Weigh In: Social Credit System, Red Flags and how to identify the trouble makers amongst us

[misteraven]

Okay, going to kick off another from my "Weigh In" series, where we pool the 12oz brain trust and explore yet another facet of modern society to see if we might solve the worlds problems. Obviously that last bit was a joke, but in all seriousness, it is my hope that we can come together and explore topics that matter (at least to some of us), with the hope of planting seeds for thought and reinvesting in the process of teaching people to question the world around them and learn how to have intelligent, respectful and fact driven discussions and debates. How to apply rhetoric and logic as we deep dive into some aspect of modern life.

 

I encourage you guys to search "Weigh In" as there's several threads in this series that are worth reading and maybe reengaging with. Some of my favorites, for you guys just tuning in are:

 

Has the social media revolution devolved conversation?

Individual privacy and freedom versus collective *safety and security?

Has political correctness versus teenage / young adult violence?

#Me Too!!! And continuing the conversation on political correctness?

 

Obviously there's also a lot of related topics that have been getting a lot of media coverage, as well as attention by some of the 12oz members that regularly engage in these types of threads, such as:

 

Mass Public Shootings

Epstein was "suicided"

Social experiment : 🔫

HR 838 TAPS Act (America's Social Credit Score System For Revoking Your Rights)

 

So for this particular episode we'll be discussing the Social Credit system as recently implemented by China, which no doubt is being carefully observed by governments everywhere as a proof of concept for other places. Some might argue it already exists here in the USA, when you consider the level of mass surveillance that currently exists  and is being worked on (1., 2., 3., also Snowden's take on this), as well as realize how state and federal red flag laws are the slippery slope that can easily become the subversive version of an overt system like Social Credit.

 

Maybe this should be in a future Weigh In thread but...

 

Also interesting to note how this fits nicely into other programs like the pioneering new taxes by the state of Oregon to tax bicycles as well as their effort to now tax auto transportation by the mile since so many of us are converting to electric vehicles and so the tax applied to gasoline isn't enough to cover the bureaucracy of the program..

 

By Taxing Bicyclists, Has Oregon Paved The Way To The Future Of Infrastructure Funding?

 

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

 

Social Credit System

The Social Credit System (Chinese: 社会信用体系; pinyin: shèhuì xìnyòng tǐxì) is a national reputation system being developed by the Chinese government.[1][2][3] By 2020, it is intended to standardise the assessment of citizens' and businesses' economic and social reputation, or 'Social Credit'.[4][5][6][7][8]

The system will be one unified system and there will be a single system-wide social credit score for each citizen and business.[9] By 2018, some restrictions had been placed on citizens, whom state-owned media described as the first step toward creating a national social credit system.[10][11][12][7][13][14]

The system is considered a form of mass surveillance which uses big data analysis technology.[15] The government of modern China has also maintained systems of paper records on individuals and households such as the dàng'àn (档案) and hùkǒu (户口) systems which officials might refer to, but did not provide the same degree and rapidity of feedback and consequences for Chinese citizens as the integrated electronic system because of the much greater difficulty of aggregating paper records for rapid, robust analysis.

 

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System#targetText=The%20Social%20Credit%20System%20(Chinese,%2C%20or%20'Social%20Credit'.

 

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

 

Pleased discuss...

[misteraven]

cc: @Mercer, @Hua Guofang, @6Pennies, @abrasivesaint, @Joker, @Kults

 

[Mercer]

My personal take on this is that participation in any of these private platforms is, and should be 100% voluntary on the part of the participants. Obviously minimizing government involvement in general is the direction I'd like to move towards. If a user doesn't like Facebook, Air BNB etc. you just don't use them. It's that simple.

 

Likewise, if Facebook doesn't like you, or your content, it's their call to ban you, grant/remove fake internet points, for any reason they see fit. You have no right to force these companies into relinquishing control of their private property against their will. This means accepting that things might not always go the way you want them to, that's the price of freedom.

 

The difference between what the article is describing (common gripes with these platforms), and China's social credit system is that ours is still voluntary. Inviting the state into it to cure these minor gripes, will make a much worse mess. This is liken to Utility companies being granted a government sanctioned monopoly, and being regulated into a state of non-competitiveness actually making the situation worse for customers, and unfixable by the free market.

 

[misteraven]

I know we discussed this a bit via text, but you also have to understand that participation for now remains a choice, though I have zero doubt that soon individuals that don't participate will be seen as a red flag for anti social behavior. But the flip side to that is also the fact that it is becoming increasingly difficult to navigate the modern world without participating in these platforms and that will only get worse over time. Considering the obvious monopolistic power companies like Facebook and Google have over so many aspects of modern, every day life its already quickly going from inconvenient to something more akin to not possible when it comes to certain things. 

 

I don't disagree that the less government involvement (regulation), usually the better, but there's not a lot of precedent for what we're seeing here. These companies are in many ways, almost more powerful than government and with some of the recent news about their involvement and manipulation of our political process, the line between them and government is becoming blurred more every day.

 

How do you account for that?

 

 

[abrasivesaint]

The idea of a social credit system scares the shit out of me. As if there aren’t already enough ways to lower someones standard of living without that nonsense. 

Getting a “social credit” score lower for some shit as simple as jaywalking, or playing music too loud, or screaming in public, is fucking terrifying.

 

A week or so ago my girl and I got into an argument, and she took something i said and twisted it and drove away before i could retort, (we were speaking through a car window.) I turned around and while walking up my stairs to my apartment i yelled “FUCK!” So the idea is one of my neighbors could report me or some camera could pick that up and i’d get penalized for having emotions? It’s certainly not a world i want to live in. 

 

I jaywalk all the time. I have shit to do. I’m  a big boy and can see when cars are coming and can calculate whether or not i have time to cross. I’m not going to stand at a dead intersection because the little orange hand sign tells me i have to. That said, places like NYC, or i’m sure some of these Chinese cities i’ve never been to, the foot traffic is fucking hectic and cant definitely halt traffic. At the same time, i think there is far too many cars on the roads, but if we lower car access, lower uber access, train access, and bus access because of someones social credit score, what the fuck are they supposed to do? 

[abrasivesaint]

I back that bike tax if that money is tracked and ACTUALLY fixes the roads. The city i live in needs new roads in a terrible way. I’m currently out of work because of a broken bone, with no disability, no unemployment, no insurance, because of a shitty city road. I would happily pay the $15 on top of the money i paid for my bike to prevent that. 

 

Weren’t some cities talking about forcing the registration of bicycles? That can suck my dick though. As well as some of the “rules of the road” that are expected to be followed. 

[Mercer]

52 minutes ago, misteraven said:

I know we discussed this a bit via text, but you also have to understand that participation for now remains a choice, though I have zero doubt that soon individuals that don't participate will be seen as a red flag for anti social behavior

Changes nothing. We don't pass laws regulating things that haven't happened yet. Granted, it's a problem. So how much of your freedom and property rights are you willing to trade in for a solution? Will I get retroactively fined/punished by our government overlords for all the tampons I handed out unfairly in 2010?

 

52 minutes ago, misteraven said:

 But the flip side to that is also the fact that it is becoming increasingly difficult to navigate the modern world without participating in these platforms and that will only get worse over time.

I'm dealing with it myself, and it's costing me IRL social points. Things were a lot easier in social situations when I had a vibrant social media presence. Doesn't change the fact I consider these things luxuries, not "rights". The core truth behind this position is under no circumstances are the fruits of anyone else's labor your "right", including a social media platform.

 

52 minutes ago, misteraven said:

Considering the obvious monopolistic power companies like Facebook and Google have over so many aspects of modern, every day life its already quickly going from inconvenient to something more akin to not possible when it comes to certain things. 

The term "Monopoly" was originally used to describe a right the crown would grant to individuals, or groups of individuals, cartels etc. over an industry. Today we've loosened that definition to mean single entities with massive market-shares over individual markets.

 

This is counterintuitive, but the loose definition we use today doesn't take into account reality, or what we want to actually prevent. We want to prevent the stifling of innovation, and encourage competition. Regulating an individual market to prevent majority market share actually creates the undesirable conditions we are trying to avoid. Government regulation is the easiest way for a cartel, or single entity to discourage competition, drive up prices, and lower production.

 

Most of the popular rhetoric driving the current narrative on "Monopoly" originally came about as excuses for the expansion of government power into private industry, not the reduction of the negative consequences of "monopoly". Classic situation where government steps in to correct a problem it's responsible for in the first place.

 

https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly

 

52 minutes ago, misteraven said:

I don't disagree that the less government involvement (regulation), usually the better, but there's not a lot of precedent for what we're seeing here.

Sure there is. Every thing you use in life now, good/services that you feel are necessary to basic function (food, clothes, shelter, transportation, education, smartphones, money, etc.) originally started as a luxury, or rather something that was in no way necessary, until the day it became considered just that.

 

You can't be asserting an IG account is more necessary than something like a car, refrigerator, or even a belt to hold up your pants for 99% of the public. Social Media is no where near necessary yet for most, and in most real life situations. In some situations, or for a small percentage of occupations yea, maybe. For the most part asserting they're even close to a basic necessity is laughable. In my opinion they're actually detrimental to most people but hey, it's still a "free country". If you wan to dedicate your life to checking for likes knock yourself out.

 

52 minutes ago, misteraven said:

These companies are in many ways, almost more powerful than government

Influential, maybe. Powerful, not even close. They have zero hegemonic, or forceful avenues to take outside of politely asking the government to use force on their behalf just like anyone else. 

 

52 minutes ago, misteraven said:

and with some of the recent news about their involvement and manipulation of our political process, the line between them and government is becoming blurred more every day.

Get rid of positions powerful enough to garnish bribes, and government corruption. Corruption is a marriage between private/public interests. We need business for economic prosperity. Granting the government even more power to micromanage social media, or anything else for that matter only increases the attack surfaces for corruption. Without the government to influence, companies like FB have to focus exclusively on garnering more voluntary means of influence.

 

52 minutes ago, misteraven said:

 

How do you account for that?

There's no better government, than no government.

 

52 minutes ago, misteraven said:

 

 

The real problem here is people are fucking stupid, they get addicted to likes, share too much personal info, and will agree to terms and conditions without reading them. Same thing for drug users, tobacco, gambling, alcoholics etc. You have to treat the issues driving the behaviour, eliminating the symptoms instead of attacking the disease isn't ever going to work.

 

[Joker]

Being in Oregon, and an avid cyclist of all sorts, the bicycle excise tax is a huge topic of debate for just about any cyclist you talk to. I'd say most of the folks I chat with about it feel the same as @abrasivesaint- as long as the funds are tracked and are used for their intended purpose, we're fine with it. Further, if it keeps dickhead motorists mouths shut, all the better. I can't tell you how many times I've got into arguments with motorists over riding my bike on the road, even when I've followed the rules of the road or stayed to the far right of the road. The tax argument ALWAYS comes up and it's ALWAYS a bullshit argument. I own a car and put gas in it so I pay taxes to use the road. I choose not to drive my car everyday (I have a 2012 vehicle with less than 60k miles on it, for reference) and clog the roads or wear them down. And the argument that I don't pay for road repairs is also bullshit. Do these folks really believe that my 25mm wide, slick tread tires are damaging the road? Compared to the massive amounts of motorists who drive with studded tires from October to April I think my contribution to damaged roads is quite minimal. The cyclists who seem to argue against the tax are mostly bike activists. While some of their arguments (related to unrelated) are favorable, most of the time I find them to be akin to activism of any kind... annoying and one-sided.

 

The tax isn't hitting the numbers the state projected, but I have a feeling that is because folks have found a way around it. I also believe that with the influx of people from California and Arizona the purchasing of bikes has slowed down mostly because the roads just aren't as safe as they were even five years ago. Less sales means less intake of excise tax. More and more motorists from outlying states have moved here and their patience for Portland's cycling culture is nil. People are fucking angry, dude. It's almost comical how angry they get having to slow down and wait ten seconds to get around you... almost comical, if it weren't so frightening. Even so, we still have some of the highest numbers  in bicycle commuters in the nation, even with our cruddy weather. These numbers probably won't mean much to outsiders but just know that the red street names are high traffic areas for cyclists. So if you look at those numbers for a two hour period time, some of them are pretty high, but this year also saw a downward turn and I expect that to continue. 

 

Side note: if you scroll through the comments in that first linked article you see someone bought their 3 year-old a $400 and paid a $15 tax on it. I am more appalled at the buying a tot a $400 bike than I am at the $15 tax on that purchase. 

 

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

 

The Credit Score thing, while hideous, is going to happen one way or another, eventually. I'd say there's already methods in place that basically give the government some of this info already. 

[Mercer]

@JokerThat's pretty crazy. Wondering if they attempt to estimate miles ridden or is it a flat sales tax on new bikes, or yearly license you have to renew? To me it sounds like political appeasement. 

 

Outside of being a courteous rider/cyclist on the roads, I don't feel obligated to indulge the self centered thoughts of drivers, and their feeling of unfair treatment. Bikes cause practically zero damage to asphalt, pollution, or even add to traffic in most cases where bikes operate in effectively separate lanes/planes of travel.

 

I think they should be encouraging alternatives like EV's, bikes, etc. because of the massive net benefit we all get when someone chooses an alternative to internal combustion.

[Mercer]

Speaking of intrusive Orwelian measures:

 

 

https://reason.com/2019/09/09/trump-mulls-orwellian-proposal-to-stop-mass-shootings-by-monitoring-mentally-ill-people-for-signs-of-imminent-violence/

[IOU_ONE]

Trump doesn't mull anything over. 

[IOU_ONE]

Has the social media revolution devolved conversation?

Yes, plain and simple. It's also made us less present to whatever it is we are doing at any given moment.

 

Individual privacy and freedom versus collective *safety and security?

Both of these should be able to coexist. A lot of these mass shooting all had warning signs that were ignored at various levels and didn't need no violation of anyones personal rights to figure that shit. 

Has political correctness versus teenage / young adult violence?

Violence has always existed and we've idealized the past as if it wasn't violent. 

#Me Too!!! And continuing the conversation on political correctness?

 

 

[abrasivesaint]

13 minutes ago, Mercer said:

@JokerThat's pretty crazy. Wondering if they attempt to estimate miles ridden or is it a flat sales tax on new bikes, or yearly license you have to renew? To me it sounds like political appeasement. 

If you’re referring to the $15 tax, it is a flat tax on new bikes over $200. According to https://www.oregon.gov/DOR/programs/businesses/Pages/Bicycle-excise-tax.aspx

[misteraven]

2 hours ago, abrasivesaint said:

I back that bike tax if that money is tracked and ACTUALLY fixes the roads. The city i live in needs new roads in a terrible way. I’m currently out of work because of a broken bone, with no disability, no unemployment, no insurance, because of a shitty city road. I would happily pay the $15 on top of the money i paid for my bike to prevent that. 

 

Weren’t some cities talking about forcing the registration of bicycles? That can suck my dick though. As well as some of the “rules of the road” that are expected to be followed. 

Bit off topic but...

 

Damn, the 26 - 40% they already take from you isn't enough? You're good with a little extra to insure roads don't have pot holes since they couldn't figure out how to get that fixed taking that first huge chunk?

 

Think of it this way... If your paying 25% tax (which I'd assume you pay more than that), you are literally a slave from January 01 through to March 31st - 3 months. Every penny of your productivity that is earned, Monday through Friday for that entire 3 months is taken from you and reallocated to whatever is deemed necessary (apparently not roads though cause they're taxing that separately).

 

You're really okay with that?

[abrasivesaint]

A major issue with the Social Credit system is how often do people get REWARDED? 

 

We all know in every day life, at our jobs, in the media, in our relationships and so on,  that error and “fuck ups” get highlighted while doing good things barely get a pat on the back.  How often is someone going to prop you up for the little things versus how many will be quick to cast stones? 

 

A couple weeks ago a garbage truck lifted a dumpster and some bubble wrap and paper went sailing through the breeze. The truck drove off, they didn’t do shit, (the irony of a garbage truck leaving more

of a mess than before they showed up.) I happened to be roadside benching and once the train passed i went and gathered all the trash that was around. Would anyone bother to praise me for it? Do I need to stand around and wait to ensure someone sees me do it? How fast would someone have been to dock me had i just walked away, all the while doing nothing about it themselves? 

[abrasivesaint]

15 minutes ago, misteraven said:

Bit off topic but...

 

Damn, the 26 - 40% they already take from you isn't enough? You're good with a little extra to insure roads don't have pot holes since they couldn't figure out how to get that fixed taking that first huge chunk?

 

Think of it this way... If your paying 25% tax (which I'd assume you pay more than that), you are literally a slave from January 01 through to March 31st - 3 months. Every penny of your productivity that is earned, Monday through Friday for that entire 3 months is taken from you and reallocated to whatever is deemed necessary (apparently not roads though cause they're taxing that separately).

 

You're really okay with that?

Well these are sort of two separate issues. One being taxes that are already taken from citizens, that are poorly allocated to god knows where and mostly unchecked. They claim money goes to schools, roads, and so on, but i personally don’t know how much of the pie goes where, i don’t keep proper tabs on the subject, although now you have me interested, ha..

 

Oregon apparently has no sales tax, however, the counties can impose one if they choose. (It seems they do have a rather large income tax though.) If i knew for certain that a one time tax of $15 goes directly to roads and pedestrian funds, i’m ok with that. This tax applies ONLY to brand new retail bicycles over $200. 

[misteraven]

10 minutes ago, abrasivesaint said:

A major issue with the Social Credit system is how often do people get REWARDED?

LOL, there is no reward. Reward is you dont get fucked for being bad.

[misteraven]

Just now, abrasivesaint said:

Well these are sort of two separate issues. One being taxes that are already taken from citizens, that are poorly allocated to god knows where and mostly unchecked. They claim money goes to schools, roads, and so on, but i don’t know how much of the pie goes where. 

 

Oregon apparently has no sales tax, however, the counties can impose one if they choose. (It seems they do have a rather large income tax though.) If i knew for certain that a one time tax of $15 goes directly to roads and pedestrian funds, i’m ok with that. This tax applies ONLY to brand new retail bicycles over $200. 

Yeah and income tax started the same way... Lets do good!

 

There's no sales tax where I live. Income tax is low and property tax is super low. No bicycle taxes either.

 

We also have a much smaller tax base than OR, yet they've managed to keep roads good even though our weather is far more extreme than OR.

[Mercer]

1 hour ago, abrasivesaint said:

If you’re referring to the $15 tax, it is a flat tax on new bikes over $200. According to https://www.oregon.gov/DOR/programs/businesses/Pages/Bicycle-excise-tax.aspx

That's not too bad I guess, but knowing how things tend to play out it could be a slippery slope. I imagined they'd tax the bikes tires mainly because there's 2, but under the guise of "cyclist that clearly use more road, wearing through tires". As soon as the state gets low on funds it starts to evolve.

 

• Bike tires get taxed $15 each, ($30 per new bike) and then on an additional $15 per tire change thereafter.
• Next thing you know, people are using a skateboard wheel for the front tire to save money
• State counters with a much coarser road surface that wears through bike tires faster
• H&R Block starts finding loopholes, becomes the biggest bike retailer in the state.
• I really don't see this playing out any other way. *invests in unicycle stocks

[Kults]

I honestly just want to opt out of all that stuff. Its becoming increasingly difficult to do though. Everything is linked and interconnected through apps, accounts and profiles.

 

I think it's a disaster waiting to happen and just further polarizes people into haves and have nots. Its a natural evolution of where its all been headed the last 2 decades but I find myself missing simpler times. HUGE red flags go off in my head when I hear govs or organizations trying to link credit scores to social statuses, scary stuff to be sure.

 

We only have ourselves to blame, in the endless quest to streamline and simplify everything we opened that door.

[Joker]

18 hours ago, misteraven said:

Bit off topic but...

 

Damn, the 26 - 40% they already take from you isn't enough? You're good with a little extra to insure roads don't have pot holes since they couldn't figure out how to get that fixed taking that first huge chunk?

 

Think of it this way... If your paying 25% tax (which I'd assume you pay more than that), you are literally a slave from January 01 through to March 31st - 3 months. Every penny of your productivity that is earned, Monday through Friday for that entire 3 months is taken from you and reallocated to whatever is deemed necessary (apparently not roads though cause they're taxing that separately).

 

You're really okay with that?

The Oregon Bicycle Excise tax funds go directly toward bicycle and pedestrian projects. So, bike lanes, for example. In Portland we have a very robust bike culture with hundreds of miles of bike lanes, bike specific traffic lights, protected bike lanes in high vehicle traffic areas, bike and pedestrian only bridges, etc.. So the OBE tax directly funds those projects... well, if enough funds are collected. Part of this tax was to ease taxpayers minds over their tax funds being allocated toward something a decent percentage of Oregonians don't use (side note: part of my taxes go toward schools but I don't have a kid, so why should I pay for that? Seems petty, but that's basically the argument they're making). The promising thing is that Portland has been building itself as a bicycle friendly city since 1973 and has no plans to slow down. Their goal is to be the Copenhagen of the US when it comes to bicycle infrastructure, and has been citing cities in Denmark and Holland as case studies for development. 

 

So to answer your question, no, I don't mind paying a one time $15 tax on a new bike purchase to help fund projects that I directly benefit from. I feel better about that than I do the 26-40% local government and federal take for projects I see little to no benefit from. The only thing about the $15 bicycle excise tax that bugs me is that currently there is no fee/tax collected for vehicle winter studded tires in Oregon. They'll tax bikes to fund bicycle related projects but not metal studded tires for motor vehicles to help fund repair of damaged roads caused by these tires. These tires go on vehicles like clockwork on November 1st (first allowed day) and then slowly come off after March 31st (last allowed day). And every year come March/April the roads are rutted further and potholes on side roads are astronomical. Why the local legislation refuses to tax or add a fee to these tires is kind of odd. 

[Mercer]

19 hours ago, misteraven said:

Bit off topic but...

 

Damn, the 26 - 40% they already take from you isn't enough? You're good with a little extra to insure roads don't have pot holes since they couldn't figure out how to get that fixed taking that first huge chunk?

 

Think of it this way... If your paying 25% tax (which I'd assume you pay more than that), you are literally a slave from January 01 through to March 31st - 3 months. Every penny of your productivity that is earned, Monday through Friday for that entire 3 months is taken from you and reallocated to whatever is deemed necessary (apparently not roads though cause they're taxing that separately).

 

You're really okay with that?

Fighting to resist as much as possible.

 

The silver lining to government spending (in comparison to private spending) is that it helps people by focusing on increasingly impressive instruments of death mainly. So at least they've got that going for them, which is nice.

[misteraven]

38 minutes ago, Joker said:

The Oregon Bicycle Excise tax funds go directly toward bicycle and pedestrian projects. So, bike lanes, for example. In Portland we have a very robust bike culture with hundreds of miles of bike lanes, bike specific traffic lights, protected bike lanes in high vehicle traffic areas, bike and pedestrian only bridges, etc.. So the OBE tax directly funds those projects... well, if enough funds are collected. Part of this tax was to ease taxpayers minds over their tax funds being allocated toward something a decent percentage of Oregonians don't use (side note: part of my taxes go toward schools but I don't have a kid, so why should I pay for that? Seems petty, but that's basically the argument they're making). The promising thing is that Portland has been building itself as a bicycle friendly city since 1973 and has no plans to slow down. Their goal is to be the Copenhagen of the US when it comes to bicycle infrastructure, and has been citing cities in Denmark and Holland as case studies for development. 

 

So to answer your question, no, I don't mind paying a one time $15 tax on a new bike purchase to help fund projects that I directly benefit from. I feel better about that than I do the 26-40% local government and federal take for projects I see little to no benefit from. The only thing about the $15 bicycle excise tax that bugs me is that currently there is no fee/tax collected for vehicle winter studded tires in Oregon. They'll tax bikes to fund bicycle related projects but not metal studded tires for motor vehicles to help fund repair of damaged roads caused by these tires. These tires go on vehicles like clockwork on November 1st (first allowed day) and then slowly come off after March 31st (last allowed day). And every year come March/April the roads are rutted further and potholes on side roads are astronomical. Why the local legislation refuses to tax or add a fee to these tires is kind of odd. 

The bike thing falls closer to being a tariff (in the historical sense) than a tax. Basically only affects the users that partake in it, which is a huge step in the right direction over a tax, which is just taking from people and allocating as they see fit. And no, I don't think its petty for you to call out that you pay taxes that fund schools, yet have no children. I do believe that people would be far more generous if the revenues that come from their individual productivity stayed with the person that earned them, especially when most governance remains at the local level. I know that one example doesn't mean the concept is valid, but its amazing to see how effective my town operates with most things being voluntary and taxes either being non-existent or bare minimum, especially by national averages. More so when you consider how small the tax base is here.

 

In your case, I'd imagine if suddenly you had 26 - 40% more income, and if the local community made a compelling case about investing into the future of the community and presented a plan for the transparent funding and management of the school system, as well as the short and long term benefits of it to the community... They'd have a good shot at getting you on board regardless of you not necessarily having skin in that game.

 

Somehow we strayed off topic with most these posts since the main topic is social credit and red flags, but no biggie... An interesting topic none the less.

[morton]

Sometimes the true nature and impact of technology takes a while to reveal itself. I was listening to a podcast the other day examining the  history of concentration camps and the expert being interviewed cited the development of barbed wire and machine guns as pivotal in the ability to detain people in an efficient enough manner for the practice of detaining large chunks of the populace to be practical.

 

The absolute degradation of privacy as both a legal concept and practical reality combined with a little bit of artificial intelligence will pave the way for what are sure to be some great innovations. 

 

Maybe the Chinese will go first on this, American capitalists and others can help them design and implement systems that would never fly here and in the end they will be a proving ground for what will come as the expression of modern life as we plunge into a climate and technology driven apocalypse climaxing with mass death on a scale never before imagined. 

 

As far as identifying our trouble makers, kind of weird deal there, time and time again they are identified by existing systems and suffer no consequence while others are penalized severely when they pose no genuine threat.  

 

I am not really too groovy to talk politics online, I did not read the links really and I do not think that the tax thing is really on topic enough beyond the privacy issue of being able to ride a bicycle with true freedom and no connection.  

[Hua Guofang]

China’s social credit system IS dystopia. 

 

They are exporting it as well. 

[abrasivesaint]

1 hour ago, morton said:

as we plunge into a climate and technology driven apocalypse climaxing with mass death on a scale never before imagined. 

 

[Guest]

Abstain and resist as long as you can. 

 

That's about all I have to say about that. 

[abrasivesaint]

[Guest]

Bingo boingo

[where]

Weigh in - this only applies to everyone especially all of us, if you have a SMIDDGEN of your stuff out in the sphere you’re GOT....as damn nearly everyone said  it’s inevitable,. Most people on here myself included have gross misgrievence with the economic puppet show but there AINT any  venues to air it out. At the same time though most of us are opportunistic, I personally have been leveraging myself on the plus side for the big picture. Even though I have contradicting ideas with those of the structure I still contribute and benefit indeterminatly and  implementing my suggestions which I feel are common would be very painful and more than likely be a trepanated mess,  so it is what it is.