fly a plane into the ground.
That's how I envisaged this passage would work:
And he [the "Beast"] causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. (Revelation 13:16-17 King James Version)
You acts (symbolized by right hand) or thinking (symbolized by forehead) not conforming to society's norms (actually, what society is told the norms are - symbolized by the mark of the beast)? Then you will be censured by restricting your economic activities, even the unrelated ones.
Nice alpha testing there to smooth out the bugs before the international roll-out...
Then there's those Southern Baptists still waiting for the bar code and/or implanted microchip. (Which admittedly will make the administration of such a system even easier.)
(Posting AC because of unpopular view - not following the /. groupthink. Hmmm the irony.)
As mentioned above, being antisocial is a pretty vague term and possibly treads on protected speech if you're in a country that protects speech.
The UK has antisocial behavior laws, eg. They can forbid you from doing anything which has caused nuisance to others in the past, eg. ban you from going down a certain street from going into the town center.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
However, I do think this would be a good idea if applied to criminal behaviour. Take shitty drivers off the road for driving like dicks, forbid fraudsters and tax evaders from holding business licences and being bondable, that sort of thing. Relevant punishments for relevant crimes.
They don't already do that where you live? Weird.
I'd take it a step further. Anything you do in public that requires somebody else to go around cleaning up after you? Points off your social score. Any sort of violence or intimidation of other people? Points off your score. Any behavior that puts other people at risk? Points off your score. etc., etc.
Nobody's asking you to be an angel, be a miserable git if you want, just don't be a drain on society. Society has enough problems without people like you causing extra expense and cleanups.
You can't stop yourself from being an asshole? Fine, but don't ask for anything in return. Starting with the right to vote.
This would reduce the strain on the prison system if we just limit the freedoms of those who abused their freedoms, rather than locking them up. Only lock up violent psychopaths should be locked up, let the rest of society's fuck-ups walk around less-than-free with their heads hung low.
Agree 100% there. The only people who should be in prison are those who cause physical harm to others (or other people's property).
No sig today...
If any western government tried something like this, every single citizen and their dog would know about it. I've asked some locals in China about it, none of them had a clue about what I was talking about.
..and thought 'That's a good idea!'.... Scary..
With the Chinese, at least the government is the doing the scoring, so you can understand the nature of the beast, with the US, you're really throwing yourself on the court of public opinion and hoping it isn't spun by Fox News.
And providing your social media accounts is now mandatory to enter the US.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
--MARTIN NIEMÖLLER
My politically charged comments were to show that Trump's political opponents had just as well-known, and possibly more serious, cheating and crimes.
Unfortunately, the right-wing's failure to recognize Trump's own serious crimes and malfeasances is evident, as well as how the Clinton's accusers were guilty of many crimes, including Gingrich, Hyde, Hastert, Livingston and more. That, and how despite decades of trying, the right-wing still relies on specious claims like passing around the so-called "Death List" and completely misrepresenting situations like abortion or immigration.
Not to mention, more recently, characters like Moore himself. And dozens of others. But what do we hear?
Well, despite their claims otherwise, it seems that conservatives love to judge and condemn others who disagree with them, while being indifferent, apologetic, and even supportive of their own members behavior. Yet oddly, they ascribe all the follies of this kind of judgment to their nemesis, the dreaded liberals and progressives themselves.
So whatever criticisms they say that might have some truthful character is undercut by the multitude of lies, hyperbole and hypocrisy that is coming from their own quarters.
Perhaps if you were being truly bipartisan in your comments, and made more of an effort to emphasize the impropriety to be found on both sides, you might yourself accomplish some degree of effectiveness to your attempts.
Now me, I could point out some of the follies that Clinton made, such as going along with the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, but then, that would require the GOP to admit the Bush Presidency was the one responsible for it. But they can't do that, they can't even admit they were the ones who started keeping prisoners at Guantanamo or that they even opposed Obama's efforts to bring them to trial.
It already does exist in the US, in various ways. Ask any convicted felon about their experiences finding work, applying for credit, getting housing... "serving your time" extends well past the prison term.