The Chinese corporate social credit system

[Xzi]

Yeah, including their right to religious expression and freedoms. Doesn't say anything about a baker having to serve everyone for any reason.

Doesn't say anything about Youtube or Facebook having to serve everyone for any reason, either. The laws governing business were written well after the constitution. I'm just trying to get you to pick a lane and stick to it.

The other time was for a transgender cake which is along the same lines as a gay wedding cake. Most likely a leftist troll wanting to cause more grief for the oppressed religious baker. Why can't the left leave people alone? If this was a clean-cut case in your favor, then the supreme court would have ruled that way.

The supreme court doesn't take up standard discrimination lawsuits, that's left to the states and (rarely) a federal court.

Yeah, ok. I used to think just like you, but once I finally paid attention to the other side, I was able to break free of the chains made from the lies of the democrat party used to hold me and others down.

"Once I turned 13 and read Mein Kampf I saw that Hitler made some good points."

Just as most things, I guess you don't get this either. My score is "over 9000". You might be too young to get the reference.

Oh I get the reference, it just hasn't been funny or relevant for about a decade now.

By the way, what happened to you staying on topic or you saying you "won't be sticking around to participate"? I guess that was just another false promise from the left.

I think your brain is starting to leak out your ears. That was in reference to me leaving the country if we end up with a neoliberal candidate vs a neoconservative incumbent. Businesses denying service IRL or online are both very much relevant to the topic of how much control the private sector has over our lives, and thus their likelihood of implementing a social credit system.

If the democrats ever take over again, I might move to china. Not just because all our jobs, money, and businesses will be moving there, but because at least I will have some form of freedom there.

Unfortunately for you, unless democracy completely dies in this country, Democrats are very likely to gain control again sometime in the near future. It's been a LOOONG time since any Republican won the popular vote.

With the social media companies, insurance companies, etc already collecting our private data, it will be easy for the left to implement their own system. If you happen to not think the same as a socialist "democrat", you might be given a low score to start which will make it very hard to succeed in this system. The Right has already seen their views and expressions being attacked.

Rofl you think tech executives are socialist/leftist? They're neoliberals at best, which is basically the same as being neoconservative. Greed is their only motivation, and to keep profits high they need a complacent and subservient populace. Not an empowered working class fighting back as a collective. That's why the Washington Post is just as anti-Bernie as Fox News.

They cannot advocate for tolerance and unity without being considered a nazi or supremacist regardless if they are Jewish or a POC. I'm not trying to fearmonger here. I'm just stating that when the journalistic media and social media both attack you for what you believe, it doesn't set a very good precedence for the future. It will start on the right and work its way to everybody else, eventually.

If I take this out of context, it sounds like a critique of capitalism. The right-wing has its own journalistic media and social media platforms. Why isn't that competition sufficient enough for you?

 

[morvoran]

It's been a LOOONG time since any Republican won the popular vote.

If we can keep these "big bad corporations" you don't seem to like from influencing voters such as Google does, maybe a Republican could win the popular vote. Without google's interference in the 2016 election, Trump could have possibly won both the electoral and popular votes.

The supreme court doesn't take up standard discrimination lawsuits, that's left to the states and (rarely) a federal court.

Uh, derpy derp, well, why did they take this case then?

I'm just trying to get you to pick a lane and stick to it.

I picked a lane after seeing what the Democrats and the left were really about. I cannot, with a clear conscience, ever go along with their policies or politics that only hurt society, keep the poor class in poverty, kill other humans, and strive for more power over others ever again. If you like policies that only apply dirty, used band-aids to problems which cause them to fester even more, then keep on keepin' on. You'll be judged when your time comes for your indiscretions.

Rofl you think tech executives are socialist/leftist?

ROFL, you don't think they are? See Google, facebook, twitter, twitch, etc....

A classic line from Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter, "But the people who build Twitter are biased, Dorsey admitted in an interview last month, saying out loud what everyone already knew: Twitter, like most tech companies in Silicon Valley, has a lot more left-leaning employees than right-leaners." Funny, this was found on your favorite source of hate "Vox.com". I guess Jack Dorsey is just a Trump loving white supremacist, huh?

Greed is their only motivation,

And power to control others. Too bad they are ran by your leftist buddies who sponsor censorship, hate and racist values.

The right-wing has its own journalistic media and social media platforms. Why isn't that competition sufficient enough for you?

Because other than Fox News, which even you admit is bipartisan, the other large media companies are extremely biased. When they do get an actual journalist working for them, they immediately blacklist them and run them out of town. Conservatives do go to other social media platforms, but they are not as main stream as Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter. Most moderates/independents use the bigger companies. You can't get your voice heard if nobody is listening.

In other news that is related to the topic.....

Social Media and their social credit system has claimed a new victim.

High School Bans Student After He Goes To Shooting Range With His Mom, Snapchat Post

A 16-year-old student at a Colorado high school was informed by the school district Wednesday that he was not allowed to return to classes until the school could conduct an investigation into an anonymous tip that he had posted "threatening" content online.

Due to a social media post, this student who, apparently, has no evidence of violence, death threats, or hateful online posts related to him is being banned from going to school for fear he may be a possible school shooter. Just a video with his mom innocently shooting a gun at a range is all the evidence the school has against him.
Due to the fearmongering by democrats, this is what the state of affairs are becoming in the US. Guilty before proven innocent when no crime was even committed. Welcome to the "fair and tolerant" society that the leftists are bringing us with their rhetoric and lies.

 

[Xzi]

If we can keep these "big bad corporations" you don't seem to like from influencing voters such as Google does, maybe a Republican could win the popular vote. Without google's interference in the 2016 election, Trump could have possibly won both the electoral and popular votes.

Again with the fuckin' blog posts man. For someone who says they hate social media you sure seem to form a lot of your opinions based on the influence of internet randos.

Uh, derpy derp, well, why did they take this case then?

The case was elevated as a consequence of the state commission's handling of it, the supreme court didn't rule on whether the business owner was discriminatory or not.

I picked a lane after seeing what the Democrats and the left were really about. I cannot, with a clear conscience, ever go along with their policies or politics that only hurt society, keep the poor class in poverty, kill other humans, and strive for more power over others ever again. If you like policies that only apply dirty, used band-aids to problems which cause them to fester even more, then keep on keepin' on. You'll be judged when your time comes for your indiscretions.

No...pick a lane in regards to whether you think corporations should have absolute control over peoples' lives or not. If it's fine to deny service to LGBTQ individuals IRL, it's fine to deny service to conservatives online.

ROFL, you don't think they are? See Google, facebook, twitter, twitch, etc....

A classic line from Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter, "But the people who build Twitter are biased, Dorsey admitted in an interview last month, saying out loud what everyone already knew: Twitter, like most tech companies in Silicon Valley, has a lot more left-leaning employees than right-leaners." Funny, this was found on your favorite source of hate "Vox.com". I guess Jack Dorsey is just a Trump loving white supremacist, huh?

They're neoliberals, which is just the other side of the coin from neoconservatives. The fact that you don't know the difference between neoliberals, liberals, socialists, and leftists speaks to your low political intelligence.

And power to control others. Too bad they are ran by your leftist buddies who sponsor censorship, hate and racist values.

Yeah, people like Fuckerberg and Trump both do need to keep the working class divided. On that you're correct.

Because other than Fox News, which even you admit is bipartisan

Rofl no. They have a couple pundits who aren't completely detached from reality, that doesn't mean they aren't extremely right-wing.

Conservatives do go to other social media platforms, but they are not as main stream as Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter. Most moderates/independents use the bigger companies. You can't get your voice heard if nobody is listening.

Gee, I can't imagine why Trumpism wouldn't be appealing to the mainstream.

Social Media and their social credit system has claimed a new victim.

High School Bans Student After He Goes To Shooting Range With His Mom, Snapchat Post

A 16-year-old student at a Colorado high school was informed by the school district Wednesday that he was not allowed to return to classes until the school could conduct an investigation into an anonymous tip that he had posted "threatening" content online.

Oh cry me a river, a lack of common sense led to a temporary misunderstanding. If he had just added a bit more context to those images other than "finna be lit," this wouldn't have happened. Colorado has had its fair share of school shootings, so better safe than sorry.

 

[notimp]

Oh cry me a river, a lack of common sense led to a temporary misunderstanding. If he had just added a bit more context to those images other than "finna be lit," this wouldn't have happened. Colorado has had its fair share of school shootings, so better safe than sorry.

Oh, so precrime on the base of social media 'suspicion' already is a normality and socially accepted. Huh. Things move fast.

Outrage isn't the right emotion here, but if people just accept that as a normality - boy, the implications on your society are bigger (more problematic) than the victimcount all your schoolshooters produce in a year.

edit: Precrime in a societal perception sense not in a legal sense (although I wonder how laws would look like.. )

 

[Xzi]

Oh, so precrime on the base of social media 'suspicion' already is a normality and socially accepted. Huh. Things move fast.

He's not serving any jail time over it FFS, he's been temporarily inconvenienced due to his lack of common sense. I'm sure even his mom could've told him it was a bad idea to post images of guns with so little context, but I guarantee he never ran it by her. To quote Forrest Gump, "stupid is as stupid does."

 

[notimp]

Cultural selfcensorship. ('Civilisation' is, the same thing btw.)
People with less well caring moms will do worse.

And for what? So that part of the middle class feels better?

What are you achieving? People not posting images on social media?

This is part of the issue around this. You fundamentally cant solve the mass shooter problem with social meda profiling. If you use it to make it smaller - there is no direct relationship between posting something like this on facebook, and then shooting up a school. And you would make the false positives a big issue on top - as proven in this case.

Just think of it this way. Lets say you've got it down to a science. And can predict and prevent a mass shooting from happening, by analyzing social media posts at an accuracy of 99.95 percent. With millions of users the rate of false positives would be 1000s of users a day.

And here is the gag - no statistical means of predicting social behavior will ever give you an accuracy value anywhere that high.

Some risk - you have to take in bulk. Its not that you can engineer it away using predictive modeling.

So what did you end up doing? You impacted a childs life - had his story go through all media. Made him the class idiot for the better part of his remaining education life.

And for what?

- Ultimately just, and only - to stroke a _dumb_ citizens notion, of whats needed to be 'more safe' in their community ("If you see something, say something".). No, if you see somethng, say something - stops working, if you clog the system with it. If you make it about the notion, that 'that person, probably will do something any minute now', and if want to hold up high the myth that everyone engaging in it has been doing a good deed, but here it just backfired.

No - this is just a picturebook perfect example, of how stupid a society can be at times. This is "lets burn the witch" - but 21st century style.

 

[Xzi]

This is part of the issue around this. You fundamentally cant solve the mass shooter problem with social meda profiling.

It wasn't "profiling" rofl, it was a problem that could've been avoided if he had literally just added two more words to his post. "Shooting range finna be lit." See how that prevents any misunderstanding? "Shooting range with mom finna be lit," even better. Descriptive language is important, particularly when you're a high school student posting pictures of guns online. Of course the worst is going to be assumed in the country where school shootings happen more than anywhere else, that's why you don't leave things vague and up for interpretation. Hopefully the lesson has been learned, and he's free to move on with his life.

 

[notimp]

It was profiling - just in an even more stupid way.

It was "the old guy that has nothing more important to do in his life than to report suspicious behavior to the police once a week", but multiplied by 10000x - because more people are bored and on the internet - and paint pictures, using their imagination.

This is what precrime essentially is.

Way to solve this - f.e. ban easy access or use of automatic rifles - victim number goes down. Media reports less on it. 'Glory' motivation of shooters goes down with it. F.e.

Way not to solve this:
Idiotic parents geting into 'see something, say something' mode - because, 'thats not proper education - the way I would teach my child' - and everyone posting gun videos is the next school shooter - because my child showed me the video, and as a responsble parent, I ...

Thats social profiling the stupid way - and even more dangerous, because it comes under the cloak of "civil engagement" and "what every parent would do". Yes they would. But they don't understand how this works statistically. So too bad.

If you see a video of someone announcing a school shooting on social media - PLEASE report it. But that happening is a snowballs chance to survive in hell, compared to all the stuff people could imagine to be that.

So at the very least - make this not about this childs mother being irresponsible here - but make it about what this actually was. Society being utterly stupid as f*ck. Out of fear - caused by media reports.


Look at it that way. If the victim number of school shootings even in america, is now at the level of twice the yearly beesting victims (terminal), are you now calling the police everytime, someone posts a picture of a green lawn?

And yes - many more people do, than posting images of guns - but on the flipside - a bee doesnt kill 40 people in one instance either. Think it through.

The only thing that instance solved - was a common fear of 'what could happen to my child' in the hearts of parents that were involved in that issue.

So thats what you are blaming that childs mother for ("mom would have had to be more responsible in teaching their child to...").

And the probability, that this would have lead in the next school shooting was still so low - that you bringing this story into the media (and that childs youtube videos with it) - makes more of an issue, than it solves.

This is society failing.

 

[Xzi]

If you see a video of someone announcing a school shooting on social media - PLEASE report it. But that happening is a snowballs chance to survive in hell, compared to all the stuff people could imagine to be that.

Are you serious? In the last couple years, there have been tons of shooters that posted stuff on social media before committing the act. And who's to say it was a parent that reported him and not another student of the school? Not that it would matter.

So at the very least - make this not about this childs mother being irresponsible here - but make it about what this actually was. Society being utterly stupid as f*ck. Out of fear - caused by media reports.

I didn't say the mother was irresponsible, I said he almost certainly didn't run it by her and just posted that on impulse. It was a case of a stupid teen being a stupid teen. And regardless of the media's role, you can't pretend that mass shootings aren't a problem in this country.

Besides, it's right-wing media sympathetic to him that are spreading this story, doing more harm than good whether they realize it or not. I wouldn't have even heard of it otherwise. More mainstream media is covering Wal-Mart's reduction in gun/ammunition sales along with their request for customers to no longer open carry in their stores.

 

[notimp]

Are you serious? In the last couple years, there have been tons of shooters that posted stuff on social media before committing the act.

And metric tons of people posting gun videos, who then did nothing.

False positives are the issue here.

And yes, if your child comes to you with a suspicious looking instagram video, that one could interpret as that kid shooting up her school tomorrow - statistically, you should still do nothing. Because the chance that you will harm an innocent person who now got his youtube videos in wide circulation, harming them them by comparison, is still far higher.

Of course as a parent you will call the police anyhow. If something happened, and you didn't... There is no chance in hell that you are taking this chance.

But all in all this is an issue about people not understanding statistics (likelyhood of happening vs likelyhood of misinterpretation), and having an inflated sense of understanding them, because of a believe, that they are very prevalent.

 

[Xzi]

And metric tons of people posting gun videos, who then did nothing.

False positives are the sue here.

All those videos have context, which is what you don't seem to be getting. It doesn't matter where you go to school or work, if you post a picture of an AR-15 with only the text, "finna be lit," people are gonna assume you're about to shoot up your workplace/school. Nobody is going to assume that if you post a video on Youtube with the opening, "hey everybody, I'm (your name here) and here's my review of the (gun make/model here)."

"Finna be lit" is both moronic and vague. It's like saying, "about to shoot." About to shoot what? And where? "About to head out to the shooting range" cannot be misinterpreted. Nobody's gonna call the police over that. Complete sentences people, they matter.

 

[notimp]

The issue here is still that 10000x more likely you will ruin an innocents life, its just that this usually doesnt make it into national news.

So in every case - something goes wrong in that sense, dont blame that childs mother - blame your artificially enhanced sense of danger instead.

If you are watching that video and are thinking about phoning the police. By any means, act like a cavemen. Or phone that childs mother first.

Thats tribal logic. Thats what anyone would do.

It doesnt mix well with big numbers and inflated sense of danger from mass media reports.

So if you've then got police knocking at that guys door to see if it was a misunderstanding or not - maybe dont broadcast that childs videos as 'weirdo' to a mass media audience ('warning other parents'), while they are at it - in case it turns out, that you were just the statistically likely moron, that you turned out to be in this case.

 

[Xzi]

The issue here is still that 10000x more likely you will ruin an innocents life, its just that this usually doesnt make it into national news.

Talk about hyperbole. Nobody's life was ruined, and a valuable lesson was likely learned.

So in every case - something goes wrong in that sense, dont blame that childs mother - blame your artificially enhanced sense of danger instead.

That's pretty easy to say when you live a country where civilians can't own guns. Just about everyone in America has had a mass shooting happen within 50 miles of them, if not multiple mass shootings. There is no "artificial" sense of danger, the danger is very much real. That doesn't mean we're all living in fear constantly, most of us have become numb to it, but that doesn't mean we're going to ignore obvious red flags either.

Two frickin' words. Two more words added to his sentence would've prevented this whole shitshow. Maybe next time he won't skip English class.

 

[notimp]

Also, while we are at it to make another posting all about mass shooting - lets look at some other concepts that just originate from 'mass intelligence' just miserably failing.

(I will make an effort to make every posting from now on about the number of yearly beesting victims in this forum, btw - thats just fair...)

So there is a correlation between victimcount and 'importance as a news story' and there is a correlation between 'importance of the news story' and 'sense of glory the shooter gets out of it'. So if you reduce victim count - you reduce reporting, and you reduce motivation for the shooter at the same time.

Thats a package. If you ban videogames instead (f.e.) thats not. People have not the slightest idea between the difference. Not if they've watched 1000 news reports on the issue.

Why is the first thing about any mass shooting that happens in a forum like this - a person that has to talk about 'how his education methods would have prevented that from ever happening, because...' - its magical thinking. Its 'it happend because of god' - and even that would have been a better explaination - because there is no 'harm' - if it 'happened because of god'. But there is harm done - if people think that they have to "enact" that others should be better parents 'their believe style' to "prevent mass shootings".

Thats arguably - why 'god as a principle also exists' to teach people about 'bulk risk' they have to take - or otherwise, they'll end up as mobs, burning witches.

No matter what you believe - as 'tribal societies' you are exactly as stupid as people in the dark ages. We've just got better social structures that prevent you from acting on it.

Now - if you then introduce Marky Zuckthebergs Facebook - and he is all like 'wayne' I don't care if you pull the gatekeepers, and "everyone should be able to mass broadcast" (edit: without counterspeech) - weird stuff happens.

Has to do with predictably irrational behavior.

Is important in the context of 'social credit systems' as well.

 

[Xzi]

No matter what you believe - as 'tribal societies' you are exactly as stupid as people in the dark ages. We've just got better social structures that prevent you from acting on it.

All the more reason to have common sense gun legislation such as universal background checks with no private sales loophole. The majority of Americans are in favor of this, Democrats and Republicans both, but the only reason it doesn't happen is because of the NRA and other gun lobbyist groups. Thankfully they seem to be crumbling in recent days, and even Wal-Mart (as one of the nation's top gun/ammo sellers) has acknowledged there is a problem and has begun to address it from their end.

 

[notimp]

We can (over-)extend that in the other direction as well. What do you want as a parent whos now given that child a pretty unnecessary hard time?

Oh you said - an excuse from his mother for not having taught him better? Oh and you want a medal as well, dont you? How about Joe Biden pins that on you for internet denouncement? Would that be something you like?

But think about all the lives you could have saved... Just that - statistically it was never very likely. But what do you care. In that moment 'you had to save you child' in your mind.

So there it's a good thing - that something like the police exists, who you could phone up, right?

And then you went on the internet - and distributed the video to all other concerned parents, and the media to "warn them of incoming danger" - you just had to.

That passes my litmus test for - if I'd know, that you did that and would meet you on the streets in real life - without any 'concept of privacy', I might spit you right into your face.



Now we've tied that up nicely with the why privacy is important concept as well.

 

[Xzi]

We can (over-)extend that in the other direction as well. What do you want as a parent whos now given that child a pretty unnecessary hard time?

Oh you said - an excuse from his mother for not having tought him better? Oh and you want a medal as well, dont you? How about Joe Biden pins that on you for internet denouncement? Would that be something you like?

But think about all the lifes you could have saved... Just that - statistically it was never very likely. But what do you care. In that moment 'you had to save you child' in your mind.

So there it's a good thing - that something like the police exists, who you could phone up, right?

And then you went on the internet - and distributed the video to all other concerned parents, and the media to "warn them of incoming danger" - you just had to.

That passes my litmus test for - if I'd knew, that you did that and would meet you on the streets in real life - without any 'privacy concept', I might spit you right into your face.



Now we've tied that up nicely with the privacy is important concept as well.

The fuck are you smoking man? What does posting shit to a public-facing social media site have to do with privacy? I don't use Snapchat, but couldn't he have at least set the post to "friends only" if privacy was really what he was seeking? Or, god forbid, just not post it to social media at all? Regardless, you're entirely too defensive over this topic. He brought the consequences on himself, and those consequences were by no means harsh anyway.

 

[notimp]

Talk about hyperbole. Nobody's life was ruined, and a valuable lesson was likely learned.

No - I'm going against the valuable lesson here.

Here is what society probably would like to have made out of it:
"He shouldnt have posted the video, I was worried. How dare his mom."

You couldnt go with that to the police ("I would like for someone to stop posting videos, so I can stop worrying."). So you have to get your activist boots on, and try to stir up a gaggle of people to say "yes we all want to worry less as well - do something about it (politician)", and then the right response would still be - you all are nuts - if you want to prevent people from posting 'I like guns' imagery on the internet.

Now - I hate guns. Never liked them.

But what you are promoting leads to -

Make a taboo.
Shun people that dont succumb.
Make 'liking guns' even more shunned in your societies.
Pronouncing - if I even see someone liking that - I get worried, could we please just say, that people dont like them.

And promoting - his mom, really should have educated that person more to my standards and made everyone of us worry less.

Everything about this is backwards, counterproductive, insane - but the way human tribal culture worked.

With ideas like that - cities - would never have come into existence, and I'm so very sorry - but for the social media age - where every moron can stir up a storm - if just his cat is cute enough, you have to come up with a better solution.

'Mom should have been more responsible here' isnt the issue. Yes it could have been prevented, if 'she would have been', but you insisting that this is a mode we should operate in - is more problematic.

This cycles back to "some risk is just baked in" ('it was gods will' as a way to explain stuff to people), and no - you will not solve it with education tips (likely to be given with pitchfork in hand), you will make it worse. (Introduce more issues - not on the same level, but still.)

 

[notimp]

Every group of five people coming together usually can have a conversation about politicians being stupid for not doing what they'd like them to. There is a lesson in there as well. (Its usually complicated.)

 

[morvoran]

@Xzi I have to admit that it was enjoyable reading @notimp rip you a new one with logic over your feelings and opinions. You're going to need some of Mr. Popo's sacred ointment after that.

Again with the fuckin' blog posts man. For someone who says they hate social media you sure seem to form a lot of your opinions based on the influence of internet randos.

What is the problem with "blog posts"? It's unforunate, but that is the main source of "real news" today. All you get is opinion pieces and leftist garbage on the main stream news sources.

That source I gave was not a "blog" and was using the data from a Democrat psychologist (who dislikes Trump) revealing through his testing that the big tech companies are able to and have influenced elections. You just don't like the fact of his findings showing that Clinton gained a minimum of 2.6 millions votes (possibly a lot more) because of Google alone. How many more popular votes did she have than Trump? 2.8 million? Wow, what a coincidence. I'm sure you won't see it, though.

I never said I hated social media. I hate that it's been overrun by hateful, racist, xenophobic, left leaning individuals who only want to let people with the same way of thinking use the services while shutting down everybody else.

Oh cry me a river, a lack of common sense led to a temporary misunderstanding. If he had just added a bit more context to those images other than "finna be lit," this wouldn't have happened. Colorado has had its fair share of school shootings, so better safe than sorry.

It's odd how people with your mindset always attack the real victim in these stories because they're not on "your side" of politics.

Did you expect this teen to post a disclaimer video explaining that he was about to post a innocent gun video? "Hey guys, this video I'm about to post is not suggestive, in any way, of a threat for violence to anybody or to promote gun violence. Please understand."

Oh, cry me a river. He posted a video of him shooting a gun and didn't put it into context that you approved of? It's not like he was shooting pictures of his teachers and other students. Then he gets accused of being a possible dangerous individual which causes his school to ban him, and you think he was in the wrong?

You cannot assume that this will not ruin his life either as he will always have this situation follow him. He will be known in his community as that "likely school shooter who got caught beforehand".
People are falsely accused of things all the time and that accusation becomes them. Look at Brett Kavanaugh, he will never live down the liars painting the picture of him being a beer loving rapist even though no actual proof was brought forward. There are people who still think he's guilty.

This whole situation of people on social media being the judge, jury, and executioner needs to stop. Leave punishments to the court system where they belong. Social Credit Systems are not good for anyone even for the people who run them because the system they create will eventually turn on them, too.