My cousin doesn't buy it when I tell him the United States has more aggressively censored media than China.
gov.cn page on social credit system plan https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/xxgk/zcfb/tz/202406/P020240604321155...
gov.cn page on social credit system suggested changes/opinions https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/202503/content_7016535.htm
baidu page on social credit system https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E7%A4%BE%E4%BC%9A%E4%BF%A1%E7%...
Are you making the distinction that its name is actually the social credit system and not social score? Or that the system isn't fully in place yet.
Or perhaps are you suggesting that gov.cn and baidu are part of the deep state's propaganda plan against China.
I think this article from Beijing University does a great job of highlighting some of the issues.
Web page:
https://fzzfyjy.cupl.edu.cn/info/1035/11343.htm
Pdf: https://www.law.pku.edu.cn/docs/20210927092933450384.pdf
I think this answers all your questions? It has no real effect (many people don’t have one). But, I’m not sure what your question really is.
The American propaganda definition (which may vary) is incorrect because the system doesn’t really exist.
Furthermore, it clearly is a system that is important to the CCP and has an effect.
From the Baidu page:
建立社会信用体系是保持国民经济持续、稳定增长的需要
Establishing a social credit system is necessary to maintain sustained and stable growth of the national economy
Certainly Mainland China does need a credit system, and undoubtedly the Social Credit System will and has helped in that regard, but it does have legitimate flaws with regards to privacy.
Its goals extend beyond ensuring creditworthiness to
社会信用体系具有揭示功能，能够扬善惩恶，提高经济效率；
The social credit system has a revealing function, can promote good and punish evil, and improve economic efficiency;
And its integration with the National Healthcare Security Administration, and other government and private entities extend its reach far beyond what the Western credit systems do.
who couldnt easily get to his next fights against tai chi frauds because the social credit score prevented him from flying or bussing and whathaveyou
both got high passing grades on allowing meaningless complaining about government.
You are saying that is inaccurate? Or you are talking about a different type of censorship?
there are a massive number of subjects which cannot be spoken about on social media without risking massive deboosting and the blacklisting of your accounts.
this censorship is directed by "former" CIA agents working at all major American social media companies. In other words, this is direct government censorship of private citizens' speech.
What content are you worried would blacklist your account?
Can you share the topic contents that are subject to your accusations? If you’re able to share them here without fear of government reprisal then I would argue that’s not censorship.
Why? Because it makes searching for immigration and customs enforcement content much more difficult to find. It lower the social temperature and stops it from metaphorically boiling over.
Is crowding out content censorship? Who knows. If tilting feeds in one direction and away from another has the same effect and isn't censorship because of a definitional technicality, does it really matter?
That sounds cool as long as you forfeit your Section 230 rights since at that point you’re more of a newspaper than a social network.
Yes, I know all social networks do this currently which is why they should all lose their Section 230 rights.
I mean, the definition of censorship is far larger than just that, and what you're talking about is it's more extreme form.
Moreso you ignore all the modern subtlety and nuance of modern censorship. The government doesn't need to attack you directly, they just tell the large companies that contract with the government they can't do business with companies that do certain things. Or they tell payment processors that businesses that are 'high risk' need to be audited more and will invite more government intervention in which the payment processors just drop said businesses.
I mean, if you were on a corner protesting, then the government came in and closed the roads and routed all traffic around you so no one saw you, it would be really sus, right?
I also worry about some sort of policy where a site “must” carry content. That has its own risks as well, which should be obvious.
The saddest part of US censorship is it isn’t even pro American. It’s pro American billionaires who are disproportionately pro Israel.
I don't know what's worse, being trapped in a cage or de-fanged and let loose. I've only ever lived without teeth, so the idea of biting sounds almost beautiful.
But angry crowds can still remind them that the threat exists -- witness Josh Hawley fleeing the capital when the angry mob broke through (the irony being that the mob was in service of his boss, Trump).
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3706598.3714013
Also, don’t forget to obtain your icp license from the government before establishing a website in the mainland!
This is you in a nutshell.
This is wholly different from locking someone up for political speech. The US factually is not disappearing citizens for political speech.
In the US you are still very much free to insult the president, etc but if you post things deemed to be pro-terrorist or against what the Government wants to promote on social media, it won't go anywhere. Firearms or vaping content during the Biden admin as an example.
The current admin has heavily gutted the federal funding and workforce that backed these efforts and issued bulletins to private industry, but I suspect there is still pressure from pseudo-government "advocates".
You can't use Winnie the Pooh as code to agitate against the government.
That's an insult, not "agitat[ing] against the government"