Comment by paraditedc | Hacker News Reader

Comment by paraditedc | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Hey, thanks for pointing this out. I have updated it at the bottom of the article.

To clarify, I intended to write about this in this post initially, but somehow got carried away by the original document, so it ended up being just a walk through of the original document without the new additions and measures.

I think it does make sense to add additional information like this to the post to make it more complete and up-to-date.

Update:

found the original source (in Chinese) in case anyone is interested: http://www.chinatax.gov.cn/n810341/n810755/c3359637/content....

2nd Update:

It appears that Reuters made a mistake in their reporting, the ban is only for planes, not trains, according to the official document I linked above.

If anyone knows to get Reuters to correct its article, please let me know!

The Reuters journalist said:

- there are multiple documents about the social credit system, not just from the tax bureau

- people have definitely been banned from high speed rail

- two official docs from NDRC confirm this

(I haven't received links to the docs yet, but will reply to this comment when I do)

Yes, you are right. There are 2 sources from NDRC on this. So Reuters is correct in their reporting. I've found the them on NDRC website:

http://www.ndrc.gov.cn/zcfb/zcfbtz/201803/t20180316_879618.h...

http://www.ndrc.gov.cn/gzdt/201803/t20180316_879653.html

I've updated the links in my post as well.

It would have saved me and them the trouble if Reuters actually provided the sources.

"It would have saved me and them the trouble if Reuters actually provided the sources."

If we want them to do this, we need to start telling them. To anyone interested in seeing Reuters start including links to sources, a good first step is to email:

brian.moss@thomsonreuters.com

He handles enquiries about reporting standards.

EDIT: removed first paragraph, which I pasted in error from a chat message.

Hi, I read your first paragraph a few times and I am not still not sure what you mean. Can you explain a bit?

Sorry, I pasted the info from a chat message and, after adding some text, didn't fully remove the rest of the context.

I've edited my comment and removed that part.

yeah, I did a little summary in my comment below if anyone is interested

Reuters is correct. See my comment above:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18261549

Reply on news.ycombinator.com