128
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2023
128 points (100.0% liked)
chat
8407 readers
101 users here now
Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.
As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.
Thank you and happy chatting!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Hey it sucks that happened to you
I have a podcast episode from a USian academic where he debunks the claim about social credit, he also had another episode on the same podcast about Chinese police stations and how it really isn't anything like what the media reported. He is fluent in Chinese and reads legal documents in their native language and seems to have a decent understanding about the legal system there. He advises government and business folks I think, and his takes are among the best I've seen for a
(though he is critical, he attempts to be fair in his own way).
The host and the guy mentioned in the police station episode, that after he wrote about how social credit wasn't really a thing in China and debunked it, some bigger publications stopped reporting on it, presumably because they knew it was not true (which I think means they thought it was true and they came to that conclusion after doing their due diligence??)
I hope this helps in some way.
Listened to the episode, very good. The way he describes it is that there is a social credit system but there is no scoring involved. What it really is, is a publically available centralization of public records. The example he gives is that if a business has repeated health code violations then other regulators will be aware of that when inspecting that business. That said, he points out that even the chinese use the "social credit score" meme although they understand there isnt an actual number.
In the US we have many public records but they often aren't centralized in any way. A landlord's building code violations are a matter of public record. But they'll be scattered amongst all the local municipalities where the landlord owns properties and probably associated only to the specific property and/or LLC that owns the property. Trying to see just how many building code violations a specific landlord has through all their LLC, properties, and municipalities is a massive task. Any public effort to do it would be met with vast hostility from not just landlords but any bourgeoisie who dont want a central listing of all their violations.
That said, there are private efforts to centralize public records in the US. They're called background checks. Since it takes so much labor to do such a service comes at a price that only the bourgeoisie can afford. Therefore those background check companies only serve to surveil the proletariat. So instead of knowing how many evictions landlord has filed, you learn how many times a tenant has been evicted.
Ah, thanks for the summary, glad you liked it. Some of their content can be uh, yeah for some episodes I had to keep pausing and I would argue with the silence...
From that one episode nothing seemed wrong more like an issue with priorities. Like constantly mentioning Xinjiang, even though their perspective on it was far more mild than the average american. Could be a consequence of public intimidation, could be a lack of a materialist theory. Probably both.
Fair, credit where credit is due.
Ah, the problematic stuff was in another podcast, ChinaTalk. One episode in particular.
Yeah ok this makes more sense, I thought the change in sentiment was weird but it's explained by the fact that there were two separate podcasts.
Oh look its citations needed punching bag