I'm wondering how well this will stick. Gamifying anything leads to people finding loopholes, when you have as many users involved as China does then they're going to be found and exploited very quickly by someone, somewhere. If you go as far as to enshrine that in law then bureaucracy makes it very hard to rectify.

A special dial tone that says you're calling a 'dishonest debtor'? Fuck yeah.
I shall also be building a praisebot, that posts continuously about how much I fucking love the government.

It's an even better job creation scheme than hiring millions to censor FB/Twitter/etc. I, for one, etc. etc.

To be honest, I'm all in favour of publicly shaming people who cheat at online games. Cyka blyat.

>>24197
They don't cheat, they just happen to play better than you do you DNIWE EBANOE, aren't you?.

If you want to sell this idea to the west you have to sell it as all perks. People will eat up the idea if you spin it right. This could be the greatest skinner box since world of warcraft.

If you are good you are allowed to use 'premium' transport methods (like planes and trains); that kind of thing.

You also need to be less overt about lowering people. You get a better level of response if everyone 'naturally' degrades and needs to work to maintain your position.

It's not just you, a lot of people have this misapprehension.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/11/16/chinas-orwellian-social-credit-score-isnt-real/

>>24200

That's a bit of a non-article lad. You can't have a headline that it doesn't exist when your angle basically amounts to "sure all the groundwork, surveillance and social engineering is in place, but they haven't started putting a literal number in a computer yet".

>>24202

It's a bit like saying that Britain is operating a totalitarian system of "social credit" because we have Experian credit ratings, the Police National Computer and Tesco Clubcards.

The evidence suggests that China is merely building the sort of administrative infrastructure you'd expect of any developed country. That obviously poses greater risks in a single-party state, but the reporting on China's "social credit" system has been inaccurate and sensationalised.

>>24202
The literal number in the computer is the social credit score. So yes, you can have a headline saying it doesn't exist, because it doesn't.

>>24203
>>24204

I mean, the only people I'm aware of saying it does exist are part of Trump's administration, so, you know. I'd expect any reasonable person to take it with a pinch of salt.

The gist of it is pretty much there, though. In a cultural context, it's not the Orwellian nightmare we are seeing it as, but it's clearly not entirely made up.

>>24200
The only misapprehension appears to be assuming a Nosedive-like system with a single number. The article itself states that the fears are justified, and the side-effects are already happening.

>>24204
That is deliberate omissions and weasel words.

>>24205
>I mean, the only people I'm aware of saying it does exist are part of Trump's administration

I know people who have moved back from china because it was starting its roll out. I don't know why you've decided to Ad hominem a widely reported on series of events as well "Trump's administration' says it so it must not be true, or that bad".

>>24206
The single number administered by the national government to every citizen is the central detail in the social credit hysteria and it is categorically untrue.

>>24207
Watch out lads, the vice president of the sixth form debate club is online, ready and willing to call out your weasel words and ad homs.

>>24207

>I don't know why you've decided to Ad hominem a widely reported on series of events

I'm not, you moron, I'm the one who posted >>24202, the point of which was that you can't just dismiss it because it's technically not what the scaremongers are saying.

>>24208
>The single number administered by the national government to every citizen is the central detail in the social credit hysteria
Yes, lad. What everyone's complaining about is definitely the single number and not the consequences of having poor "social credit". That's definitely the main point in the arguments about it.

>>24211
That's correct, it is, because the consequences of having poor social credit are entirely different if it's a single score administered by the central government.

I, for one, welcome our new sixth form debate club overlords.

>>24212
It is being administered by the Central government.

>>24209
Just lowering myself to explainin the fundementals for you, when you move past me needing to explain them then we can have a proper discussion.