Comment by imiric | Hacker News Reader

Comment by imiric | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Repeating the same talking points doesn't make them true.

Even if there is no nationwide "social credit score", local governments have been experimenting with an incentive and penalty system for decades now. This is well documented inside and outside of China.

Even the new nationwide law set in place in 2022[1] mentions some of the same practices carried out by local governments:

> There are 14 penalty measures for untrustworthiness, broken into 3 types [...] such as restricting entry in a marketplace or industry, restrictions on holing [sic] positions, restrictions on spending, restrictions on exiting the country, restrictions on promotion to a higher level of schooling, and so forth [...]

The law is so vague that I can imagine in practice it's abused for all sorts of things, such as "causing unrest", "spreading falsehoods", or whatever the local or central government deems to go against their bottom line.

Even sources that try to label this as a myth[2,3] can't avoid mentioning that these systems do exist as localized "pilots". So whether or not this is done nationwide, whether or not a "score" exists for individual citizens, and whether or not they're aware of it, doesn't make this a myth, or some form of Western propaganda. Your statements that all of this is a myth is patently false. Please stop spreading disinformation.

[1]: https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/sc-punishment-list/

[2]: https://merics.org/en/comment/chinas-social-credit-score-unt...

[3]: https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/11/22/1063605/china-an...

> local governments have been experimenting with an incentive and penalty system for decades now.

False. There were one or two towns that implemented opt-in rewards programs, in which you could get benefits like deposit waivers at the local library and other minor perks.

> The law is so vague that I can imagine in practice it's abused for all sorts of things

You're trying to read and interpret a law for yourself - one that you admit you have trouble understanding. Instead of trying to figure out what the legalese means for yourself, read what an expert says. You linked to the law at "China Law Translate," which is a project at Yale run by the guy I recommended earlier: Jeremy Daum. Jeremy Daum has expended a lot of effort trying to explain to the media that the Social Credit System has nothing to do with scoring, that it's mainly aimed at businesses (not private individuals), and that the only way you can be subject to any penalties under the system is if you are sentenced by a court of law under an already existing criminal statute.

I'll give you a very concrete example of how a private individual would actually interact with the Social Credit System. There's an MMA fighter in China who is famous for challenging and then beating up traditional martial artists. He challenged an old master who refused to fight. He then started insulting the old master in public. The old master sued the MMA fighter for defamation and won. The MMA fighter was ordered by the court to pay a fine and apologize, but he refused to do so. This is where the Social Credit System came in, after the guy was sentenced. Because he was in default of a court judgment, the MMA fighter was put on a blacklist, which among other things prevented him from buying high-speed-train tickets.

That's how the system actually works for private individuals. It is nothing like the internet meme about everyone having a score that goes up and down whenever they post an online comment. It's a system that can apply additional penalties to people who default on court judgments, but which mostly deals with corporate regulation. The basic idea is that businesses that have a good track record for obeying regulations and honoring contracts should receive less scrutiny, while businesses that have bad track records should receive additional scrutiny, be barred from getting government contracts, etc.

> > local governments have been experimenting with an incentive and penalty system for decades now. > > False. There were one or two towns that implemented opt-in rewards programs, in which you could get benefits like deposit waivers at the local library and other minor perks.

https://sites.ischool.berkeley.edu/blog/2024/02/23/chinas-so...

> Beyond a mere pipedream, there are currently 36 pilot programs deployed in some of China’s largest cities.

> Individual scores and grades for residents. Misbehaving (littering, jaywalking) results in score reduction and punishment; exemplary behavior (caring for aged parents) in good ratings and benefits.

> > The law is so vague that I can imagine in practice it's abused for all sorts of things > > You're trying to read and interpret a law for yourself - one that you admit you have trouble understanding.

No, I'm perfectly capable of understanding what the law says. It's the language itself that is vague and open to interpretation.

> Instead of trying to figure out what the legalese means for yourself, read what an expert says.

No, thank you. I don't need an "expert" to regurgitate what the law says. And what it says is simply a formalization of what localized pilots have been applying for years now, except that it's now a nationwide law.

> that it's mainly aimed at businesses (not private individuals)

Businesses are not the ones littering, jaywalking, or cheating on tests, and being posted on shaming billboards.

> I'll give you a very concrete example of how a private individual would actually interact with the Social Credit System.

Look, you can cherry pick examples all day long. I'm sure that in a country of 1.4 billion people there will be many such cases. But the reality is that there's a draconian law that is open to interpretation by local governments to punish people in whatever way they please. The law says so:

> Where local regulations have special provisions on penalty measures other than those provided for in this list, the local unit leading the establishment of the social credit system, in conjunction with relevant departments (units) may implement supplemental lists based on local regulations to be used only in that region.

All of this is hardly an issue, though. Whether or not a scoring system exists should not be the main topic of discussion, when people are being arrested or disappeared for some of this same behavior. Or is that also Western propaganda?

You post a link to a blog entry, which doesn't even have a listed author, and which looks like something a student cobbled together from the internet.

> No, I'm perfectly capable of understanding what the law says. It's the language itself that is vague and open to interpretation.

If you know what terms like "credit subject" and conditions like "subject to law" mean, then I suspect that the law you're reading is much less vague and open to interpretation. Legal documents like this use specialized terminology and assume a broader knowledge of the legal system and regulatory framework. Jeremy Daum, the person who actually translated the law you're citing, disagrees with your claims about the Social Credit System, which should be a tip-off that perhaps you don't understand the law you're reading.

> No, thank you. I don't need an "expert" to regurgitate what the law says.

Actually, you do need a legal expert to say what the law means. I don't think you're an expert on Chinese law, and when I read the law you're citing, I come to a very different interpretation. It looks to me like an attempt to limit the sorts of punishments local governments may apply to people who break certain types of laws.

> You post a link to a blog entry, which doesn't even have a listed author, and which looks like something a student cobbled together from the internet.

The post lists its sources at the bottom, and the data comes from MERICS[1]. I suppose they shouldn't be trusted either, but the experts that align with your viewpoints should.

> Jeremy Daum, the person who actually translated the law you're citing, disagrees with your claims about the Social Credit System

I'm not claiming anything beyond what the sources I linked to show: that a social credit system does exist, regardless if that's on a national or regional level, and that it's applied to individuals, and not just companies. Your claims that this system is entirely a myth, and later that it's only applied to companies, are patently false. Now you're moving the goalposts again that I need to be an expert in Chinese law to have an opinion about this.

> I don't think you're an expert on Chinese law

I don't need to be an expert to understand English. The translation is written in plain English, not some alien language only experts understand. There are surely nuances in certain phrases, and the vagueness leaves it open to interpretation, but the intent is clear.

Anyway, I feel like we're going in circles here, so let's stop wasting each others time.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_Institute_for_China_S...

> The post lists its sources at the bottom

If you trust some random student's homework as an accurate summary, that's on you.

> Your claims that this system is entirely a myth

I never said that the existence of a system is a myth. The myth is the score. The internet meme that everyone knows and that many believe is centered around this score, and therefore has nothing to do with reality.

> that it's only applied to companies

I never said that it only applies to companies. I said that it's mainly focused on companies. I specifically told you one way that it could be applied to individuals: people who default on court judgments can be banned from buying certain "luxury" goods like high-speed train tickets.

> I don't need to be an expert to understand English.

Understanding English does not mean you'll understand a legal document written in English. I don't think you've understood the law you linked to. One major aspect of it that I think you don't appreciate is that it is focused on limiting the types of penalties that local governments may impose for certain types of crimes. Another aspect that I think you're missing is that this is focused on business regulation. When it does mention "natural persons," it's often dealing with their professional conduct. E.g., people who commit fraud may be banned from carrying out certain professions. A third aspect of the law that I think you're overlooking is that these penalties are imposed on entities or people that break the law, not for any sort of low "social credit score." This example ties together these last two points:

"In accordance with laws and regulations, carry out professional bans or practice restrictions for a set period of time against natural persons that have major conduct in violation of laws or regulations in a specified sector."

Local governments can ban people who violate the law in a certain business sector from practicing in that sector. This is nothing at all like the "social credit score" meme. This is like, "If you've been convicted of embezzlement, you can't work at a bank any more." It isn't, "If you post a comment online that the CCP doesn't like, you can't get a loan."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com