The Chinese corporate social credit system

[Xzi]

Make a taboo.
Shun people that dont succumb.
Make 'liking guns' even more shunned in your societies.

There seems to be something lost in translation here. It's not taboo to post images or videos of guns online. You yourself pointed that out. It's the context that matters. It's common sense that matters and seems to be increasingly lacking these days. Such as with this guy who walked into a Wal-Mart equipped with body armor and a tactical rifle just days after the mass shooting in El Paso. But you'd probably say the firefighter who made a civilian's arrest on him was "overreacting" too, right?

 

[notimp]

Probably not translation, but semantics. We are dancing around what was actually proper around posting videos on a social networks site. There could be many different viewpoints.

I actually agree with many of your points (including all of the last ones). Its just, that I wouldnt go with the majorities optinion on how society would probably frame this.

Here are the angles.

- lacked common sense to post those, with that little context and that much ambiguity. Agree.
- people were right to call the police on him (presumably). Agree.
- people felt the need to do that. Agree.

- people never should post stuff that ambiguous, so others have to worry less. Disagree (practicality, edge cases (art f.e.)
- it was the moms fault, to a large degree. Disagree
- it was more the persons fault than societies fault. Somewhat disagree

Now - all of this is mostly silly. But if you get into thinking about automated solutions to this (as we talked about in this thread) - I'm all the way pro individual (moron) in this case - and would find none of the concepts that would side with the majority of society appropriate at all. (Because statistics, rate of false positives, blah blah blah.. )

 

[Xzi]

What is the problem with "blog posts"? It's unforunate, but that is the main source of "real news" today.

Any town crackhead can make a blog post buddy. It's no wonder you're so miserably ill-informed on every political subject.

That source I gave was not a "blog"

It's literally called "Powerline blog," is structured as a blog, and it links to a Breitbart video at the end. Sources hardly get any sketchier than that.

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.

Yeah, 8chan, Voat, and Stormfront are totally full of conservatives with messages of unity and love to spread. I could've mistook any of the posters there for Marianne Williamson.

Your gaslighting is cute, but I'm not sure who you think it's fooling.

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."

He's a "victim" of temporary inconvenience. Most high school kids would welcome a two-week break from school anyway. Innocent, unarmed people get killed by police near-daily, so I'm sorry if my sympathy in this case is lacking. Also, leftists buy guns too, his political affiliations were not the issue here.

And yeah, it doesn't need to be that long-winded, but any sort of disclaimer would've prevented the entire misunderstanding.

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?

The school certainly bares some of the responsibility for a slight overreaction, but when a student/teacher/parent reports something like this, they can't exactly ignore it either.

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".

I think you underestimate how many stupid teens do stupid stuff on a daily basis. It'll follow him for a couple months at most, and then another kid at the school will get in deep shit for something else, or there will be an actual mass shooting on the news, and he'll be forgotten about.

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.

Social media has no power on its own, it was the school that wielded the power in this case, and in most cases it's the police that wield the power. It falls to them to determine what is and isn't a credible threat.

 

[Xzi]

- people never should post stuff that ambiguous, so others have to worry less. Disagree (practicality, edge cases (art f.e.)
- it was the moms fault, to a large degree. Disagree
- it was more the persons fault than societies fault. Somewhat disagree

On point one, I was specifically referring to imagery of guns with only ambiguous/vague language used for context. Though I agree that "violent" imagery in art might raise some alarms, I doubt there would ever be the kind of reaction that occurred in this case. Someone might recommend some counseling and that would be that. On point two, I never said it was his mom's fault, I said it was his fault for not consulting his mom on the context of his post before making it. And on point three we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Now - all of this is mostly silly. But if you get into thinking about automated solutions to this (as we talked about in this thread) - I'm all the way pro individual (moron) in this case - and would find none of the concepts that would side with the majority of society appropriate at all. (Because statistics, rate of false positives, blah blah blah.. )

We're certainly in agreement there. Vague language or no, an automated reporting system would return entirely too many false positives. If Facebook starts putting up facial recognition towers in cities akin to the ones in China, that's my cue to either leave this country or start a resistance group dedicated to cutting those towers down.

 

[notimp]

Though I agree that "violent" imagery in art might raise some alarms, I doubt there would ever be the kind of reaction that occurred in this case.

Correct but too specific. The main issue here would be, that people cant be always 'intended' to articulate themselves correctly. There has to be room for failure - without the 'but it made us worry - no one should ever be able to do that again' pushback. Art often works in that space, and it might be the first thing you point to to make people realize its 'importance', but its necesary for more than that (so that failure doesnt always lead to shunning, so that you keep moveable red lines, as culture changes...).

Philosophic stuff.

I once tried to counter with 'freedom of art' (comedians) In a younger millenials dabate about "political correctness be soooooo great". It didnt work, they didnt even know the concept. So I thought about the importance of 'room to fail' or 'room to provoke' (art) in the past.

And that even goes to the point, where I'd argue, that even provoking and joking with the concept (mass shootings) should not be outruled (taboo).

Also - here is another interesting red line. All those freedoms I've argued for, can not be applied to real societal taboos (pedos, nazis (imagery outruled in germany)..), but there should be very, very few of them. Because otherwise you get into separated cultures again (we against them thinking, tribes), which essentially you dont need to. And dont want to.

Thats the rough cut of my believe system around this.

 

[morvoran]

Any town crackhead can make a blog post buddy. It's no wonder you're so miserably ill-informed on every political subject.

Oh, so crackheads can't watch the news and give their opinions of political topics? That's not very tolerant of you.

It's literally called "Powerline blog," is structured as a blog, and it links to a Breitbart video at the end. Sources hardly get any sketchier than that.

You also have a "Contributor" title. That's very ironic in itself.
The site's address may have blog in it, and it may have started as a blog, but it is structured as a news site now. Breitbart is not as biased as some of the sources you've used.

Yeah, 8chan, Voat, and Stormfront are totally full of conservatives with messages of unity and love to spread.

Yeah, ok, but that group that calls themselves "antifa", hollywood elites, liberals, leftists, and democrat politicians don't really spread tolerance, free speech, good policies that work, and intelligence.

Social media has no power on its own, it was the school that wielded the power in this case, and in most cases it's the police that wield the power. It falls to them to determine what is and isn't a credible threat.

Social media has a lot of power based on the people who use it to their advantage. That's why any company whose ads are not fully compliant with the left's agenda gets shut down, conservative actors get blacklisted, and conservative voices are censored due to the power of social media.

--------------------------------------------------

Another news story about social media credit scores:

Evil tech giants planning China-style “social score” rollout across America; red-flagged people to be denied access to restaurants and public events

American social media platforms are already punishing users for their political views
Now for the really bad news: That system is already under development in the United States and, in fact, in many ways it’s already being implemented.

As Breitbart News’ tech editor Allum Bokhari noted in June:

We have a corporate version of this already evolving. So if you don’t do the things that Facebook approves of, they’re going to cut you off from their platform, which is now essential for maintaining a social network, building a business, running for office. We rely on Facebook and other social media platforms for so many things. Uber and Lyft will also ban you now — they’ve started to ban people for political viewpoints, so you think China is the only one that’s going to cut you off from transportation for having the wrong opinions — well, Western corporations are now doing that, too.

The rest of this story can be found at the source.

 

[Xzi]

Oh, so crackheads can't watch the news and give their opinions of political topics? That's not very tolerant of you.

No, they can, that's exactly my point: you're basing your opinions on the opinions of others who don't necessarily have any grasp of the subjects they're speaking on.

You also have a "Contributor" title. That's very ironic in itself.

How so? I contribute game reviews to this site. I'm not a newscaster or political pundit, nor did I ever claim to be.

The site's address may have blog in it, and it may have started as a blog, but it is structured as a news site now. Breitbart is not as biased as some of the sources you've used.

Hilarious.

Yeah, ok, but that group that calls themselves "antifa", hollywood elites, liberals, leftists, and democrat politicians don't really spread tolerance, free speech, good policies that work, and intelligence.

Oh gee, they aren't tolerant of intolerance! Better burn them at the stake!

The fact remains that all these groups understand how to use social media sites within the framework of each site's individual rules. Modern conservatives can't seem to express their views or opinions without foaming at the mouth, and that's how they get themselves banned.

Social media has a lot of power based on the people who use it to their advantage. That's why any company whose ads are not fully compliant with the left's agenda gets shut down, conservative actors get blacklisted, and conservative voices are censored due to the power of social media.

That's power that you're choosing to grant to social media as an individual. I don't weight anything posted to Facebook as meaningful or important, no matter what the political agenda. It's past time society stops granting that type of weight to the platform too. That way, if they do ever decide to implement a social credit system, everyone just ignores it or laughs it off as irrelevant outside of their own platform.

 

[morvoran]

No, they can, that's exactly my point: you're basing your opinions on the opinions of others who don't necessarily have any grasp of the subjects they're speaking on.

I agree with you here, in a way, because Democrats act and think like they smoke crack. Instead of crack, the Democrat politician have "slaves of their policies". After the first taste, they become addicted and can't stop lying to their constituents and giving them free stuff to keep them from leaving the plantation. Democrat voters have "false promises" and "free stuff". After they accept that first "lie they can believe in", they chain themselves to the plantation of crime, poverty and lies.

How so? I contribute game reviews to this site. I'm not a newscaster or political pundit, nor did I ever claim to be.

Well, call me surprised here. It's hard to find reviews since they are list under your "real?" name and not your username.
I was expecting them to be as biased as your blogs and thread posts, such as "You have to fell a titan like antifa taking down a nazi Trump supporter by hitting it with a bike lock." or "not one titan represented the lgbtq community, shame!"

Oh gee, they aren't tolerant of intolerance! Better burn them at the stake!

They also hate hate by using hate. Two wrongs does not make a right. If you are intolerant of anything, that makes you are intolerant. If you have hate, then you are a hater. If you look like a duck, quack like a duck, then you are a duck.

The fact remains that all these groups understand how to use social media sites within the framework of each site's individual rules. Modern conservatives can't seem to express their views or opinions without foaming at the mouth, and that's how they get themselves banned.

Oh, so what you're saying is that the conservatives should have just expressed liberal values, and they would have been fine? They can only express their opinions or show facts as long as they are liberal facts and opinions. Ironic in how you say they shouldn't do that "foaming at the mouth" since that is a liberal technique when expressing their opinions.

That's power that you're choosing to grant to social media as an individual. I don't weight anything posted to Facebook as meaningful or important, no matter what the political agenda. It's past time society stops granting that type of weight to the platform too. That way, if they do ever decide to implement a social credit system, everyone just ignores it or laughs it off as irrelevant outside of their own platform.

Wrong, you must not be paying much attention here. The large tech companies are ran by liberals. They hold the power to influence people on their platform, not just express their opinion. They have already started implementing a social credit system and Republicans are trying to stop it. Liberals are the ones letting it slide because, as of today, it fits their agendas. They just don't realize that, when tomorrow comes, they'll be next.

 

[Xzi]

I agree with you here, in a way ...

You don't agree with me, you quoted my comment and then went off on a completely unrelated tangent about how "Democrats are the real slave owners who fly the confederate flag!" Classic projection.

Well, call me surprised here. It's hard to find reviews since they are list under your "real?" name and not your username.
I was expecting them to be as biased as your blogs and thread posts, such as "You have to fell a titan like antifa taking down a nazi Trump supporter by hitting it with a bike lock." or "not one titan represented the lgbtq community, shame!"

Well, I do enjoy me a good Wolfenstein game. Though from all accounts the latest one is pretty bad. Damn you Bethesda and your rapidly-declining quality standards.

They also hate hate by using hate. Two wrongs does not make a right. If you are intolerant of anything, that makes you are intolerant.

Whoops, someone must've forgot to tell Abe Lincoln and the WW2 allied forces.

Oh, so what you're saying is that the conservatives should have just expressed liberal values, and they would have been fine?

No, they should revert to values-based conservatism rather than espousing views consistent with the moral black hole that is Trumpism. I may not agree with conservative values of old, but at least they knew how to be civil under GWB, so they were free to speak their minds without resorting to racial slurs and/or death threats.

Wrong, you must not be paying much attention here. The large tech companies are ran by liberals. They hold the power to influence people on their platform, not just express their opinion. They have already started implementing a social credit system and Republicans are trying to stop it. Liberals are the ones letting it slide because, as of today, it fits their agendas. They just don't realize that, when tomorrow comes, they'll be next.

As long as you support neoconservative policies and views, you're de facto supporting Zuckerberg's neoliberal policies and views. The Trump administration hasn't done jack shit to enforce antitrust laws, because they benefit from their corporate donors going unchecked just as much as Facebook benefits.

These social media platforms only grew so large in the first place because of how many people viewed membership as "mandatory." The users are the ones that grant them power and lend them credibility, and so the users have the ability to take all that away. Facebook could become just another Myspace forgotten to history, or it could become an all-seeing, all-encompassing oligarchical entity.

 

[morvoran]

As long as you support neoconservative policies and views, you're de facto supporting Zuckerberg's neoliberal policies and views. The Trump administration hasn't done jack shit to enforce antitrust laws, because they benefit from their corporate donors going unchecked just as much as Facebook benefits.

These social media platforms only grew so large in the first place because of how many people viewed membership as "mandatory." The users are the ones that grant them power and lend them credibility, and so the users have the ability to take all that away. Facebook could become just another Myspace forgotten to history, or it could become an all-seeing, all-encompassing oligarchical entity.

Um... what about this? His administration has done more than the other side.

The only way they are going to fail is to create a replacement platform and get most people to move to it. No amount of "antitrust laws" are going to stop them.

You don't agree with me, you quoted my comment and then went off on a completely unrelated tangent about how "Democrats are the real slave owners who fly the confederate flag!"

Of course, I don't agree with you. I use logic in my discussions. That's your issue if logic is a foreign concept.
I was expanding on the "crackheads and how their opinions are not valid" comment you made by explaining why democrat opinions are not valid. Maybe I should have simplified it for you...."Der, crackhead dumb, democrat dumb. derp!"

No, they should revert to values-based conservatism rather than espousing views consistent with the moral black hole that is Trumpism.

Um, your TDS is flaring. Did you take your pills this morning? You might want to take another. Conservatives are just fine, it's the left that is going to far (to the left).

(TDS - Trump Derangement Syndrome)

 

[Xzi]

Um... what about this? His administration has done more than the other side.

Good, hopefully this expands to more corporations in desperate need of being reigned in and not just the ones Trump feels have "slighted" him in some way.

The only way they are going to fail is to create a replacement platform and get most people to move to it. No amount of "antitrust laws" are going to stop them.

That's the entire idea behind antitrust laws, to promote competition where otherwise none could possibly exist.

Of course, I don't agree with you. I use logic in my discussions.

Trump-style logic, maybe. Meaning you contradict yourself every other post and constantly pull nonsense from your ass.

Conservatives are just fine, it's the left that is going to far (to the left).

Okay bud, keep telling yourself that. Maybe if you believe hard enough, Youtube will restore all the racist garbage videos.

 

[morvoran]

That's the entire idea behind antitrust laws, to promote competition where otherwise none could possibly exist.

They're not to promote competition, and there is competition. Antitrust laws keep companies from preventing competition from competing.
The government can't "promote" a company to compete as that is against antitrust laws.

Trump-style logic, maybe. Meaning you contradict yourself every other post and constantly pull nonsense from your ass.

My ass has more sense than most leftists. I would say it has more logic also, but that's a given since leftists don't have any or know what logic is.

Okay bud, keep telling yourself that. Maybe if you believe hard enough, Youtube will restore all the racist garbage videos.

I'll keep telling myself that along with all the Democrats leaving the plantation and moving right.
Free speech is free speech. Just because you don't like a video's message, doesn't mean it can't exist. As long as it doesn't involve anything illegal or promote violence, then it is covered by the first amendment and should be allowed on Youtube as long as Youtube is considered a public forum platform.

You seem to keep missing this point so I'll make sure you can see it -
Youtube is considered a public forum platform

 

[Xzi]

The government can't "promote" a company to compete as that is against antitrust laws.

Okay, antitrust laws create a space for competition to exist then. Is that more clear?

My ass has more sense than most leftists. I would say it has more logic also, but that's a given since leftists don't have any or know what logic is.

"I r smart. Everyone else r dumb."

Free speech is free speech.

And terms of use are terms of use. Things are what they are.

Just because you don't like a video's message, doesn't mean it can't exist. As long as it doesn't involve anything illegal or promote violence, then it is covered by the first amendment and should be allowed on Youtube as long as Youtube is considered a public forum platform.

Trumpist videos almost universally promote violence and/or hatred. That's why they got taken down. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the same thing to me, I'm not going to be sympathetic to your cause. If you're looking for a shoulder to cry on, try 8chan or Stormfront.

 

[IncredulousP]

Praxis credit score:
Morvoran = >9000
Xzi = -500
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.

OMG THE CRINGE

 

[morvoran]

Trumpist videos almost universally promote violence and/or hatred. That's why they got taken down. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the same thing to me, I'm not going to be sympathetic to your cause. If you're looking for a shoulder to cry on, try 8chan or Stormfront.

Please take your anti-TDS pills, it's really showing now. I'm worried for you.

Just because a Trump supporter shows a video of that group of over-priviledged fascists that, ironically, calls themselves "antifa" beating on innocent victims doesn't mean they are supporting violence or hatred. They are just showing the mentality of the left to assist with the social media credit system. The leftist tech leaders are just trying to manipulate the system by removing those videos.

 

[Xzi]

Just because a Trump supporter shows a video of that group of over-priviledged fascists that, ironically, calls themselves "antifa" beating on innocent victims doesn't mean they are supporting violence or hatred.

"Just because someone repeatedly uses racial slurs and posts memes about running over protesters doesn't mean they're a violent racist! It'S iRoNy BrO!"

 

[morvoran]

"Just because someone repeatedly uses racial slurs and posts memes about running over protesters doesn't mean they're a violent racist! It'S iRoNy BrO!"

Hey calm down, I'm sure all Antifa members are not that way. Not all, not all, not all, but most.

 

[Xzi]

Hey calm down, I'm sure all Antifa members are not that way. Not all, not all, not all, but most.

Antifa posts memes about punching nazis and throwing milkshakes on politicians. The former might get you banned on most social media, but comparing the latter to actual terrorist events is why nobody takes the right-wing seriously any more. Conservatism is such a parody of itself these days.

 

[morvoran]

Antifa posts memes about punching nazis and throwing milkshakes on politicians. The former might get you banned on most social media, but comparing the latter to actual terrorist events is why nobody takes the right-wing seriously any more. Conservatism is such a parody of itself these days.

What if that milkshake has acidic or caustic compounds in it? Compounds like the type used in quick drying cement? Would that be considered less innocent to you? Maybe ask Andy Ngo about how great it feels to be pummeled by these sweet, compassionate, tolerant, "non-terroristic" antifa members who beat him and tossed refreshing milk shakes made with quick drying cement on him. I guess he was just being silly, gay, asian, white supremacist trump lover, huh?

This is just nonsense and made up lies by the right, correct? Why take any of this seriously?

 

[Xzi]

Maybe ask Andy Ngo

Maybe don't since he was recently outed as a fraudster and had to quit his previous position because of it.