# The Chinese corporate social credit system



## notimp (Aug 29, 2019)

China is about to implement an algorithmic scoring system for corporate market actors.

The first independent study on it made by consulting firm Sinolytics on behest of the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China, describes it as -

'The Digital Hand – How China's Corporate Social Credit System Conditions Market Actors'
https://www.europeanchamber.com.cn/...a_wake_up_call_for_european_business_in_china

Meaning, that china is implementing a more direct approach on how to 'guide' the proverbial invisible hand of the market - within their capitalistic market economy. 

Its only 35 pages long, looks parseable and should be an interesting read.

Short video summery:

From the pdf:

English name coined is 'Corporate Social Credit System', it's due to be implemented by the end of 2020.

'Uses realtime monitoring and processing systems to collect and interpret Big Data, which facilitates immediate detection and compliance and raises or decreases a companies 'score' (buzzwords  )

Good (according to Sinolytics):

- equal enforcement of regulations (because algos)
- European companies that use low emissions tech on "heavily polluted days" may not be shut down in the future 

Bad:
- administrative overhead for SMEs. 

Ugly:


> The level of compliance of business partners will also affect a company’s score, which will necessitate lighter monitoring of each link in the supply chain. Monitoring concerns do not end there either, as individual ratings  of a company’s legal representative and high-ranking management will also impact company results. This will require European companies to consider monitoring the individual behaviour of employees, a major taboo for many



Lol.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Aug 29, 2019)

This is code for "GET THE FUCK OUT OF THERE"

Though I am scared that governments will try this in the West in less then a decade under the disguise of protecting the children or stopping criminals early.

This is totally fuck.


----------



## notimp (Aug 29, 2019)

Kind of called it in my master thesis, btw.  (A few years ago. Which makes me oddly joyful...  )


----------



## notimp (Aug 29, 2019)

CallmeBerto said:


> This is code for "GET THE FUCK OUT OF THERE"


You know what - you might be right, there (in addressing specific people)... 

It continues:


> European companies need to start preparing as soon as possible. Having gone through the process myself, it was shocking to comprehend just how much needs to be done to prepare for the imminent implementation of the Corporate SCS. Strengthening communication with the government is a good first step: you will need to stay up to date on relevant regulations. However, improving internal communication is also hugely important, as the actions of one department can quickly impact the score of the whole business.


*rofl*

It continues:


> For better or worse, China’s Corporate SCS is here to stay and businesses in China need to prepare for the consequences, and they need to start now.



edit:

For multi national companies, a set of about 300 requirements can be expected to be put into place. If they are not met, and scores plummet too low, there are repercussions.

What are they - you ask? 


> Sanctions are not limited to penalty fees or court orders. They also include higher inspection rates and targeted audits, restricted issuance of government approvals (e.g. land-use rights and investment permits), exclusion from preferential policies (e.g. subsidies and tax rebates), restrictions from public procurement, as well as public blaming and shaming. Sanctions can even personally affect the legal representative and key personnel of a company.


Lol.

edit: This is the actual call for action:


> Compliance challenges: Most rating requirements are concerned with strict compliance with market regulations. While the ratings also introduce new requirements, most directly refer to existing regulation. International companies with strong internal compliance systems will generally be well placed to maximise rating results. However, companies need a full understanding of the ratings. Once detected, gaps in the fulfilment of rating requirements are generally not difficult to fix through targeted adjustments of internal processes, but companies need to know exactly what must be done to secure a high rating in order to act accordingly.



edit:

Here the customary 'go ahead, and monitor each other' - clause... 


> Strategic challenges beyond regulatory compliance: A small but important set of requirements goes beyond mere regulatory compliance and creates strategic challenges for companies. For example, the requirements relating to the behaviour of business partners (e.g. suppliers and service providers) burden companies with the responsibility of monitoring their partners’ trustworthiness. Similarly, the new trade-related requirements currently in preparation are likely to include aspects beyond regulatory compliance. These structural challenges will not be tackled by process adjustments, rather they will require executive level decision-making and in some cases major organisational alterations.



edit: This is the investment impact callout:


> This could lead to a scenario in which the Corporate SCS creates a more level playing field in China – though with a downside: the game played on that field will be more difficult and controlled than before.
> 
> However, this may be an overly optimistic interpretation, as the system does have the potential for discriminatory use towards international companies.
> 
> First, there is no guarantee that the ratings cannot be applied in a biased way, targeting specific companies with greater scrutiny. [...]



edit:
Here is the 'go ahead and self censor - best guesses welcome' principle:


> For example, only during the latest round of releases of official guidance documents did clearer indications emerge confirming the preparation of a comprehensive metascore.3 How exactly the many topic-specific ratings of the System will be integrated into the comprehensive metascore and what exact role this meta-score will have within the overall Corporate SCS mechanism does, however, remain opaque at this point. Ultimately, the data infrastructure behind the System—the necessary basis to effectively implement these mechanisms—is still incomplete.


Hint: 100 bucks on 'it will never get too transparent'.

edit: This is also part of the 'social chilling'


> • Privately-run credit information platforms (Qichacha, Tianyancha and many others) A significant number of private companies run platforms that make use of the company records published via the National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System. As with the government-run publicity system, it is possible to use these privately-run platforms—which often have a more accessible user interface—to search for a company by name and Unified Social Credit Code. In addition to company credit records, these platforms also integrate data from various other government sources on, for example, patents, trademarks and legal cases. For full access to all data, the platforms charge a small fee, which is part of the overall idea of the system: to create a new market for companies to use and process credit information on companies that is provided by the government.
> 
> • Databases and ratings of third-party rating agencies Different to Qichacha, Tianyancha and others, third-party rating agencies like HiggsCredit or Alibaba Cheng.Xin use the data provided by the government but do not just make it more accessible; they also build on the data provided by the government by integrating their own data sources to calculate comprehensive meta-ratings. Both privately-run credit information platforms and third-party rating agencies have data exchange agreements with the government, and their rating results will be increasingly integrated into the overall assessment on companies. However, for the time being, it is unclear to what extent they will feed their own rating results back into the government system.



edit: Stuff like this is just beautiful(ly vicious)...
(Turns around 'not guilty until proven' and makes you formally apply for 'restoration of credit' with set in place waiting periods.)


> Companies must be proactive in applying for credit restoration, as merely fulfilling legal obligations is not enough. To reset its negative record, a company needs to submit a ‘credit restoration commitment’ letter (信用修复承诺 书), in which the company promises to abide by the law and accepts supervision by the government. Depending on the type of negative rating, additional material may be required. This includes proof of participating in credit training, registration documents that require official seals and a credit report (信用报告) (refer to Figure 4 on credit restoration).21 Not all blacklisting entries can be restored, however. For example, blacklisting entries that relate to public safety or are due to serious crimes such as fraud cannot, and business operations can be halted.22 Entries that can be restored must usually wait for a minimum publicity period to pass before the company can apply for credit



edit: Here is some candy.  (Beautiful.  )


> The tax rating rates companies on a scale from A to D, with every letter category referring to a fixed range of points that can be achieved. Whenever a company receives an A rating, this positive information is made publicly available via the National Enterprise Credit Information Sharing Platform


edit: Also bad points for filing stuff late (of course  ).

edit: BWAHAHAHA!


> External reference data can also include media reports


Found an intentional backdoor here, boys. 

edit: Oh it is so beautiful(ly vicious).


> Individual rating results impact company rating results and vice-versa
> 
> The tax rating is an example of the linkage between the corporate rating mechanism and the individual rating mechanism of the SCS, as it integrates individual rating results into the assessment of the company’s rating. If the company is registered or operated by a person who is individually rated as an 'abnormal' or Grade-D taxpayer, this leads directly to a D-level rating of the company. By the same token, a company’s D-level tax rating will also have a significant impact on a responsible individual’s personal tax rating. If the company tax rating is D, the individual tax rating of directly responsible personnel will also be downgraded to D.
> 
> ...


----------



## notimp (Aug 29, 2019)

The impacts of being rated as a 'distrusted company':

- Higher inspection rates
- Targeted audits
- [being distrusted is a] reference point during all kinds of administrative approvals and bureaucratic procedures
- [being distrusted is a] reference point for financial and credit affairs
- Exclusion from public procurement
- Public blaming and shaming


> A key mechanism of the Corporate SCS is the public blaming and shaming of distrusted companies. This includes the disclosure of untrustworthiness to the public via the CreditChina website and the National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System.
> 
> The information shared via these public channels of the System is intended to be used as a reference point for business and investment decisions by corporate partners and customers. The core idea behind this public blaming and shaming is to make sure that distrusted entities cannot successfully continue their business in the Chinese market. The shaming mechanism is not fully implemented yet, but the level of publicity and public scrutiny to be generated in cases of infringements is likely to be ramped up significantly in the coming months. [Implementing institutions: Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM), NDRC]


- Impact on the legal representative and directly responsible personnel


> In the customs authentication rating, as in virtually all other ratings of the Corporate SCS, a negative rating has a significant impact on the company’s legal representative as an individual. With respect to the customs rating, the legal representative will be hit with travel restrictions if the company fails to pay customs duties or fines and penalties after a corresponding court-order. The legal representative will also be restricted from purchasing insurance products with high cash-value premiums and from purchasing real estate or land if her or his company receives a rating as a distrusted customs company. Usually, she or he is also not allowed to take on another post as legal representative as long as the company is blacklisted. [Implementing institutions: Supreme Court, Ministry of Transport (MOT), MOFCOM, Ministry of Public Security (MPS), Ministry of Culture and Tourism (MCT), Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC), China State Railway Group and other relevant departments]


[Travel restrictions! Yay! Restrictions from purchasing insurances! Yay! Restrictions from purchasing real estate! Yay!  Restrictions from taking another job in the field! Yay!]
- Impact on other ratings or classifications [No certs for you!]


The importance of data aggregation:


> All companies registered in China transfer a significant amount of detailed data to Chinese government authorities. In many cases, companies are unclear about how this data is used as a basis for the government’s computation of regulatory ratings. Taken individually, most of the transferred data points are not highly sensitive information. However, the integration and systematically cross-cutting use of data on the government’s side can become a challenge. It provides the government with a full picture of the detailed performance and capability of a company. Ensuring the security of this data is one of the key promises of the government. Companies need to hold the government authorities to this promise and make sure that no detrimental use of this comprehensive data occurs.


[Please, pretty Please? Now social media becomes a problem? ]


> Many companies are not fully aware of the significant amount of data that is being made public and is openly accessible to outsiders, including potential business partners, competitors, media and any other institution or individual interested in the company’s performance. Companies need to routinely check their entries and data on the respective public platforms in order to detect and remedy cases of negative entries or incorrect information. A proactive approach towards this published data will become increasingly urgent.


- seems so.. 

Oh, there is a 'Cyberspace Administration of China for fake news and rumours' - neat. I'm sure some forum users would like to have that in the west a well.. 


> The new system, called the National ‘Internet+ Monitoring’ System (国家 “互联网+监管” 系统), aims to fully integrate the complete set of monitoring and credit information data on companies. This includes all sources of government monitoring data and government rating results, as well as rating results and other data from third parties like (selected) commercial rating agencies and e-commerce platform providers. Ultimately, it also integrates existing complaint and reporting channels like the one for environmental protection offenses (12369 网络举报中心) and the one from the Cyberspace Administration of China for fake news and rumours (国家网信办举报中心), as well as video surveillance systems.



Here is the list on corporate technical implementation:


> A consortium led by Taiji Computer Corporation, in cooperation with Huawei, Alibaba, Tencent and video surveillance provider VisionVera, is setting up the system. Taiji Computer takes the major responsibility for integrating the different data sources into one platform and Huawei provides the server and cloud infrastructure. Alibaba (via AliCloud and Alibaba Sesame Credit Company Credit Rating) and Tencent have a major role in analysing the ratings and records of companies as part of the platform. Finally, VisionVera brings in its video surveillance data.36


----------



## notimp (Aug 29, 2019)

Here is what makes you a 'heavily distrusted entity'


> a. Using boilerplate (standardised) clauses or carrying out fraud, coercion, malicious collaboration or compulsory trading and other methods (利用格式条款或者实施欺诈、胁迫、恶意串通、强制交易等手段). b. Endangering national or public interest (危害国家利益、社会公共利益). c. Infringing the legitimate rights and interests of customers (侵害消费者合法权益) (this is what FedEx, for example, was accused of in June 2019).



And of course - the system and the weighing is 'ever changing'.

Corporate wishlist (current):

Can we please have:


> - Information flow and accessibility: The respective government authorities could facilitate the preparatory efforts of companies by improving the flow of information on ratings and rating requirements to all companies. Consolidation of operationally important information through clear communication channels would be especially valuable for SMEs as they will find it particularly challenging to mobilise the necessary internal resources to acquire and continually track all necesary information.
> 
> - Clarity and channels of communication: There is a strong need for a productive exchange with government authorities with the aim of clarifying some of the information that is still partially unclear in the existing regulatory texts. Chinese government authorities have an interest in facilitating this process of clarification, not only by reacting to the direct inquiries from companies and business associations, but also by proactively improving the precision of Corporate SCS stipulations. An additional step to facilitate the flow of information and enable companies to raise questions and concerns would be the establishment of clear communication channels and defined points of contact for different rating areas.
> 
> ...



Another piece of candy for your way out: 


> The Corporate SCS already rates the behaviour of Chinese companies operating in foreign markets. Through the rating for foreign economic cooperation, Chinese companies can be blacklisted for misconduct abroad.



Thats (most of) it.

edit: Oh, and it will be part of international trade relations.


----------



## DBlaze (Aug 29, 2019)

Cool story, so when are they going to stop blatantly copying literally everything?
Oh wait


----------



## notimp (Aug 29, 2019)

Now. 

If you read everything - you get a comprehensive understanding how business relations work. Also state/business level relations.

Its worth it.

This is not just me getting enthused.  (Moderators please allow. Its not everyday - that something like this comes along..  )


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 29, 2019)

Pity my Chinese is not so great. Could have some real fun here either making the system untenable or generally doing some black hat shit. Doubly so if we get some nice voice synthesisers -- oh no is your CTO (or the general lynch pins* of your organisation) a secret Falun Gong member and likes to use company ink to spread word of corruption/democracy/... Bit of light shorting if you have access to a market could finance a lot as well.

*I usually find there are a handful of real movers and shakers at a company that you would be hard pressed to replace. If even the accusation would stick...


----------



## morvoran (Aug 29, 2019)

Social media companies such as Facebook and Google gave been implementing their own version of this in Western culture for awhile now.  A quick web search will find several sources about this with more popping up everyday since the media gas become aware of China's version.  It's coming our way, folks. Oh, it's coming.


----------



## notimp (Aug 29, 2019)

For insurances purposes - it was likely. For recruitment purposes it was already there. How the US uses their 'full take' on data - we cant say for certain.

But we still tend to keep our societies more open, and not have people 'collect better social circles' to gain points (well, actually..  ), or at least not to 'spy and report' on everyones activity (chilling effect), as the counter party in a business deal.

Still the trajectories are there, and the similarities (what FB tries to push for (f.e. get data on all money transactions), are there as well.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 29, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Social media companies such as Facebook and Google gave been implementing their own version of this in Western culture for awhile now.  A quick web search will find several sources about this with more popping up everyday since the media gas become aware of China's version.  It's coming our way, folks. Oh, it's coming.


Umm, why would anybody care how Facebook rates other companies?  Or for that matter, how they rate individuals that don't even use their platform?  Google already has user reviews for businesses, and they certainly don't carry more weight than reviews on other websites (Yelp, for example).

The problem with China's system is the authoritarian government's involvement, and while I'm sure the Trump administration would love to limit our freedom of speech/autonomy of business, that's gonna be a much tougher sell in a country where it's constitutionally protected.  Facial recognition systems used for the purposes of law enforcement are a different topic, and a much bigger potential threat to our freedoms in the US.


----------



## notimp (Aug 29, 2019)

Its correct, concerning the big data approach - with a select group of individuals. In the private sector there are the same private data brokers in the west, that are used (as one data source) in the Chinese system as well. They may be used from a certain responsibility level for a job onwards. For recruitment and assessment of potential - facebook profiles will be screened today. Police use facebook to 'hunt criminals'. People use social media to assess new friend circles and lifepartners. People will use company rating websites to pick out future employers. People use online portals to select their physicians, ... and so on and so forth.

The actual promise of a 'digital assistant" (still one of the goals tech companies are aiming fore), is to deliver you potential ratings (alongside ads), context sensitive.

When you are loosing your job, in my country - your CV will be assessed by an algorithm. Only leaving room for 'individual upgrading' in case of "has shown ambition".

We are there. Its just not compulsory yet. That and some of the 'proactive' and 'chilling' affects of the chinese system - probably never will be implemented in the west - because we would consider it unethical, or unconstitutional.

That said - governments in the west, are very willing to employ so called 'nudging' in legislation - to reach desired effect. And thats data driven a well - just not as coordinated or all encompasing.


For business purposes - when I copied the term "digital hand of the market" - I wasn't kidding. They are literally disabling the free market economy of capitalism. Not just on a basis of 'sector regulation', but actually bringing in another factor that their capitalism works - optimizing alongside it.

Market economies in the west are supposed to be largely impartial - theirs is not - by design.

So that would probably be the last thing that changes, if it ever gets more accepted in the west. But everything other than that - already is changing.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 29, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Umm, why would anybody care how Facebook rates other companies?


Ideally. Nobody.

Pragmatically. Quite a few people -- for many businesses of the customer facing variety if you are not on facebook or google's various properties you might as well not exist and if you find yourself shuffled to the bottom of lists (or off the first page as the case may be) then that ends badly. Hopefully facebook continues to take a kicking and have more people leave or only be there for competitions and funny pictures but at this point it is still something to note. Likewise I also would like to see youtube either play nicely again or get replaced by something better but that is probably secondary in all this after maps and search.

China being an authoritarian shithole is scary but that does not mean I take my eye of big tech companies that also wield a lot of power.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 29, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> Ideally. Nobody.
> 
> Pragmatically. Quite a few people -- for many businesses of the customer facing variety if you are not on facebook or google's various properties you might as well not exist and if you find yourself shuffled to the bottom of lists (or off the first page as the case may be) then that ends badly. Hopefully facebook continues to take a kicking and have more people leave or only be there for competitions and funny pictures but at this point it is still something to note. Likewise I also would like to see youtube either play nicely again or get replaced by something better but that is probably secondary in all this after maps and search.
> 
> China being an authoritarian shithole is scary but that does not mean I take my eye of big tech companies that also wield a lot of power.


As a business you certainly need some form of internet presence, but a Facebook page is far from a necessity.  Especially given that Facebook as a business themselves have a very poor rating with any number of consumer reporting agencies, and any data hosted by them is damn near guaranteed to be sold, stolen, or both.


----------



## notimp (Aug 29, 2019)

What facebook has lost during the publicity hit was made up by instagram growth (same company) instantly.

When they got fined their billion dollar fee recently their stock price rose.

They've bought out past competitors. Or copied their featureset and pushed them out of market (with snapchat they are still trying).

When france tries to enact a digital tax, it gets put up on the G7 agenda, and the US delegation lobbies it away again.

The thing with companies profiting from the network effect is, that they are actaully likely never to get replaced - because the investment a competitor would have to mount - against a 'free' business model that scales on advertising - is unfinancible. Even not looking at that they would get a worse ad price.

There will not be another technological leap that would warrant a usability change where they could mess up. in the near future

And to outcompete youtube - not even amazon was brave enough to try - and they settled for the twitch approach instead (which has people paying for chatroom access/visibility).

The blatent truth that has to sink in is - that the garage days are long, long over - and you are mostly dreaming of a phantasy, when awaiting a changeover.

The last lockin would be digital payment - if facebook has that under wraps as well - its over. There they now have got pushback by national banks, but they'll work on getting that lobbied away.

Youtube and Facebook also never will get 'better' in terms of customer dreams of what content should be ranked higher or lower, because y<ou dont decide - advertisers do. So if you've copied that statement from some youtubers rant, thats mostly false as well... 

Welcome to the here and now.


----------



## chrisrlink (Aug 29, 2019)

the world's gonna end before this gets fully implimented thanks to rocket man kim and mother russia....and yes your talking to an unstable man who nearly lost everything and doesn't care if humanity lives or dies off (I answered your question before you even asked it)


----------



## notimp (Aug 29, 2019)

Rocket man doesnt matter. Russia doesnt matter (starts to matter more regionally, or started until recent protests). Diplomacy still has them covered. 

Its just the easyness that we go from individual rights (privacy, remember?) to - well, we probably should monior our competition now to retain a good social score - thats actually remarkable.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 29, 2019)

Xzi said:


> As a business you certainly need some form of internet presence,_ but a Facebook page is far from a necessity_.  Especially given that Facebook as a business themselves have a very poor rating with any number of consumer reporting agencies, and any data hosted by them is damn near guaranteed to be sold, stolen, or both.



I am not sure about that. While being in Google's search and probably maps for many things is a far more pressing matter I have sat in on enough small businesses of varying types at this point and seen many of them do well with facebook promotions (different codes, used one of the other phone numbers, web analytics showing referrals), take enquiries from it (despite no indication to do that and it actually being annoying as fewer people had access to the account), be communicated to via it from reasonably high paying clients and more besides.
There were others I weaned off advertising with Facebook, got things stuck on those post to 15 different social meeja platforms with one site type setups leaving facebook another stop on the way as it were, had to get people to spend less time on such things and more time on others (usually by demonstrating the opposite to the things mentioned above), occasionally locked down the page to lessen contact but UK wise (yelp is not really a thing here, indeed the yellow pages as they are known are morons* and are fading fast) it would be said to be a bold move to not have your business on facebook if your customers are the general public, and if you are a restaurant or clothes shop even more so. Restaurant wise the only people to give me more grief in general were tastecard and trip advisor.
Doing for a restaurant directory/reviews company I also noted a large amount of restaurants either having their website as a placeholder and all the action going on facebook or simply only having a facebook (though this was more often than not just the village/estate chip shop, Chinese or curry house, though as I was dealing with them then many were getting awards).

*I have previously covered my story wherein I spoke to their graphics and web services division about the unholy image format I sent them of a client's logo and whatnot (I recall where I was when I got the call, 2013 according to my accounts). The format in question... PNG. It was that same year that they also lost all their other customers among my other clients (most actually not from my experience there or my prompting).


----------



## morvoran (Aug 30, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Umm, why would anybody care how Facebook rates other companies? Or for that matter, how they rate individuals that don't even use their platform? Google already has user reviews for businesses, and they certainly don't carry more weight than reviews on other websites (Yelp, for example).



Facebook - Potential and current employers, insurance companies, credit card companies, etc. can and have used people's facebook profiles already to judge them based on the material they post.  
Google/Youtube - Google can add you into their search engine so anybody can type in your name and pull up arrest records, personal blogs, even forum posts on extremist websites.  The videos you share can be used to target you for hate/death threats and can be used to silence you if you do not fit into Google's "preferred speech".
Twitter - people have been fired or lost job opportunities for posts made years ago. 

These all seem like social credit profiling to me, but what do I know? 

Right now, I, personally, can't confirm that they are giving "ratings" to individuals, but that is a possible next step.

I also said nothing about rating companies.  Not sure why you brought that up.


----------



## notimp (Aug 30, 2019)

Giving ratings in itself maybe isnt the big issue here. Its basically that you announce that you are doing it, that they will matter, that they arent entirely transparent, but that people can do a few things to better them.

Also to make sure that people believe in their importance you establish that everyone monitors each other, while the state monitors you. Then you tell people, that you are doing it that way. (And that it will impact your tax score.  )

What you are producing is 'desired' behavior, social expectation of surveillance and self censorship. Together with a feeling of 'that is the new reality'. Kind of like what 'facebook optimizing' meant to people, but without an opt out.  And that you cant buy insurance, or board a train on the 'bad end' of the outcome.

The ratings stuff is not so outrageous, people tend to do it all the time anyhow. Its actually the importance that that rating gets, and that you are aware of it. 

And the virtual invisible hand idea, which means, that as a state you can influence markets without anyone knowing. I think I have to spell that out once more.  If you build in those cascading effects, you can f.e. harm a company that isnt your target, to harm the target,.. And you can do it by flipping a few bits.

Oh - and this is related:
https://gbatemp.net/threads/millenn...epts-fascinating-at-hacker-conference.527431/ 

If you act based on ratings that arent transparent to people, it becomes a problem as well though, because of non explicit biases, and people not having the chance to counteract them. But thats maybe a lesser level of problematic (because we got used to it a while ago). The bigger problem here is that we get delegation of responsibility. "Computer said no" problem. When you dont know why (no causality - just probability), and when engineers will always 'tweak along' to try to make stuff 'work' (again). And doing that with messy data, based on a hunch. (Big Data issues  )


----------



## Xzi (Aug 30, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Facebook - Potential and current employers, insurance companies, credit card companies, etc. can and have used people's facebook profiles already to judge them based on the material they post.
> Google/Youtube - Google can add you into their search engine so anybody can type in your name and pull up arrest records, personal blogs, even forum posts on extremist websites.  The videos you share can be used to target you for hate/death threats and can be used to silence you if you do not fit into Google's "preferred speech".
> Twitter - people have been fired or lost job opportunities for posts made years ago.


Okay, but what if you aren't on Facebook/Twitter, and strictly post under a username on other sites so Google can't find you?  Or what if you just delete all that stuff?  In the EU at least I know there are "right to be forgotten" laws which require deletion of data from servers when requested.

Extremism is a different matter altogether.  I don't think neo-nazis should be protected any more than members of ISIS, but unless you get yourself doxxed, that type of online activity isn't likely to be tied to your real name.



morvoran said:


> These all seem like social credit profiling to me, but what do I know?
> 
> Right now, I, personally, can't confirm that they are giving "ratings" to individuals, but that is a possible next step.


None of these businesses are tied into a centralized government system that tracks everywhere you go and everything you do.  Are Facebook and Google too close to being monopolies within their respective markets?  Probably, but that type of thing becomes an inevitability when we fail to elect politicians who are willing to stand up for antitrust laws.  Just about everybody in the current administration is happy to allow corporations to regulate government instead of the other way around.



morvoran said:


> I also said nothing about rating companies.  Not sure why you brought that up.


That's the central topic of the thread, scores being given to companies based on the standards of the Chinese government.  Social credit scores for individuals were implemented in China well before now.  They've even got dedicated camera towers for the purposes of facial recognition, which is why it makes me happy to see stuff like this happening amongst the Hong Kong protests:


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 30, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Okay, but what if you aren't on Facebook/Twitter, and strictly post under a username on other sites so Google can't find you?  Or what if you just delete all that stuff?  In the EU at least I know there are "right to be forgotten" laws which require deletion of data from servers when requested.
> 
> Extremism is a different matter altogether.  I don't think neo-nazis should be protected any more than members of ISIS, but unless you get yourself doxxed, that type of online activity isn't likely to be tied to your real name.
> 
> ...



Depending upon the job you might be required to be on such things, or have your absence from such things be considered against you. This is also not just PR and marketing positions either -- some use it as a measure of how outgoing you are, others as a low key means of keeping tabs and I have heard it going down as low as working in a bar or restaurant.
Now I would probably thank the people offering the job for advertising it as bad by virtue of such requirements but I have minimal outgoings, tools and skills as my basis for doing stuff. 

Also why you would leap right to neo nazis (not that I would lump the non violent part of those in with those that do violence in the world) I don't know -- if a phrase as innocuous as "there are only 2 genders" can get you troubled (we have seen Googles internal policies, they youtube guidelines, their advertising policies on the likes of youtube and their more covert things for youtube reflect such things, and plenty of others move in lock step), or indeed such companies take what is the fairly minor step at this point to believing cultural appropriation is both a thing and a bad one (we have already seen businesses troubled by it on such sites).

Tied to government systems are a modifier in the equation but don't negate other things (the accountability problem alone bringing it back), doubly so if they do get their currency thing off the ground and the likes of paypal (or indeed more traditional banks) continue to ban people for wrongthink rather than just the usual criminal action, fraud and abuse.


----------



## RandomUser (Aug 30, 2019)

Oh man this reminds me of that TV show called Black Mirror Episode called "Nosedive". they portrays something similar, except in a social network way. Should give it a watch if you like, Season 3 Episode one I think.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 30, 2019)

FAST6191 said:


> Depending upon the job you might be required to be on such things, or have your absence from such things be considered against you. This is also not just PR and marketing positions either -- some use it as a measure of how outgoing you are, others as a low key means of keeping tabs and I have heard it going down as low as working in a bar or restaurant.
> Now I would probably thank the people offering the job for advertising it as bad by virtue of such requirements but I have minimal outgoings, tools and skills as my basis for doing stuff.


All the more reason to stay away from social media or at the very least set it to private.  Your boss has no right to track your activities during your free time, much less dictate what you do in your free time.  And any company that values the image you project on social media over the work ethic you demonstrate has their priorities completely ass-backwards, thus they should be avoided at all costs.



FAST6191 said:


> Also why you would leap right to neo nazis (not that I would lump the non violent part of those in with those that do violence in the world) I don't know -- if a phrase as innocuous as "there are only 2 genders" can get you troubled (we have seen Googles internal policies, they youtube guidelines, their advertising policies on the likes of youtube and their more covert things for youtube reflect such things, and plenty of others move in lock step), or indeed such companies take what is the fairly minor step at this point to believing cultural appropriation is both a thing and a bad one (we have already seen businesses troubled by it on such sites).


Nazism is not a "difference of opinion," it's an ideology based in violence as a means to create conformity.  I mention it only because right-wing extremism in _all_ forms is on the rise lately, and those neo-nazis not actively participating in terrorist acts tend to enjoy at least cheering them on through the internet.



FAST6191 said:


> Tied to government systems are a modifier in the equation but don't negate other things (the accountability problem alone bringing it back), doubly so if they do get their currency thing off the ground and the likes of paypal (or indeed more traditional banks) continue to ban people for wrongthink rather than just the usual criminal action, fraud and abuse.


The problem (at least in the US) comes down to conservatives being unable to decide whether they love or hate the idea of oligarchy.  They seem to love it when it comes to a business deciding to refuse service on the basis of sexual orientation, but they hate it when it comes to a social media company enforcing their clearly-defined rules/terms of use.  Where exactly is the line between government protecting the rights of individuals and stepping on the rights of businesses?  Because I'm not necessarily against reigning in the corporate power structure, but it has to be done with clarity and transparency, not in such a way that it serves the interests of one particular political/religious viewpoint.


----------



## morvoran (Aug 30, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Okay, but what if you aren't on Facebook/Twitter, and strictly post under a username on other sites so Google can't find you?  Or what if you just delete all that stuff?  In the EU at least I know there are "right to be forgotten" laws which require deletion of data from servers when requested.
> 
> Extremism is a different matter altogether.  I don't think neo-nazis should be protected any more than members of ISIS, but unless you get yourself doxxed, that type of online activity isn't likely to be tied to your real name.
> 
> ...



I'm going to try to condense this all to down to keep it short.  Hopefully, it will still make sense.

For social media sites, because they are free services in which you don't pay for products or services, you and the information you provide is their product.

Equifax, which is not tied to a centralized government, collects credit details such as banking loans, credit card debt, payment details, etc.  If you do not use any of these services, they have no data on you to collect, and you won't get far in life as it is hard to get a bank loan, buy a vehicle, own a house, etc. without a credit score.

Same with Facebook, twitter, youtube, etc.  If privacy is a main concern of yours, then not giving these companies your real information is the best thing to do.  The biggest problem with these sites becoming collectors of social credit scores, along with the government utilizing these sites for its own purposes, is that you won't get far in life without using social media and giving up your privacy or even your freedom to privacy.

When I mentioned extremist sites, you could, for example, sign up to one of these sites just to bash "far-right nazi scum" with your opinions one time, if Google combs the web for members of these sites, guess what?  You're now listed as a neo-nazi scum yourself.  Congratulations!!!  Welcome to the new world order!!!  Now employers won't hire you, your partner leaves you, your dog won't look at you, and you have to find a cardboard box you have to have your parents co-sign for you to live in, which they won't because who would love a nazi?  You should have used a VPN before signing up if those still exist in this future.


----------



## notimp (Aug 30, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Equifax, which is not tied to a centralized government, collects credit details such as banking loans, credit card debt, payment details, etc. If you do not use any of these services, they have no data on you to collect, and you won't get far in life as it is hard to get a bank loan, buy a vehicle, own a house, etc. without a credit score.


Those usually also sell you data, but in the EU I at least know that they have to anonymize it - so strip it from your name and identifiable information. Thats usually not sufficient statistically (reidentification using different datasets with the same datapoints is possible) - but practically and legally.



morvoran said:


> When I mentioned extremist sites, you could, for example, sign up to one of these sites just to bash "far-right nazi scum" with your opinions one time, if Google combs the web for members of these sites, guess what? You're now listed as a neo-nazi scum yourself. Congratulations!!! Welcome to the new world order!!! Now employers won't hire you, your partner leaves you, your dog won't look at you, and you have to find a cardboard box you have to have your parents co-sign for you to live in, which they won't because who would love a nazi? You should have used a VPN before signing up if those still exist in this future.


First wrong - because even if you are neo-nazi scum, you still have human rights - one of which is the right for privacy.

This is to counteract ostracism on moral grounds.

I know that today the thinking goes - well, we so liberal, we let you basically be anything you like - other than that thing we dont like - and then we'll gang up and -- get out of our neighborhood... which still is not what solves issues. Privacy is exactly there, that you can meet up at your local bakery say a friendly hello, and not think about that guys marrage issues, and that gals fetishes, and - and that guys political orientation, and that groups salary.... It levels the playing field. Its what demands 'common decency' in the first place - because - you dont know who you are dealing with. (In face to face community circumstances, in internet forums its different - because you have more anonymity.) In big cities less so than in smaller towns or settlements, but it serves the same purpose.

Also - because many VPN vendors are data brokers themselves (f.e.: https://www.vpnmentor.com/blog/is-nordvpn-operated-by-tesonet/ ) its a secondary business for them and you never read TOS.

(The gag is, that the VPNs for 'normal users' basically developed as 'half a scam' once 'three strikes, six strikes - however many strikes' was set in place as a legal motion against piracy. When suddenly there was a broader need for them. And then the VPN industry - became a 'cash out' option for piracy. They sold against fear and guilt that was there - they got free money. And a partnership between them an piracy vendors was born.  Might depend on your region - but usually no one can get IP tables from illicit download or streaming platforms - so... draw your own conclusions. If you care about opsec - you know why you care about opsec, and obviously this paragraph isnt for you.

Also - I pay for a VPN - but for locations change reasons manly. )

edit: In China they do now encourage you to monitor the social scores of your business partners and friend circles as well, effectively canceling that out and creating another caste system. We'll have to see how well that'll go.

So the last time you repeated the Zuckerberg slogan of 'I don't care, because I've got nothing to hide...' you probably weren't thinking straight. Even though yes - empowerment is right and good, and all.


----------



## morvoran (Aug 30, 2019)

notimp said:


> First wrong - because even if you are neo-nazi scum, you still have human rights - one of which is the right for privacy.


 Not wrong.  Neo-nazis as private citizens have rights, true. I never said anything about this taking away their rights.  

If you are labeled as a Nazi under this "social credit system", then a private company can deny you employment, deny you loans, etc. based off of that label.  Who wants their company to be credited with supporting Nazis, which may happen under this program?

A VPN's business strategy is based off of privacy.  If they start collecting and selling your data that can be pointed back to you, then this will be very bad for their business.  If they already are, then this needs to be brought to everybody's attention, so they can start litigation.  
I personally don't use VPNs as I don't do anything that would need their service.  My social credit score is based off a fake persona I created when I started using the internet.


----------



## leon315 (Aug 30, 2019)

FEDEX is crying in fear after all the shitstrom, and likely is losing Chinese market with billions of loss


----------



## Xzi (Aug 30, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Same with Facebook, twitter, youtube, etc.  If privacy is a main concern of yours, then not giving these companies your real information is the best thing to do.  The biggest problem with these sites becoming collectors of social credit scores, along with the government utilizing these sites for its own purposes, is that you won't get far in life without using social media and giving up your privacy or even your freedom to privacy.
> 
> When I mentioned extremist sites, you could, for example, sign up to one of these sites just to bash "far-right nazi scum" with your opinions one time, if Google combs the web for members of these sites, guess what?  You're now listed as a neo-nazi scum yourself.  Congratulations!!!  Welcome to the new world order!!!  Now employers won't hire you, your partner leaves you, your dog won't look at you, and you have to find a cardboard box you have to have your parents co-sign for you to live in, which they won't because who would love a nazi?  You should have used a VPN before signing up if those still exist in this future.


These are all just hypotheticals mixed with paranoia for the time being.  You can pursue any career path successfully without creating a Facebook account.  And if they ever decide to start assigning arbitrary ratings to individuals, then every other social media platform will start assigning their own ratings based on different criteria, making all of them meaningless.  Unless you're applying for a job at Facebook specifically, nobody is gonna care what Mark Fuckerberg thinks about you.

Your hypothetical on extremist sites is quite nonsensical.  Why would anybody sign up for those sites to criticize that ideology when they're guaranteed to be immediately banned/doxxed for said criticism?  You can criticize extremism freely anywhere else on the internet.  Besides, if the government were to implement a social credit score similar to China's, the content of what you post would definitely be taken into consideration just as much as where you post it.

As long as we have a competent, functioning government, we don't need to worry about corporations gaining this much control over our personal lives.  Though I will grant you that our government at the moment is neither competent nor functioning properly, so I can understand where your concerns are coming from.  Oligarchy is much more likely than anarchy to be the end of America as we know it.


----------



## notimp (Aug 31, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Though I will grant you that our government at the moment is neither competent nor functioning properly, so I can understand where your concerns are coming from. Oligarchy is much more likely than anarchy to be the end of America as we know it.


Watch Succession ( https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7660850/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 ).  Not because its 'true' - its fiction, but because it gives you a different story perspective. 

Or start reading f.e. The Economist.   If you start to criticise politics and intellectual elites at the same time, its good to know some of the ambiguity surrounding those fields.

As for oligopoly - if you can - read up or watch a little about the history of past political conventions. I don't want to impose any judgement (I'm more on your side of the argument anyhow) - but its not 'that' black and white. (The US reaches oligopoly and then its over..  )


----------



## morvoran (Aug 31, 2019)

Xzi said:


> These are all just hypotheticals mixed with paranoia for the time being.


  I was trying to put myself into the mindset of a leftist when I typed my reply.  That explains the hypothetical paranoia.   
Also, I'm sure that is also what the folks in China said before this whole "social credit score" was even a thing.  If you used critical thinking skills while reading what I said, you would see that I used future-tense language.  



Xzi said:


> You can pursue any career path successfully without creating a Facebook account.


Right now in this point in time, if you do have a Facebook account and, for example, have a few pictures of you kicking your cat or smoking pot, a potential employer could look at your profile and determine that you're not a good candidate for their company.  
I never said you couldn't pursue a career without an account.  You're pulling straws out of nowhere.  This goes back to your hypothetical response and my critical thinking reply.



Xzi said:


> Your hypothetical on extremist sites is quite nonsensical. Why would anybody sign up for those sites to criticize that ideology when they're guaranteed to be immediately banned/doxxed for said criticism?


  Again with hypothetical.  Just because you don't think you would do something doesn't mean nobody else would.  Would you stick a knife in a toaster?  I hope not, but they say not to do that in the instructions for a reason.   Why would leftist protesters go to a straight pride parade or a alt-right rally?  Not hypothetical or nonsensical.



Xzi said:


> As long as we have a competent, functioning government, we don't need to worry about corporations gaining this much control over our personal lives.


  I agree.  I dread how close 2025 is when we will no longer have a competent, functioning government and go back to the old status quo.



Xzi said:


> Though I will grant you that our government at the moment is neither competent nor functioning properly, so I can understand where your concerns are coming from.


  I also agree with you here.  Don't worry, after the republicans take back the House next year, it will get a whole lot better for all of us.  Maybe not better for your emotions, but much better for your well-being. 

If you think people have it bad in the China CSR now (though, you probably think it's a utopia), imagine how horrible it will be in the Democratic Socialist States of America.  You will wish for the days when we had a social credit system as fair as China's.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 31, 2019)

Xzi said:


> These are all just hypotheticals mixed with paranoia for the time being.  You can pursue any career path successfully without creating a Facebook account.  And if they ever decide to start assigning arbitrary ratings to individuals, then every other social media platform will start assigning their own ratings based on different criteria, making all of them meaningless.  Unless you're applying for a job at Facebook specifically, nobody is gonna care what Mark Fuckerberg thinks about you.
> 
> Your hypothetical on extremist sites is quite nonsensical.  Why would anybody sign up for those sites to criticize that ideology when they're guaranteed to be immediately banned/doxxed for said criticism?  You can criticize extremism freely anywhere else on the internet.  Besides, if the government were to implement a social credit score similar to China's, the content of what you post would definitely be taken into consideration just as much as where you post it.
> 
> As long as we have a competent, functioning government, we don't need to worry about corporations gaining this much control over our personal lives.  Though I will grant you that our government at the moment is neither competent nor functioning properly, so I can understand where your concerns are coming from.  Oligarchy is much more likely than anarchy to be the end of America as we know it.



There is a difference between pursue and pursue easily. You can pursue most careers without a driving test but depending upon where you are in the world it is awfully limiting in a lot of them. While a lack of (active) Facebook is not as bad at this point it is a limiting thing for a surprisingly wide selection of fields, and it is not even just yours you have to worry about if friends have you on a night out doing a technicolour yawn or something.
Given quite how abused the credit system was in the US, and while some places stopped it companies years ago compelling people to log into their facebook account for HR to have a perusal.

While I can see a race to the bottom/every fool and his dog setting up a scoring system then do you really imagine there will not be a big 5 that everybody properly pays attention to with the others being the shop posting bounced cheques compared to equifax?

Depending upon what gets categorised as an extremist site then there are still plenty that welcome a challenge, and some would probably classify this site as unpleasant (we have threads and happily allow discussion on any number of things, individuals, topics and allow points of view that would get us pillorised by vice, buzzfeed and even youtube these days).
Also you really expect a what and where to both be accounted for? For a court it would be required but given... I was watching a Q&A with one of the 1 million + sub youtube gun channels the other day. He said he had to remove his videos featuring bump stocks lest he be banned. This is a historical weapons channel that details all sorts of new and interesting or historical guns, laws surrounding them and more besides. If youtube can't then be bothered to get someone to click the mark as safe button on that then what hope does Johnny Pleb have? Similarly do you imagine the info will not be categorised by potentially dodgy site and then content such that bored HR peeps just toss anything with it regardless of what was said?

Competent government? Did you come from an alternate reality where there is an even passingly, never mind consistently, tech competent government? Similarly there is a difference between control and just having enough information to do some seriously questionable and unpleasant things. Not to mention how much modern govs like outsourcing things to the private sector.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 31, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I was trying to put myself into the mindset of a leftist when I typed my reply.  That explains the hypothetical paranoia.


Nice try, but very few leftists complain about the common sense rules on most social media platforms such as "don't post death threats/violent content."  Nor is conspiracy theory/extreme paranoia typically within the realm of the left-wing these days.



morvoran said:


> Also, I'm sure that is also what the folks in China said before this whole "social credit score" was even a thing.


I have a hard time believing that, the Chinese government has been highly authoritarian for a very long time.  Maybe the majority didn't see it coming, but still a very large number would have.



morvoran said:


> Right now in this point in time, if you do have a Facebook account and, for example, have a few pictures of you kicking your cat or smoking pot, a potential employer could look at your profile and determine that you're not a good candidate for their company.


Are you seriously implying that smoking weed is as bad as kicking your cat?  And why on earth would anybody have pictures of themselves doing the latter?  Ignoring the fact that you've concocted yet another ridiculous scenario, there's no reason anybody should have the entirety of their Facebook profile set to public anyway.



morvoran said:


> Why would leftist protesters go to a straight pride parade or a alt-right rally?  Not hypothetical or nonsensical.


Perhaps because those things are antithetical to everything America is meant to represent?  That's not really on topic, though.



morvoran said:


> I agree.  I dread how close 2025 is when we will no longer have a competent, functioning government and go back to the old status quo.


As opposed to the new status quo in which all corporations (including Facebook) go completely unchecked?  If we get four more years of Trump, your nightmare conspiracy theories might just come true.  I won't be sticking around for that, I'll be laughing at you reaping what you've sown from a country that doesn't trample over its working class citizens.



morvoran said:


> If you think people have it bad in the China CSR now (though, you probably think it's a utopia), imagine how horrible it will be in the Democratic Socialist States of America.


Yeah, affordable healthcare and education on par with every other first-world nation.  Sounds absolutely horrible.  

I distinctly remember a certain orange blowhard promising these things too, but only time will tell if Republican voters hold him accountable for those lies.


----------



## morvoran (Aug 31, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Nice try, but very few leftists complain about the common sense rules on most social media platforms such as "don't post death threats/violent content." Nor is conspiracy theory/extreme paranoia typically within the realm of the left-wing these days.


 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!    Ok, whatever.  Ok, *phew* that was funny.  Let's keep this somewhat serious, please.  My heart couldn't take another gem like that one.  This is so incredibly laughable that I can't even respond to it.



Xzi said:


> a very large number would have.


  Like some person on this site with a username containing only 3 letters, a lot of Chinese have been brainwashed into believing communism is a good thing or are just Chinese nationalists.  They may or may not have seen this system being brought in play, but either way, they feel in their heads that if it comes from their government, then it is good.



Xzi said:


> Are you seriously implying that smoking weed is as bad as kicking your cat? And why on earth would anybody have pictures of themselves doing the latter?


  I'm not implying anything. In the US, even in states that have legal cannabis, it is still again federal law, so employers have the right to not hire you for using.  Again, critical thinking.... look it up please.  
Also.....
*YouTuber allegedly filmed himself abusing and killing his cat *



Xzi said:


> Perhaps because those things are antithetical to everything America is meant to represent?


 This is your opinion base on what your leftist leaders tell you to feel.  There are good people on both sides.  It is on topic because your social credit score will be affected by who you associate with or seen with.  

How is "straight pride" antithetical?  How were you brought into this world?  By cloning?  Now, I'm only guessing here, but I'm sure it was through heterosexual fornication.  I thought love is love, and you should be proud about who you love.  



Xzi said:


> Yeah, affordable healthcare and education on par with every other first-world nation. Sounds absolutely horrible.


  You only think about the good things.  
You're like a dad, who is the sole income earner in his family, on Christmas thanking his wife and kids for all the gifts "they" bought him.  
None of those "things" the socialists are promising you will be free, affordable, or good if they have to take over half your paycheck in taxes to pay for them.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 31, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Ok, whatever.  Ok, *phew* that was funny.  Let's keep this somewhat serious, please.  My heart couldn't take another gem like that one.  This is so incredibly laughable that I can't even respond to it.


Dipshit righties took all the fun and thought-provoking concepts out of conspiracy unfortunately.  Every conspiracy theory ties in to pedophilia (QAnon) and/or Hillary Clinton now.  Simply criticizing Trump will get you banned from most conspiracy sites/groups these days.



morvoran said:


> Like some person on this site with a username containing only 3 letters, a lot of Chinese have been brainwashed into believing communism is a good thing or are just Chinese nationalists.  They may or may not have seen this system being brought in play, but either way, they feel in their heads that if it comes from their government, then it is good.


You clearly can't tell the difference between Communism, Socialism, authoritarianism, and fascism.  The latter two are far more descriptive of the modern Chinese government, and you seem to be supportive of these concepts.  Like I said: make up your mind as to whether you love or hate oligarchy, and maybe this discussion will go somewhere.



morvoran said:


> I'm not implying anything. In the US, even in states that have legal cannabis, it is still again federal law, so employers have the right to not hire you for using.


I didn't contest that employers might find smoking pot to be disqualifying, I was gauging whether you actually believe that smoking pot is as bad as abusing a pet.



morvoran said:


> *YouTuber allegedly filmed himself abusing and killing his cat *


Okay, so I should've said anybody who's _sane_.  If you post this type of thing publicly, you absolutely deserve to be shunned from employment and society in general.



morvoran said:


> This is your opinion base on what your leftist leaders tell you to feel.  There are good people on both sides.  It is on topic because your social credit score will be affected by who you associate with or seen with.


We don't need a social credit system for employers to want to distance themselves from abhorrent behavior/beliefs.  Those things tend to be bad for business already, when the idea is to attract as wide a customer base as possible.



morvoran said:


> How is "straight pride" antithetical?  How were you brought into this world?  By cloning?  Now, I'm only guessing here, but I'm sure it was through heterosexual fornication.  I thought love is love, and you should be proud about who you love.


Both "straight pride" and the "alt-right" are heavily intertwined with confederate and nazi ideologies, both of which this country has gone to war against and decisively defeated.  Their paper-thin masks aren't fooling anybody.



morvoran said:


> None of those "things" the socialists are promising you will be free, affordable, or good if they have to take over half your paycheck in taxes to pay for them.


As it stands now, one medical emergency can put you in debt for life, so even though your estimate of "half your paycheck" is bullshit, it'd still be a far cheaper alternative to our broken system.  The cost of basic necessities like insulin is literally killing people in this country.


----------



## dAVID_ (Aug 31, 2019)

Oh well, it's only a matter of time before China is on the same level as North Korea.


----------



## Viri (Aug 31, 2019)

Hah, I bet govs in the west are taking note of this.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 31, 2019)

chrisrlink said:


> the world's gonna end before this gets fully implimented thanks to rocket man kim and mother russia....and yes *your talking to an unstable man who nearly lost everything *and doesn't care if humanity lives or dies off (I answered your question before you even asked it)




I hope you find your way out of the deep blue funk. I had one of my own children die in my arms, so you're not gonna find me to be an especially sympathetic ear for how you 'nearly lost everything' unless you can beat that.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 31, 2019)

Viri said:


> Hah, I bet govs in the west are taking note of this.


It's the opposite in the West: most of our politicians are content to let corporations dictate how government is run instead of the other way around.  Not that I believe government should have absolute control over the daily operation of corporations, but some common sense regulations are a necessity when it comes to entities driven solely by the profit motive.


----------



## Viri (Aug 31, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It's the opposite in the West: most of our politicians are content to let corporations dictate how government is run instead of the other way around.  Not that I believe government should have absolute control over the daily operation of corporations, but some common sense regulations are a necessity when it comes to entities driven solely by the profit motive.


They're both taking note. Gov and corporations would love to get more control over us. China is pretty much their wet dream.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 31, 2019)

Viri said:


> They're both taking note. Gov and corporations would love to get more control over us. China is pretty much their wet dream.


Well, China doesn't have our constitution, but it's true that the current administration has been trying their best lately to strip away both our 14th and 1st amendment rights.  I'm ready to stage a French-style revolution as soon as y'all are.


----------



## IncredulousP (Sep 1, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I'm ready to stage a French-style revolution as soon as y'all are.


Do we even have a guillotine large enough for all of Trump's chins?


----------



## Viri (Sep 1, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Well, China doesn't have our constitution, but it's true that the current administration has been trying their best lately to strip away both our 14th and 1st amendment rights.  I'm ready to stage a French-style revolution as soon as y'all are.


That'll go about as well as HK trying to overthrow the CCP. 

I do admire their dedication though! It's pretty inspirational to see how much a city can get together, to tell their authoritarian over lord "NO"!


----------



## Xzi (Sep 1, 2019)

Viri said:


> That'll go about as well as HK trying to overthrow the CCP.


Well yeah, revolution doesn't work if the majority of the population (mainland China in this case) see themselves as somehow above the fray due to their short-sightedness and/or complacency.  It's guaranteed to come back and bite them in the ass later, though.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 1, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Not that I believe government should have absolute control over the daily operation of corporations


 For someone who is for Socialism, I find this hard to believe.



Xzi said:


> Well, China doesn't have our constitution, but it's true that the current administration has been trying their best lately to strip away both our 14th and 1st amendment rights. I'm ready to stage a French-style revolution as soon as y'all are.


  First, your precious "Squad" is not the current administration.  Trump is the president, not AOC.  I know CNN has you confused.  Second, a "french-style revolution"?  I bet you'd love for innocent people to be dragged out in the streets and beheaded (hmm, who else does that?  Oh, yeah, ISIS).  
Are you trying to improve your social credit score now for when the Socialist Communist Democrat party takes over? Are you, comrade?  

--------

I just realized that China is implementing this credit system in 2020.  I admit that I'm curious how this will affect the everyday lives of the Chinese people.  I wonder if it will be a burden on the common folk there and if crime rates will drop or skyrocket.  
I'm just hoping that the US will not try "experimenting" with things like this in our society.  This is why it is important to keep this country from becoming a Socialist nation as it's the first step to communism and the destruction of our wonderful Republic and the freedoms that come with it.  
People may either doubt this or hide the fact they are aware of it, but Western society already has a form of a social credit system with the *oligarchy* of SJW's controlling the minds and lives of others.  If a company puts out an ad that displays a minority, a person tweets something "insensitive" 10 years ago, a great president tries to make his country great again, etc., then the Social Justice "Warriors" come to the rescue to promote how much better they are then others and get them shut down, silenced, or just destroy their lives.  
Even though they are a very small percentage of our population, they seem to have too much power.  This is only because we let them have power by refusing to stand up to them.  

I do not want any kind of social credit system implemented into our lives, China's or otherwise because I believe in freedom and liberty.  Hopefully, we will all wake up and prevent this from happening. (except for xzi, he can move to Venezuela which I heard is a Socialist paradise. )


----------



## Xzi (Sep 1, 2019)

morvoran said:


> For someone who is for Socialism, I find this hard to believe.


_Democratic_ socialism.  I know nuance is not one of your strong suits, but you'll never hear Bernie Sanders talking about the government seizing the means of production.  It's all about empowering the working class like so many other first-world nations have done.



morvoran said:


> First, your precious "Squad" is not the current administration.  Trump is the president, not AOC.


No shit sherlock, I didn't mention AOC or anything about Congress.  It's the Trump administration that's trying to trample on our 14th and 1st amendment rights.  He's even gone as far as withholding citizenship for children of military families who are born abroad.



morvoran said:


> Second, a "french-style revolution"?  I bet you'd love for innocent people to be dragged out in the streets and beheaded (hmm, who else does that?  Oh, yeah, ISIS).


So you also know nothing about the French revolution or the conditions that led to that breaking point.  Why am I not surprised.



morvoran said:


> I'm just hoping that the US will not try "experimenting" with things like this in our society.  This is why it is important to keep this country from becoming a Socialist nation as it's the first step to communism and the destruction of our wonderful Republic and the freedoms that come with it.


With so many idiots who cheer on authoritarianism and the disenfranchising of the working class, we're already well on our way to losing many of our freedoms.  Hopefully we can save some of what's left.



morvoran said:


> People may either doubt this or hide the fact they are aware of it, but Western society already has a form of a social credit system with the *oligarchy* of SJW's controlling the minds and lives of others.  If a company puts out an ad that displays a minority, a person tweets something "insensitive" 10 years ago, a great president tries to make his country great again, etc., then the Social Justice "Warriors" come to the rescue to promote how much better they are then others and get them shut down, silenced, or just destroy their lives.


Please tell me you're aware that "socialist oligarchy" is a contradiction.  It pains me to think you might be stupid enough to believe otherwise.



morvoran said:


> Even though they are a very small percentage of our population, they seem to have too much power.  This is only because we let them have power by refusing to stand up to them.


Finally, something we agree on.  I can't wait to see all the Republicans lining up to join in protests of businesses that refuse service to LGBTQ individuals simply on the basis of their sexual orientation.  Then we can team up to protest Facebook holding too much power over society and refusing service to some conservatives simply on the basis of their opinions.  Consistency is key, after all.



morvoran said:


> I do not want any kind of social credit system implemented into our lives, China's or otherwise because I believe in freedom and liberty.  Hopefully, we will all wake up and prevent this from happening.


It's unfortunate that so many powerful individuals (such as the president of the United States) are unwilling to stand up for democracy in Hong Kong and around the globe.  But yes, as a collective the people of the US still wield a fair amount of power to fight against tyranny.  Let's hope our education system isn't so far degraded that the majority instead support that brand of tyranny when the tipping point does come.



morvoran said:


> (except for xzi, he can move to Venezuela which I heard is a Socialist paradise. )


Certainly better than the late-stage capitalism of mainland China.  If conditions warrant it, however, I was thinking of moving somewhere more along the lines of Denmark or another Scandinavian country.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 1, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> Ok dude, you're right. You're a genius, we're all wrong and evil and you are the saving grace that the world needs most. Godspeed, @morvoran !





IncredulousP said:


> Do we even have a guillotine large enough for all of Trump's chins?


  Check and... mate!



Xzi said:


> _Democratic_ socialism.


 You can put words together all you want, doesn't change the end goal (see Congo Democratic Republic). 



Xzi said:


> It's the Trump administration that's trying to trample on our 14th and 1st amendment rights.


 Wrong!  The 14th amendment was only supposed to apply to freed slaves.  Trump is protecting 1st amendment rights.  He is against "opinions and lies" becoming "facts and truths".



Xzi said:


> So you also know nothing about the French revolution or the conditions that led to that breaking point.


 It was something about Princesses letting people eat cake and then getting her head cut off. 



Xzi said:


> With so many idiots who cheer on authoritarianism and the disenfranchising of the working class, we're already well on our way to losing many of our freedoms. Hopefully we can save some of what's left.


  Yeah, just like putting a stop to coal mining and sending jobs to foreign countries such as China.  You seem like a democrat but then you contradict yourself.  What's going on here?



Xzi said:


> Please tell me you're aware that "socialist oligarchy" is a contradiction.


 Never said socialist oligarchy, but yeah, call a duck a duck.  Maybe you need to look up the true definition of those things.



Xzi said:


> protests of businesses that refuse service to LGBTQ individuals simply on the basis of their sexual orientation.


 Not sure where you got this from?  From the publication, "Leftist Propaganda Weekly"?  Nobody has been refused service because of LGBTQ reasons.  Just because a business that waxes real lady parts is unable to wax a predatory pedophile's "frank and beans" due to no training is not discrimination.



Xzi said:


> Then we can team up to protest Facebook holding too much power over society.


 Ok, sign me up.



Xzi said:


> It's unfortunate that so many powerful individuals (such as the president of the United States) are unwilling to stand up for democracy in Hong Kong and around the globe.


 Why, then, are so many other countries (including the people in Hong Kong) so supportive of Trump?  What exactly do you want him to do?  Send weapons and military force to Hong Kong to fight against China?  I don't think so, Buck-O.

The only countries against Trump are Iran and the US(just the Democratics).



Xzi said:


> If conditions warrant it, however, I was thinking of moving somewhere more along the lines of Denmark or another Scandinavian country.


  As long as they don't have internet service, I'll help pay your ticket there.    I think you'll be disappointed when you find out how strict they are on "legal" immigration and how much they support capitalism.


----------



## notimp (Sep 1, 2019)

morvoran said:


> You can put words together all you want, doesn't change the end goal (see Congo Democratic Republic).


Aha.

Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism#Asia
Look here: http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/democratic-socialist-countries/

The card also doest mark some countries in europe as being run using a form of democratic socialism, that are - so there are more.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 1, 2019)

morvoran said:


> You can put words together all you want, doesn't change the end goal (see Congo Democratic Republic).


Sure, claiming to be something you aren't (lying) has always been a thing, but Bernie Sanders has been extremely consistent throughout his entire life and career.  The same can't be said of former "Democrat" Donald Trump.



morvoran said:


> Wrong!  The 14th amendment was only supposed to apply to freed slaves.  Trump is protecting 1st amendment rights.  He is against "opinions and lies" becoming "facts and truths".


He's against constitutional law as it's written for the sake of his own power-grubbing.  The history of the 14th amendment and various rulings on it are clear.



morvoran said:


> It was something about Princesses letting people eat cake and then getting her head cut off.


You're close to remembering one aspect of it, the apathy of the rich toward the starving and the poor.  I suggest you read up on it and maybe you'll see some of the parallels to the modern US.



morvoran said:


> Yeah, just like putting a stop to coal mining and sending jobs to foreign countries such as China.  You seem like a democrat but then you contradict yourself.  What's going on here?


Coal is a dying industry.  Those jobs are disappearing, not being outsourced to other countries.  The progressive solution is to re-train those workers into the installation and production of renewable energy sources, though there are other industries we could transition them to as well.



morvoran said:


> Never said socialist oligarchy, but yeah, call a duck a duck.  Maybe you need to look up the true definition of those things.


No words are capable of describing this level of stupidity.  So instead here's an alligator duck:








morvoran said:


> Not sure where you got this from?  From the publication, "Leftist Propaganda Weekly"?  Nobody has been refused service because of LGBTQ reasons.  Just because a business that waxes real lady parts is unable to wax a predatory pedophile's "frank and beans" due to no training is not discrimination.


I have a hard time believing you hadn't heard of this case in which the supreme court ruled in favor of a baker who refused to serve a gay couple.  It was fairly high-profile and all over various news outlets at the time.



morvoran said:


> Ok, sign me up.


As long as we're on the same page about refusal of service from ANY business for ANY reason, I'm in too.  Fight the impending oligarchy.  Enforce antitrust laws.



morvoran said:


> Why, then, are so many other countries (including the people in Hong Kong) so supportive of Trump?  What exactly do you want him to do?  Send weapons and military force to Hong Kong to fight against China?  I don't think so, Buck-O.


Even just a statement of support for the protests would be great to see, instead of calling them "riots" and seemingly throwing his support behind the Chinese government.



morvoran said:


> As long as they don't have internet service, I'll help pay your ticket there.    I think you'll be disappointed when you find out how strict they are on "legal" immigration and how much they support capitalism.


Of course they have internet, probably faster and less expensive than the service in the US too.  I don't mind a little capitalism as long as there's enough socialist influence to balance it out, and the country actually provides for its working class by managing tax expenditures responsibly.  This is all still just a big "if" anyway.  I'm holding out _some_ hope that the US doesn't go full retard in electing Trump to a second term, especially with his increasingly terrible poll numbers even among states that voted for him in 2016.


----------



## notimp (Sep 1, 2019)

World population currently under 'democratic socialism' 1 billion. (According to the site with the map).

Population of the Congo: 80 million.



=

This definition wins:


> Democratic socialism describes a socialist economy where production and wealth are collectively owned [currently down to state majority ownership of voting shares for key companies in key sectors], but the country has a democratic system of government. The goal of democratic socialism is to achieve socialist goals of equality while opposing socialist ideologies. Democratic socialism is opposed to the Soviet economic model, command economies and authoritarian governance.
> 
> Under Democratic socialism, the ownership of private property is limited. The government regulates the economy. There are also different programs that offer assistance and pensions.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 1, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Bernie Sanders has been extremely consistent throughout his entire life and career.


  He preaches to the masses but doesn't live the way he expects others to.  He couldn't even pay his staff $15/hr like he is proposing every company in the US does.  How about owning multiple houses and being a millionaire?  I'm sure some unfortunate homeless and poverty stricken souls could use those houses and a cut of his wealth.



Xzi said:


> He's against constitutional law as it's written for the sake of his own power-grubbing. The history of the 14th amendment and various rulings on it are clear.


  First line - Wrong!  Second line - just other people's interpretations of the law to abuse the true meaning of the 14th for their own gains.



Xzi said:


> Coal is a dying industry. Those jobs are disappearing, not being outsourced to other countries. The progressive solution is to re-train those workers into the installation and production of renewable energy sources, though there are other industries we could transition them to as well.


  Coal is not dead.  People still have those jobs.  Renewable energy sources are scams and not affordable.  You can't build them without using coal or other fossil fuels.  I'm not for nuclear power, but it is a whole lot better option than wind or solar.



Xzi said:


> No words are capable of describing this level of stupidity.


I can think of one 3 letter word that be used to describe something stupid.  (hint: rhymes with Xzi)



Xzi said:


> I have a hard time believing you hadn't heard of this case in which the supreme court ruled in favor of a baker who refused to serve a gay couple.


 They didn't refuse service because they were gay.  They refused service because they didn't want to make a "gay cake".  If they wanted a plain cake and made it gay themselves, they could have bought one.  If I came into your bakery asking for a cake that had Trump's face with "Greatest President of All Time", would you make it for me?  I have my doubts you would.  If I happened to be a gay black trump supporter and you chose not to, is that discrimination and I can sue you three times?



Xzi said:


> seemingly throwing his support behind the Chinese government.


  Oh, like imposing higher tariffs on China.  Good way to show support.



Xzi said:


> Of course they have internet, probably faster and less expensive than the service in the US too.


  Critical thinking and reading comprehension are valuable here.  If I have to explain everything to you, it takes the fun out of it.   I was saying that if you were to move to a country without internet service, I would help you move there.  I was joking about you not being able to post more of your nonsense on here or anywhere on the internet.


----------



## Viri (Sep 1, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Well yeah, revolution doesn't work if the majority of the population (mainland China in this case) see themselves as somehow above the fray due to their short-sightedness and/or complacency.  It's guaranteed to come back and bite them in the ass later, though.


The only one who can save China from the CCP, is China them self. The only way the west can battle China is messing with their economy to the point where companies move out of there, and into other cheaper countries. 

China is the Soviet Union 2.0, but with the foresight of knowing what made the Soviet Union collapse.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 1, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I'm sure some unfortunate homeless and poverty stricken souls could use those houses and a cut of his wealth.


Literally a problem that he's written bills to correct and has policy proposals to address as a presidential candidate.  Sanders has no issue with paying more in taxes himself.



morvoran said:


> First line - Wrong!  Second line - just other people's interpretations of the law to abuse the true meaning of the 14th for their own gains.


If you can't even be arsed to read the very first sentence of the 14th amendment, there's nothing more to discuss on this topic.  It's in plain English.



morvoran said:


> Coal is not dead.  People still have those jobs.  Renewable energy sources are scams and not affordable.


You know it's dying when they can't even afford to issue final paychecks to their workers that won't bounce.  And your facts are way outdated on renewable energy, wind comes in at an average of $0.06 per kilowatt hour, solar at $0.10 average, and fossil fuels anywhere between $0.05 and $0.17.  Renewable electricity will be consistently less expensive than fossil fuels within a year.



morvoran said:


> I can think of one 3 letter word that be used to describe something stupid.


"Hurr durr I'm moronran, I think the means of production can be controlled by both the workers and a small group of billionaires simultaneously!  Watch out for that socialist oligarchy and that communist capitalism coming to getcha!"



morvoran said:


> They didn't refuse service because they were gay.  They refused service because they didn't want to make a "gay cake".


It was a wedding cake, not a penis cake for Christ sake.  If you start making exceptions for "religious reasons," then businesses can also refuse service for political reasons, and we're right back where we started.  Seems you do like the idea of oligarchy after all.



morvoran said:


> Oh, like imposing higher tariffs on China.  Good way to show support.


That does nothing to demonstrate a pro-democracy stance.  Just a pro-capitalism one, and China is already capitalist.  Using that money to incentivize manufacturing moving to another country would've been a much smarter move, but unfortunately Trump isn't exactly known for his smarts.



morvoran said:


> Critical thinking and reading comprehension are valuable here.  If I have to explain everything to you, it takes the fun out of it.   I was saying that if you were to move to a country without internet service, I would help you move there.  I was joking about you not being able to post more of your nonsense on here or anywhere on the internet.


Having no internet would run contradictory to my initial statement: "I'll be laughing at you reaping what you've sown from a country that doesn't trample over its working class citizens."


----------



## morvoran (Sep 1, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Literally a problem that he's written bills to correct and has policy proposals to address as a presidential candidate. Sanders has no issue with paying more in taxes himself.


 So he's written bills to make him give up his extra homes?  He may not have a issue paying slightly more in taxes, but he seems to keep moving the goal post with every million he makes.  Before becoming a millionaire from his book, he was always talking about millionaires and billionaires paying their "fair share".  Now it's just the billionaires that have to pay a lot more.  Hmm, funny how that works. 



Xzi said:


> If you can't even be arsed to read the very first sentence of the 14th amendment, there's nothing more to discuss on this topic. It's in plain English.


  Try picking up a history book that covers the time pre-2016, or in your people's language - "BT" or the time Before Trump.



Xzi said:


> And your facts are way outdated on renewable energy, wind comes in at an average of $0.06 per kilowatt hour, solar at $0.10 average, and fossil fuels anywhere between $0.05 and $0.17. Renewable electricity will be consistently less expensive than fossil fuels within a year.


 Yeah, about that - 
*Epic fail of renewables causes Texas town to have $1200 per year higher power bills*



Xzi said:


> It was a wedding cake, not a penis cake for Christ sake.


 Don't you know that a true Christian spontaneously combusts if they put two men or two women statues on a wedding cake at the same time?  And what does a penis cake have to do with this? They aren't gay... are they? 

But seriously, most small businesses have the right to refuse service to anybody.  They shouldn't, not because of discrimination, but because they will lose business.  The government shouldn't dictate who anybody does business with as long as it's not a critical service they provide such as healthcare.  

If I don't want to sell you a cake with 2 dudes on it, go next door, maybe they will. If you want to buy a blank cake and put two dudes on it yourself, we're good.  Suing a Christian bakery for not selling gay cakes is like suing a barbecue restaurant for not having vegetarian options or suing a waxing salon for women only because they're not willing to wax some guys dick and balls.



Xzi said:


> China is already capitalist.


 Umm, no, they are communist.



Xzi said:


> Having no internet would run contradictory to my initial statement


 but it would keep you from spewing the junk you do.  Again, I was joking as I want you to stay in the US to benefit from Trump's second term.  Plus, I need to collect those leftist tears on Nov. 4th next year.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 1, 2019)

morvoran said:


> So he's written bills to make him give up his extra homes?  He may not have a issue paying slightly more in taxes, but he seems to keep moving the goal post with every million he makes.


He hasn't asked anyone to give up their homes, nor changed any of his proposed tax increases.  Stop fabricating bullshit.



morvoran said:


> Try picking up a history book that covers the time pre-2016, or in your people's language - "BT" or the time Before Trump.


Nobody needs a needs a history book to know what "shall not be infringed" means.  Even Brett Kavanaugh couldn't possibly get drunk enough to misinterpret the 14th amendment, which is why Trump has settled on attacking military families who have children overseas rather than trying to repeal it.



morvoran said:


> Yeah, about that -
> *Epic fail of renewables causes Texas town to have $1200 per year higher power bills*


What the fuck is this supposed to be, some rando's Myspace blog?  Nice source. 



morvoran said:


> But seriously, most small businesses have the right to refuse service to anybody.  They shouldn't, not because of discrimination, but because they will lose business.  The government shouldn't dictate who anybody does business with as long as it's not a critical service they provide such as healthcare.
> 
> If I don't want to sell you a cake with 2 dudes on it, go next door, maybe they will. If you want to buy a blank cake and put two dudes on it yourself, we're good.  Suing a Christian bakery for not selling gay cakes is like suing a barbecue restaurant for not having vegetarian options or suing a waxing salon for women only because they're not willing to wax some guys dick and balls.


Do you not see how the same logic would apply to social media?  If Facebook doesn't want to cater to your alt-right opinions, go next door to Voat.  Either any reason is sufficient to deny a person service, or no reason is.



morvoran said:


> Umm, no, they are communist.


Your own source shows that China's inequality of wealth and income is second only to America's.  The rich get richer there and the poor get poorer.  That's not communism.  As you've already pointed out, it's very easy to purport to be something you aren't.



morvoran said:


> but it would keep you from spewing the junk you do.  Again, I was joking as I want you to stay in the US to benefit from Trump's second term.  Plus, I need to collect those leftist tears on Nov. 4th next year.


If Joe Biden secures the nomination, I'll immediately be looking in to securing residency elsewhere.  Neoliberalism is hardly any better than Trump's neoconservatism, and either way this country would be headed down the path of implementing a social credit score akin to China's.  To quote someone else, a Biden presidency would be like "rotating the tires on a car with four flats."


----------



## morvoran (Sep 1, 2019)

Xzi said:


> What the fuck is this supposed to be, some rando's Myspace blog? Nice source.


  That site is more reliable and less biased than CNN, Vice or Vox.  Plus it doesn't fit into any of your leftist rag's agendas, so it's hard to find another source than Fox News. Even though Fox News is reliable, you've been brainwashed to not listen to them.



Xzi said:


> He hasn't asked anyone to give up their homes, nor changed any of his proposed tax increases. Stop fabricating bullshit.


  Because he doesn't want to give up his extra houses, durp.  Can you prove he hasn't changed his proposed tax increases since his book?  Nope.



Xzi said:


> Nobody needs a needs a history book to know what "shall not be infringed" means. Even Brett Kavanaugh couldn't possibly get drunk enough to misinterpret the 14th amendment, which is why Trump has settled on attacking military families who have children overseas rather than trying to repeal it.


  Try Wikipedia, first line states - The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Arguably one of the most consequential amendments to this day, the amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws and *was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War.*
I hope Wikipedia is not too much like a myspace blog to you, too.

Also, the full first line of the 14th is - All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and *subject to the jurisdiction thereof*, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 

An unborn child of an illegal immigrant is not "subject to the jurisdiction" as the mother is not a legal citizen, so they were never intended to be given citizenship under the 14th amendment.  It only pertained to freed slaves to protect their rights.



Xzi said:


> Do you not see how the same logic would apply to social media? If Facebook doesn't want to cater to your alt-right opinions, go next door to Voat.


  That's why I don't use Facebook, also because they sell their users' personal information.   
Plus, they are considered a "public forum" and are not supposed to control the information posted to their site unless the information posted is illegal such as pedophilia, bestiality, murder, etc.  This is why they have protections under the law preventing them from being sued for the content that their users post.  If they want to control speech, then they are a publisher and lose those protections.



Xzi said:


> If Joe Biden secures the nomination, I'll immediately be looking in to securing residency elsewhere. Neoliberalism is hardly any better than Trump's neoconservatism, and either way this country would be headed down the path of implementing a social credit score akin to China's.


 Well, better start packing your bags because it's looking good for creepy uncle beta Joe Biden.  
If Bernie wins (it was so hard to type that without busting out laughing ), that is when we start getting a socialist credit score which is worse than China's social credit score.  
If you're score is too high, the new Sander's Gestapo will come and remove your property to be consolidated and passed around to those with lower scores to "even things out".  Good thing Trump is going to win in 2020.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 1, 2019)

morvoran said:


> That site is more reliable and less biased than CNN, Vice or Vox.  Plus it doesn't fit into any of your leftist rag's agendas, so it's hard to find another source than Fox News. Even though Fox News is reliable, you've been brainwashed to not listen to them.


If your only options for sources are a personal blog and an opinion piece from Tucker Carlson, that's a pretty good indicator that the story you're trying to push is altogether bullshit.  I can link potentially hundreds of other sources on the current price of wind/solar versus fossil fuels, if you'd like.



morvoran said:


> Because he doesn't want to give up his extra houses, durp.


Because that's never ever been one of his proposals.  Not a single millionaire/billionaire is about to be out on the street if their profits are taxed more.



morvoran said:


> Try Wikipedia, first line states - The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Arguably one of the most consequential amendments to this day, the amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws and *was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War.*
> I hope Wikipedia is not too much like a myspace blog to you, too.


I still don't understand how you think this changes the text of the 14th amendment.  If it was meant to only apply to slaves from that time onward, it would have stated as much.



morvoran said:


> Also, the full first line of the 14th is - All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and *subject to the jurisdiction thereof*, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
> An unborn child of an illegal immigrant is not "subject to the jurisdiction" as the mother is not a legal citizen, so they were never intended to be given citizenship under the 14th amendment.  It only pertained to freed slaves to protect their rights.


I never said unborn children were citizens or had the same rights (though pro-lifers might argue that they do), the 14th clearly states they have to be born here first.



morvoran said:


> That's why I don't use Facebook, also because they sell their users' personal information.
> Plus, they are considered a "public forum" and are not supposed to control the information posted to their site unless the information posted is illegal such as pedophilia, bestiality, murder, etc.  This is why they have protections under the law preventing them from being sued for the content that their users post.  If they want to control speech, then they are a publisher and lose those protections.


Except they are subject to losing advertisers as well as being sued by individuals/corporations if they host copyrighted materials without permission.  It's definitely a legal grey area, but so is denying service to customers for any other reason.  As long as we elect politicians who take lobbyist money, nothing is going to change on that front.



morvoran said:


> Well, better start packing your bags because it's looking good for creepy uncle beta Joe Biden.


In which case corporations can't possibly lose in the 2020 election, and we descend further into oligarchy.  Precisely the reason I wouldn't be sticking around.



morvoran said:


> If Bernie wins (it was so hard to type that without busting out laughing ), that is when we start getting a socialist credit score which is worse than China's social credit score.


"Socialist credit score," otherwise known as providing the working class a living wage and unburdening us from medical/student debts.  Sounds good to me.



morvoran said:


> If you're score is too high, the new Sander's Gestapo will come and remove your property to be consolidated and passed around to those with lower scores to "even things out".


So basically taxes, except they go toward providing assistance to people who need it rather than paying for corporate welfare.  Only smooth-brained corporate bootlickers could possibly spin this as a negative.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 2, 2019)

@Xzi It's almost like you're not reading what I said and just start spewing out leftist diarrhea.  WOW! 



Xzi said:


> If your only options for sources are a personal blog and an opinion piece from Tucker Carlson, that's a pretty good indicator that the story you're trying to push is altogether bullshit. I can link potentially hundreds of other sources on the current price of wind/solar versus fossil fuels, if you'd like.


  I can post several hundred sources, too, but since they're not leftist tabloid sites like CNN, you wouldn't take them seriously.  



Xzi said:


> Not a single millionaire/billionaire is about to be out on the street if their profits are taxed more.


 Pure speculation on your part.  You can't know this as you don't know how his crazy tax plan will affect businesses.  If I tried to explain the true economical effects to you, you'd go "whoosh".



Xzi said:


> I still don't understand how you think this changes the text of the 14th amendment.


 OMG, it doesn't change the text of the 14th, it is the *original text.*



Xzi said:


> I never said unborn children were citizens or had the same rights (though pro-lifers might argue that they do), the 14th clearly states they have to be born here first.


  Oh, GEEZ-US, they have *to be under the jurisdiction of the state before being born to be given citizenship at birth*.  This is why they are now saying babies born to US citizens in other countries will not get citizenship because they are not under the jurisdiction at birth.



Xzi said:


> Except they are subject to losing advertisers as well as being sued by individuals/corporations if they host copyrighted materials without permission.


  Key words there "if *they* host copyrighted materials without permission."



Xzi said:


> Precisely the reason I wouldn't be sticking around.


  Good, take all your leftist friends with you, too. 



Xzi said:


> "Socialist credit score," otherwise known as providing the working class a living wage and unburdening us from medical/student debts.


  Oh, like having people that paid off their own debts start paying off everybody else's that didn't work hard enough to become debt free?  Sounds fair to me, not.



Xzi said:


> So basically taxes, except they go toward providing assistance to people who need it rather than paying for corporate welfare. Only smooth-brained corporate bootlickers could possibly spin this as a negative.


  so basically theft but called "taxes".  Taxes are meant to be your "fair share" of helping keep the nation great.  When you want to start taking more than I should pay, that is now theft.  

Again, all the Bernie talk is moot since he's not even going to be the democrat nominee let alone the president, so we might as well stop talking about it.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Sep 2, 2019)

Interesting, they know China is on its way to becoming the #1 target audience of companies due to its population, and how their econemy is getting stronger, so they are pretty much preparing to force companies to follow their system. And in reality it will be "make executives the people we chose or you get a lower rating", and don't doubt they will enable themselves to play the market early.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 2, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Snip


Alright, that's far enough off-topic.  You've made it clear that you're fine with oligarchy in the US as long as the "right people" are being oppressed, and that's exactly the type of hypocritical bullshit that led to China's social credit score in the first place.  My stance against authoritarianism in all forms, including oligarchy, remains unchanged.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 3, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Alright, that's far enough off-topic.  You've made it clear that you're fine with oligarchy in the US as long as the "right people" are being oppressed, and that's exactly the type of hypocritical bullshit that led to China's social credit score in the first place.  My stance against authoritarianism in all forms, including oligarchy, remains unchanged.


You left out the part where you admit that I won the discussion  woo.  Anyways....


Back to the Chinese Social Credit system... 

It is very scary to think that a government can collect private data and score people based on that data to determine if you are "trustworthy" to have your basic rights.  
Social media sites have already helped the US with similar programs in the past.  I remember a story from years ago when a couple of people from England posted tweets about "I'm going to destroy America and dig up Marilyn Monroe" and were labeled as terrorists and blacklisted from entering the US.  No other signs of being a terrorist, just some tweets. 

I can only imagine what will happen to the people in China next year after this gets implemented.   A tweet about a Chinese diplomat, you could lose everything.  Maybe even your life.  

Since a lot of people are posting their private information and daily activities to Facebook and Twitter, there is already a starting database of people from all over the world for other governments to start a Social credit system of their own.  This may be why the democrats started to give out free phones and internet service during the Obama years.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 3, 2019)

morvoran said:


> You left out the part where you admit that I won the discussion


You're a bougie dipshit who refuses to address any of the nation's problems unless it personally benefits you.  When you've never done an honest day's work in your life, you'll always consider yourself the winner, but it's because of entitled, uneducated people like you that this nation will ultimately collapse under the weight of authoritarianism.

You haven't changed my views or opinions on anything, just as I'm sure I haven't changed yours.  Hypocrisy is part of the package when it comes to being Republican, and you'll always refuse to acknowledge that.  I can only hope that when a social credit system does come to the US, it's unkind to people like you who trample over the working class, instead of being fascist in nature like you're hoping for.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 3, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You're a bougie dipshit who refuses to address any of the nation's problems unless it personally benefits you. When you've never done an honest day's work in your life, you'll always consider yourself the winner, but it's because of entitled, uneducated people like you that this nation will ultimately collapse under the weight of authoritarianism.



Jolly gee gosh, xzi, that sure does sound like you're flaming me there.  Isn't that against the rules here along with being off topic?  In the Chinese social credit system, you would lose a couple of points there, friend.  They might even remove  your internet privileges. 
I know, I know, you run out of leftist talking points and reverted to name calling, it's ok.  I understand.  It's just part of nature for democrats. 

Here's a social credit score for you:
Morvoran = 1 : XZI = 0


----------



## Xzi (Sep 3, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Jolly gee gosh, xzi, that sure does sound like you're flaming me there.  Isn't that against the rules here along with being off topic?  In the Chinese social credit system, you would lose a couple of points there, friend.  They might even remove  your internet privileges.


Like I said, I won't be sticking around to participate in the type of idiocentric fascist oligarchy that people like you are accelerating us toward.  I'll be laughing my ass off at your stupidity and short-sightedness from elsewhere.

Enjoy your business failing after the Trump recession hits, and good day to you sir.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 3, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I won't be sticking around



[video]


--------------------------------------------
To anybody doubting me as a crazy right wing loon talking about social media creating it's own social credit system, I found this.

Here is a snippit:
*It can happen here*
Many Westerners are disturbed by what they read about China’s social credit system. But such systems, it turns out, are not unique to China. A parallel system is developing in the United States, in part as the result of Silicon Valley and technology-industry user policies, and in part by surveillance of social media activity by private companies.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 3, 2019)

morvoran said:


> To anybody doubting me as a crazy right wing loon talking about social media creating it's own social credit system, I found this.


You're not a loon, just a hypocrite like most Republicans.  You support oligarchy when it comes to businesses denying service to customers IRL, but you oppose it when it comes to social media denying service to certain individuals online.  As long as you remain on the fence like this, you aren't doing anything to prevent corporations from implementing their own social credit system.  At best it shows you are indifferent to such a system, at worst it shows you're in favor of such a system as long as it harms the "right people."

This shouldn't be a difficult concept to grasp.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 3, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You support oligarchy when it comes to businesses denying service to customers IRL


*sigh* You still here?   Well, ok.   Let me put my lecture hat back on - 

I support the right for a company to run a business how they see fit to do so, and the right for them to practice their freedom of religion.  I am against any government imposing its power to oppose their rights to not have serve anybody they choose not to.  That is their company that they run, that they started, that they pay the bills for, and they have to accept all the risks of losing their lively hood if the company fails.

I'm against the denying of service to anybody in regards to religion, race, gender, etc. on a moral level.  Not serving a gay, black, female, muslim, etc person is not a religious freedom nor is it socially accepted.  Not baking a gay cake or catering to a gay wedding may seem socially unacceptable, but it goes along with a Christian's right to freedom of religion which is what I'm for.

If you are gay, and the bakery is known as or promotes they are Christian, you should assume that will not go along with your lifestyle and not knowingly ask them to bake you a cake that goes against their religious beliefs.  They can still sell you a cake, just not one that promotes homosexuality regardless if it is shaped as a penis or not.  That is their religious freedom and right of a business owner to choose not to make one.  It's not like a secret fact of Christians when it pertains to homosexuality.  If you go into a christian bakery and expect them to go against their beliefs, then you are the one in the wrong.

I'm not against baking gay cakes. I'm against the government forcing you to go against your religious beliefs or rights as a citizen.

I hope that was clear enough for you.

How this pertains to a social media company is that they do not have the right to determine what content is allowed to be published if they want to be considered a "public forum" along with the protection from being sued.  When they start allowing only certain content to be posted or censoring/deleting content that goes against their "secret terms", then that makes them a "publisher" such as a news site or blog.  Then they have every right to block, censor, delete any content they see fit, but they can be sued if somebody is offended by the stuff they allow on their site.

I'm not for forcing social media companies to allow any content they may not like.  I'm against them censoring anybody if they don't have the correct classification to do so.  Change their status from "public forum" to "publisher", and I will have no issue with how they censor content.

I hope this was understandable.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 3, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I support the right for a company to run a business how they see fit to do so, and the right for them to practice their freedom of religion.  I am against any government imposing its power to oppose their rights to not have serve anybody they choose not to.  That is their company that they run, that they started, that they pay the bills for, and they have to accept all the risks of losing their lively hood if the company fails.
> 
> I'm against the denying of service to anybody in regards to religion, race, gender, etc. on a moral level.  Not serving a gay, black, female, muslim, etc person is not a religious freedom nor is it socially accepted.  Not baking a gay cake or catering to a gay wedding may seem socially unacceptable, but it goes along with a Christian's right to freedom of religion which is what I'm for.
> 
> If you are gay, and the bakery is known as or promotes they are Christian, you should assume that will not go along with your lifestyle and not knowingly ask them to bake you a cake that goes against their religious beliefs.  They can still sell you a cake, just not one that promotes homosexuality regardless if it is shaped as a penis or not.  That is their religious freedom and right of a business owner to choose not to make one.  It's not like a secret fact of Christians when it pertains to homosexuality.  If you go into a christian bakery and expect them to go against their beliefs, then you are the one in the wrong.


The problem is that religion is a flimsy excuse for denying service.  Yes, we've got freedom of religion in this country, but that's also supposed to guarantee freedom FROM religion.  And I've said it before: if religious beliefs are a good enough excuse to deny someone service, then so are political beliefs.  At that point, any ideology the business opposes would be sufficient enough reason to deny service.  Drawing the line at freedom of religion, and for only one specific religion nonetheless, is absolutely hypocritical.



morvoran said:


> When they start allowing only certain content to be posted or censoring/deleting content that goes against their "secret terms"


Which social media company are we talking about, exactly?  Because as much as I hate Facebook and certain others, I can't think of a single one that has "secret" terms of use/rules.  They're posted in very clear view of the public, and usually you have to agree to them during the process of account creation.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 3, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The problem is that religion is a flimsy excuse for denying service.


 Maybe you wouldn't disagree with me so much if you read all that I typed.  They are not "denying service".  *The bakery offered to bake them a cake, just not a "gay cake".  The gay folks were not denied service, they were denied a gay cake that the bakery did not sell.  *Would you go into a burger king and ask for a Big Mac?  How about suing McDonald's for not selling you a Whopper?
I don't know how to make this any simpler.  I'm about to have an aneurysm that I fear will destroy the logic portion of my brain and make me become a leftist and think like you.  Please don't take away my sensible conservative/logical nature. 



Xzi said:


> Which social media company are we talking about, exactly? Because as much as I hate Facebook and certain others, I can't think of a single one that has "secret" terms of use/rules.



Facebook, twitter, twitch, youtube etc.  Any that are ran by or programmed by left leaning individuals.  Look up adpocalypse.  Mostly, conservative videos were being demonitized on youtube, but the creators were not being told why their videos were chosen for the strikes.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 3, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Maybe you wouldn't disagree with me so much if you read all that I typed.  They are not "denying service".  *The bakery offered to bake them a cake, just not a "gay cake".  The gay folks were not denied service, they were denied a gay cake that the bakery did not sell.  *Would you go into a burger king and ask for a Big Mac?  How about suing McDonald's for not selling you a Whopper?


This is not what happened in the case I linked, I have no clue where you're getting that idea.  He outright refused to serve the couple on religious grounds, "politely but firmly."  He later claimed it was a "sanctity of marriage" issue specifically, but he's since been sued twice more for denying service to other LGBTQ individuals who were not looking to get a wedding cake.



morvoran said:


> Facebook, twitter, twitch, youtube etc.  Any that are ran by or programmed by left leaning individuals.  Look up adpocalypse.  Mostly, conservative videos were being demonitized on youtube, but the creators were not being told why their videos were chosen for the strikes.


I looked up adpocalypse, and it seems mostly related to the use of racial slurs causing advertisers to pull their support from Youtube.  That type of behavior is clearly against their terms of service and/or community guidelines, which are posted publicly.  Whether the video creators were informed of that after the fact or not, I don't know, but they should've already been aware of it.



morvoran said:


> I'm about to have an aneurysm that I fear will destroy the logic portion of my brain


Can't destroy what was never there in the first place.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 3, 2019)

Xzi said:


> This is not what happened in the case I linked, I have no clue where you're getting that idea. He outright refused to serve the couple on religious grounds, "politely but firmly." He later claimed it was a "sanctity of marriage" issue specifically, but he's since been sued twice more for denying service to other LGBTQ individuals who were not looking to get a wedding cake.


  This is exactly what happened in the case you linked.  He denied them service to make a cake to be used at a gay wedding (thus making it a gay cake).  If they wanted to buy a cake for any other reason that didn't go against his religious beliefs, then he would not have refused them service.
I can't find anything about these other two cases, but they probably wanted gay cupcakes or cookies, I don't know.

It's almost like you were told or think this is how the baker handled the situation.  The red head guy would be the baker:





Xzi said:


> I looked up adpocalypse, and it seems mostly related to the use of racial slurs causing advertisers to pull their support from Youtube.



Maybe look past what started it and look into the effect of it.

There was even another event tagged as #Voxpocalypse where a "lispy, gay mexican" didn't like being called a fig (as in the little fruit) and started harassing Youtube to remove videos he didn't like.  I'm sure you've heard of this as Vox is one of your sources of leftist propaganda.
People (mostly conservatives) are having their videos demonitized, restricted, and/or deleted, and Youtube refuses to tell them why other than they didn't comply with the terms of service with no specifics.  PragerU had their video about the 10 commandments restricted without warning or reason as to why.  It only came out during a congressional hearing that the video was restricted because it had the term "murder" in it (which is one of the commandments).  Youtube refused to unrestrict it for unknown reasons other than something about it didn't comply with their terms.



Xzi said:


> Can't destroy what was never there in the first place.



  What my brain feels like when reading your replies.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 3, 2019)

morvoran said:


> This is exactly what happened in the case you linked. He denied them service to make a cake to be used at a gay wedding (thus making it a gay cake).


So you admit that it was a product he could've made then, it didn't require any special ingredients he didn't have access to.  Which means his only reason for denying them service was his religion.  See how we're just going in circles now?



morvoran said:


> Maybe look past what started it and look into the effect of it.
> 
> There was even another event tagged as #Voxpocalypse where a "lispy, gay mexican" didn't like being called a fig (as in the little fruit) and started harassing Youtube to remove videos he didn't like.  I'm sure you've heard of this as Vox is one of your sources of leftist propaganda.


I hadn't heard of that, no, but it sounds like the type of content that would violate Youtube's community guidelines just as racial slurs did.



morvoran said:


> People (mostly conservatives) are having their videos demonitized, restricted, and/or deleted, and Youtube refuses to tell them why other than they didn't comply with the terms of service with no specifics.


I'd have more sympathy if conservatism still had any civility or morality left to it.  All that's mostly been overridden by Trumpism in the last few years, so it's hard for me to believe that the content of these videos was all about smaller government or Christian values.  Especially considering there are still plenty of those types of videos available on the platform.

I do have a problem, several problems actually, with the idea of a social credit system.  I don't have a problem with platforms enforcing restrictions on speech meant to incite hatred and/or violence.  There are several alternative online platforms where that type of shit is allowed anyway (8chan, Voat, Stormfront just to name a few).  If gays have to "take their business elsewhere" when it comes to getting a cake, then surely the alt-right can do the same when it comes to spreading their hateful ideologies.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 3, 2019)

I was starting to wonder, but now I'm almost positive that you're only between the ages of 12-15 living in a far left leaning "progressive" household.  That has to explain why you have poor to low critical thinking skills and reading comprehension problems.  

You're little outburst yesterday was just the leftist in you, so I couldn't pinpoint your age/background then. 



Xzi said:


> So you admit that it was a product he could've made then, it didn't require any special ingredients he didn't have access to. Which means his only reason for denying them service was his religion. See how we're just going in circles now?


  I'm not implying they wanted him to put magic fairy dust in it with semen laced frosting.  They asked for a cake to be made for a gay wedding.  If you looked into this bakery, you'd see they make personalized "made to order" cakes.  They would have asked him to design it for a wedding that went against his christian values.  



Xzi said:


> I'd have more sympathy if *leftists/liberals/progressives* *like me* still had any civility or morality left to them.


  I fixed that for you.

Now I'm starting to lean towards the US government having a social credit system as long as it's designed by the current administration, so it would be a fair system.  Liberals of today would all have negative scores due to their racism, hatred, treason, and outright blatant lies.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 3, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I was starting to wonder, but now I'm almost positive that you're only between the ages of 12-15 living in a far left leaning "progressive" household.


Same insult could be levied right back at you, only self-centered pre-teens find the 'edgy' ideologies of the alt-right to be appealing.  Adults realize the world doesn't revolve around them, and no country can survive on greed and selfishness alone.



morvoran said:


> I'm not implying they wanted him to put magic fairy dust in it with semen laced frosting.  They asked for a cake to be made for a gay wedding.


Precisely, I'm sure he/his establishment had made plenty of wedding cakes previously.  This one would have been no different, and I'm sure the couple would be willing to buy their own cake topper elsewhere if that was the only point of contention.  He used the excuse of his religion to deny them service, which is no better than the excuse of having a political opposition to LGBTQ.



morvoran said:


> Now I'm starting to lean towards the US government having a social credit system as long as it's designed by the current administration, so it would be a fair system.  Liberals of today would all have negative scores due to their racism, hatred, treason, and outright blatant lies.


Well, at least now you're willing to own your hypocrisy and fascist tendencies.  That's all I could've hoped for.  Short of having a revelation and changing some of your viewpoints after you were confronted with said hypocrisy, anyway, which I knew was very unlikely to be the result.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 4, 2019)

Xzi said:


> He used the excuse of his religion to deny them service, which is no better than the excuse of having a political opposition to LGBTQ.


 You're using emotions over logic to determine what the correct course of action is here.  You would rather an individual give up their rights and liberties just to appease one gay couple when they could have either asked for a plain wedding cake or went to another bakery.  
Thank God that the Supreme Court didn't agree with you on this issue.  I bet you would call a straight man homophobic/transphobic for not wanting to have sex with a transgender "woman" who still had their male sex organs.  No thank you, ma'am!



Xzi said:


> Well, at least now you're willing to own your hypocrisy and fascist tendencies.


 I can't get over how leftists are so blind or just complacent to their own fascism/racism/hatred/xenophobia of others and project it onto groups that are none of the above.   Now that is hypocritical. I might have to start another thread on this topic alone.

Social credit score:
Morvoran = 2
Xzi = -1


----------



## Xzi (Sep 4, 2019)

morvoran said:


> You're using emotions over logic to determine what the correct course of action is here.  You would rather an individual give up their rights and liberties just to appease one gay couple when they could have either asked for a plain wedding cake or went to another bakery.


Why do the business owner's rights supercede the rights of the individuals he refuses to serve?  And why shouldn't this apply in the same manner to the rights of Youtube's owners?  Everyone has to draw their own line on this matter, but yours is super squiggly.



morvoran said:


> Thank God that the Supreme Court didn't agree with you on this issue.


Actually the ruling was about the state commission's "disrespect" toward the sincerely held religious beliefs of the business owner.  I disagree with that ruling for entirely different reasons, but the fact remains that it's still illegal to deny someone service on the basis of their sexual orientation.  A fact which has led to that same business owner being sued twice more since that initial ruling.



morvoran said:


> I can't get over how leftists are so blind or just complacent to their own fascism/racism/hatred/xenophobia of others and project it onto groups that are none of the above.   Now that is hypocritical. I might have to start another thread on this topic alone.


"I know you are but what am I?"  Not exactly disproving the notion that you might be a pre-teen at the oldest.

Praxis credit score:
Morvoran = -500
Xzi = 500


----------



## morvoran (Sep 4, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Why do the business owner's rights supercede the rights of the individuals he refuses to serve?


 Uh, because the Constitution.



Xzi said:


> Actually the ruling was about the state commission's "disrespect" toward the sincerely held religious beliefs of the business owner.


 Yeah, meaning he was in the right giving the circumstances based on his religious beliefs.



Xzi said:


> the fact remains that it's still illegal to deny someone service on the basis of their sexual orientation.


 sure, it just doesn't apply in this case.  He was happy to serve them anything but a wedding cake.  Not sure why you don't get this.



Xzi said:


> "I know you are but what am I?" Not exactly disproving the notion that you might be a pre-teen at the oldest.


 No, just means that I became "woke" to the true intentions of the Democrat party and left their plantation of power hunger and hatred years ago after Trump was elected.



Xzi said:


> Praxis credit score:
> Morvoran = >9000
> Xzi = -500


 Fixed the score for you.  You made a typo.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 4, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Uh, because the Constitution.


Yeah it's not in there.  The constitution is for EVERY citizen's rights, it doesn't say "businesses > individuals" anywhere. 

Oh but that's right, you think the 14th amendment is only for slaves, meaning none of us are citizens.  Oh well, off to Guantanamo for everyone involved then.  



morvoran said:


> Yeah, meaning he was in the right giving the circumstances based on his religious beliefs.


Guess Youtube was in the right given the circumstances based on their political beliefs, then.



morvoran said:


> sure, it just doesn't apply in this case.  He was happy to serve them anything but a wedding cake.  Not sure why you don't get this.


He's been sued twice more for denying service to LGBTQ individuals who were not looking to get wedding cakes.  It's obvious that was just the most convenient excuse at the time.



morvoran said:


> No, just means that I became "woke" to the true intentions of the Democrat party and left their plantation of power hunger and hatred years ago after Trump was elected.


Translation: "Trump gave me permission to be openly racist and homophobic when before I felt like I had to keep that shit under wraps."



morvoran said:


> Praxis credit score:
> Morvoran = -9000
> Xzi = infinity plus 1
> 
> Fixed the score for you. You made a typo.


Spot on.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 4, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The constitution is for EVERY citizen's rights


 Yeah, including their right to religious expression and freedoms.  Doesn't say anything about a baker having to serve everyone for any reason.



Xzi said:


> He's been sued twice more for denying service to LGBTQ individuals who were not looking to get wedding cakes. It's obvious that was just the most convenient excuse at the time.


  The other time was for a transgender cake which is along the same lines as a gay wedding cake.  Most likely a leftist troll wanting to cause more grief for the oppressed religious baker.  Why can't the left leave people alone?  If this was a clean-cut case in your favor, then the supreme court would have ruled that way.



Xzi said:


> Translation: "Trump gave me permission to be openly racist and homophobic when before I felt like I had to keep that shit under wraps."


  Yeah, ok.  I used to think just like you, but once I finally paid attention to the other side, I was able to break free of the chains made from the lies of the democrat party used to hold me and others down.  Their kool-aid doesn't work on me anymore, so I don't buy into it.  Hopefully, when you drop out of high school, where they force their propaganda on you, and start working for yourself, you'll see the benefits of capitalism over socialism and break free from their tyranny as well.

Praxis credit score:
Morvoran = >9000
Xzi = -500
Just as most things, I guess you don't get this either.  My score is "over 9000".  You might be too young to get the reference.

By the way, what happened to you staying on topic or you saying you "won't be sticking around to participate"?  I guess that was just another false promise from the left.

Back to the China Social Credit System:

If the democrats ever take over again, I might move to china.  Not just because all our jobs, money, and businesses will be moving there, but because at least I will have some form of freedom there.  
With the social media companies, insurance companies, etc already collecting our private data, it will be easy for the left to implement their own system.  If you happen to not think the same as a socialist "democrat", you might be given a low score to start which will make it very hard to succeed in this system.  The Right has already seen their views and expressions being attacked.  They cannot advocate for tolerance and unity without being considered a nazi or supremacist regardless if they are Jewish or a POC.  I'm not trying to fearmonger here.  I'm just stating that when the journalistic media and social media both attack you for what you believe, it doesn't set a very good precedence for the future.  It will start on the right and work its way to everybody else, eventually.

This is why a social credit system is bad for any country, not just China.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 4, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Yeah, including their right to religious expression and freedoms.  Doesn't say anything about a baker having to serve everyone for any reason.


Doesn't say anything about Youtube or Facebook having to serve everyone for any reason, either.  The laws governing business were written well after the constitution.  I'm just trying to get you to pick a lane and stick to it.



morvoran said:


> The other time was for a transgender cake which is along the same lines as a gay wedding cake.  Most likely a leftist troll wanting to cause more grief for the oppressed religious baker.  Why can't the left leave people alone?  If this was a clean-cut case in your favor, then the supreme court would have ruled that way.


The supreme court doesn't take up standard discrimination lawsuits, that's left to the states and (rarely) a federal court.



morvoran said:


> Yeah, ok.  I used to think just like you, but once I finally paid attention to the other side, I was able to break free of the chains made from the lies of the democrat party used to hold me and others down.


"Once I turned 13 and read Mein Kampf I saw that Hitler made some good points."  



morvoran said:


> Just as most things, I guess you don't get this either.  My score is "over 9000".  You might be too young to get the reference.


Oh I get the reference, it just hasn't been funny or relevant for about a decade now.



morvoran said:


> By the way, what happened to you staying on topic or you saying you "won't be sticking around to participate"?  I guess that was just another false promise from the left.


I think your brain is starting to leak out your ears.  That was in reference to me leaving the country if we end up with a neoliberal candidate vs a neoconservative incumbent.  Businesses denying service IRL or online are both very much relevant to the topic of how much control the private sector has over our lives, and thus their likelihood of implementing a social credit system.



morvoran said:


> If the democrats ever take over again, I might move to china.  Not just because all our jobs, money, and businesses will be moving there, but because at least I will have some form of freedom there.


Unfortunately for you, unless democracy completely dies in this country, Democrats are very likely to gain control again sometime in the near future.  It's been a LOOONG time since any Republican won the popular vote.



morvoran said:


> With the social media companies, insurance companies, etc already collecting our private data, it will be easy for the left to implement their own system.  If you happen to not think the same as a socialist "democrat", you might be given a low score to start which will make it very hard to succeed in this system.  The Right has already seen their views and expressions being attacked.


Rofl you think tech executives are socialist/leftist?  They're neoliberals at best, which is basically the same as being neoconservative.  Greed is their only motivation, and to keep profits high they need a complacent and subservient populace.  Not an empowered working class fighting back as a collective.  That's why the Washington Post is just as anti-Bernie as Fox News.



morvoran said:


> They cannot advocate for tolerance and unity without being considered a nazi or supremacist regardless if they are Jewish or a POC.  I'm not trying to fearmonger here.  I'm just stating that when the journalistic media and social media both attack you for what you believe, it doesn't set a very good precedence for the future.  It will start on the right and work its way to everybody else, eventually.


If I take this out of context, it sounds like a critique of capitalism.  The right-wing has its own journalistic media and social media platforms.  Why isn't that competition sufficient enough for you?


----------



## morvoran (Sep 4, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It's been a LOOONG time since any Republican won the popular vote.


  If we can keep these "big bad corporations" you don't seem to like from influencing voters such as Google does, maybe a Republican could win the popular vote.  Without google's interference in the 2016 election, Trump could have possibly won both the electoral and popular votes.



Xzi said:


> The supreme court doesn't take up standard discrimination lawsuits, that's left to the states and (rarely) a federal court.


 Uh, derpy derp, well, why did they take this case then?  



Xzi said:


> I'm just trying to get you to pick a lane and stick to it.


  I picked a lane after seeing what the Democrats and the left were really about.  I cannot, with a clear conscience, ever go along with their policies or politics that only hurt society, keep the poor class in poverty, kill other humans, and strive for more power over others ever again.  If you like policies that only apply dirty, used band-aids to problems which cause them to fester even more, then keep on keepin' on.  You'll be judged when your time comes for your indiscretions.



Xzi said:


> Rofl you think tech executives are socialist/leftist?


  ROFL, you don't think they are?   See Google, facebook, twitter, twitch, etc....

A classic line from Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter, "But the people who build Twitter _are_ biased, Dorsey admitted in an interview last month, saying out loud what everyone already knew: Twitter, like most tech companies in Silicon Valley, has a lot more left-leaning employees than right-leaners."  Funny, this was found on your favorite source of hate "Vox.com".  I guess Jack Dorsey is just a Trump loving white supremacist, huh?



Xzi said:


> Greed is their only motivation,


  And power to control others.  Too bad they are ran by your leftist buddies who sponsor censorship, hate and racist values.



Xzi said:


> The right-wing has its own journalistic media and social media platforms. Why isn't that competition sufficient enough for you?


 Because other than Fox News, which even you admit is bipartisan, the other large media companies are extremely biased.  When they do get an actual journalist working for them, they immediately blacklist them and run them out of town. Conservatives do go to other social media platforms, but they are not as main stream as Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter.  Most moderates/independents use the bigger companies.  You can't get your voice heard if nobody is listening.

In other news that is related to the topic.....

Social Media and their social credit system has claimed a new victim.

*High School Bans Student After He Goes To Shooting Range With His Mom, Snapchat Post*

A 16-year-old student at a Colorado high school was informed by the school district Wednesday that he was not allowed to return to classes until the school could conduct an investigation into an anonymous tip that he had posted "threatening" content online.

Due to a social media post, this student who, apparently, has no evidence of violence, death threats, or hateful online posts related to him is being banned from going to school for fear he may be a possible school shooter.  Just a video with his mom innocently shooting a gun at a range is all the evidence the school has against him.
Due to the fearmongering by democrats, this is what the state of affairs are becoming in the US.  Guilty before proven innocent when no crime was even committed.  Welcome to the "fair and tolerant" society that the leftists are bringing us with their rhetoric and lies.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 4, 2019)

morvoran said:


> If we can keep these "big bad corporations" you don't seem to like from influencing voters such as Google does, maybe a Republican could win the popular vote.  Without google's interference in the 2016 election, Trump could have possibly won both the electoral and popular votes.


Again with the fuckin' blog posts man.  For someone who says they hate social media you sure seem to form a lot of your opinions based on the influence of internet randos.



morvoran said:


> Uh, derpy derp, well, why did they take this case then?


The case was elevated as a consequence of the state commission's handling of it, the supreme court didn't rule on whether the business owner was discriminatory or not.



morvoran said:


> I picked a lane after seeing what the Democrats and the left were really about.  I cannot, with a clear conscience, ever go along with their policies or politics that only hurt society, keep the poor class in poverty, kill other humans, and strive for more power over others ever again.  If you like policies that only apply dirty, used band-aids to problems which cause them to fester even more, then keep on keepin' on.  You'll be judged when your time comes for your indiscretions.


No...pick a lane in regards to whether you think corporations should have absolute control over peoples' lives or not.  If it's fine to deny service to LGBTQ individuals IRL, it's fine to deny service to conservatives online.



morvoran said:


> ROFL, you don't think they are?   See Google, facebook, twitter, twitch, etc....
> 
> A classic line from Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter, "But the people who build Twitter _are_ biased, Dorsey admitted in an interview last month, saying out loud what everyone already knew: Twitter, like most tech companies in Silicon Valley, has a lot more left-leaning employees than right-leaners."  Funny, this was found on your favorite source of hate "Vox.com".  I guess Jack Dorsey is just a Trump loving white supremacist, huh?


They're *neoliberals*, which is just the other side of the coin from neoconservatives.  The fact that you don't know the difference between neoliberals, liberals, socialists, and leftists speaks to your low political intelligence.



morvoran said:


> And power to control others.  Too bad they are ran by your leftist buddies who sponsor censorship, hate and racist values.


Yeah, people like Fuckerberg and Trump both do need to keep the working class divided.  On that you're correct.



morvoran said:


> Because other than Fox News, which even you admit is bipartisan


Rofl no.  They have a couple pundits who aren't completely detached from reality, that doesn't mean they aren't extremely right-wing.



morvoran said:


> Conservatives do go to other social media platforms, but they are not as main stream as Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter.  Most moderates/independents use the bigger companies.  You can't get your voice heard if nobody is listening.


Gee, I can't imagine why Trumpism wouldn't be appealing to the mainstream.  



morvoran said:


> Social Media and their social credit system has claimed a new victim.
> 
> *High School Bans Student After He Goes To Shooting Range With His Mom, Snapchat Post*
> 
> A 16-year-old student at a Colorado high school was informed by the school district Wednesday that he was not allowed to return to classes until the school could conduct an investigation into an anonymous tip that he had posted "threatening" content online.


Oh cry me a river, a lack of common sense led to a temporary misunderstanding.  If he had just added a bit more context to those images other than "finna be lit," this wouldn't have happened.  Colorado has had its fair share of school shootings, so better safe than sorry.


----------



## notimp (Sep 5, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Oh cry me a river, a lack of common sense led to a temporary misunderstanding. If he had just added a bit more context to those images other than "finna be lit," this wouldn't have happened. Colorado has had its fair share of school shootings, so better safe than sorry.


Oh, so precrime on the base of social media 'suspicion' already is a normality and socially accepted. Huh. Things move fast.

Outrage isn't the right emotion here, but if people just accept that as a normality - boy, the implications on your society are bigger (more problematic) than the victimcount all your schoolshooters produce in a year.

edit: Precrime in a societal perception sense not in a legal sense (although I wonder how laws would look like..  )


----------



## Xzi (Sep 5, 2019)

notimp said:


> Oh, so precrime on the base of social media 'suspicion' already is a normality and socially accepted. Huh. Things move fast.


He's not serving any jail time over it FFS, he's been _temporarily_ inconvenienced due to his lack of common sense.  I'm sure even his mom could've told him it was a bad idea to post images of guns with so little context, but I guarantee he never ran it by her.  To quote Forrest Gump, "stupid is as stupid does."


----------



## notimp (Sep 5, 2019)

Cultural selfcensorship. ('Civilisation' is, the same thing btw.)
People with less well caring moms will do worse.

And for what? So that part of the middle class feels better?

What are you achieving? People not posting images on social media?

This is part of the issue around this. You fundamentally cant solve the mass shooter problem with social meda profiling. If you use it to make it smaller - there is no direct relationship between posting something like this on facebook, and then shooting up a school. And you would make the false positives a big issue on top - as proven in this case.

Just think of it this way. Lets say you've got it down to a science. And can predict and prevent a mass shooting from happening, by analyzing social media posts at an accuracy of 99.95 percent. With millions of users the rate of false positives would be 1000s of users a day.

And here is the gag - no statistical means of predicting social behavior will ever give you an accuracy value anywhere that high.

Some risk - you have to take in bulk. Its not that you can engineer it away using predictive modeling.

So what did you end up doing? You impacted a childs life - had his story go through all media. Made him the class idiot for the better part of his remaining education life.

And for what?

- Ultimately just, and only - to stroke a _dumb_ citizens notion, of whats needed to be 'more safe' in their community ("If you see something, say something".). No, if you see somethng, say something - stops working, if you clog the system with it. If you make it about the notion, that 'that person, probably will do something any minute now', and if want to hold up high the myth that everyone engaging in it has been doing a good deed, but here it just backfired.

No - this is just a picturebook perfect example, of how stupid a society can be at times. This is "lets burn the witch" - but 21st century style.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 5, 2019)

notimp said:


> This is part of the issue around this. You fundamentally cant solve the mass shooter problem with social meda profiling.


It wasn't "profiling" rofl, it was a problem that could've been avoided if he had literally just added two more words to his post.  "Shooting range finna be lit."  See how that prevents any misunderstanding?  "Shooting range with mom finna be lit," even better.  Descriptive language is important, particularly when you're a high school student posting pictures of guns online.  Of course the worst is going to be assumed in the country where school shootings happen more than anywhere else, that's why you don't leave things vague and up for interpretation.  Hopefully the lesson has been learned, and he's free to move on with his life.


----------



## notimp (Sep 5, 2019)

It was profiling - just in an even more stupid way.

It was "the old guy that has nothing more important to do in his life than to report suspicious behavior to the police once a week", but multiplied by 10000x - because more people are bored and on the internet - and paint pictures, using their imagination.

This is what precrime essentially is.

Way to solve this - f.e. ban easy access or use of automatic rifles - victim number goes down. Media reports less on it. 'Glory' motivation of shooters goes down with it. F.e.

Way not to solve this:
Idiotic parents geting into 'see something, say something' mode - because, 'thats not proper education - the way I would teach my child' - and everyone posting gun videos is the next school shooter - because my child showed me the video, and as a responsble parent, I ...

Thats social profiling the stupid way - and even more dangerous, because it comes under the cloak of "civil engagement" and "what every parent would do". Yes they would. But they don't understand how this works statistically. So too bad.

If you see a video of someone announcing a school shooting on social media - PLEASE report it. But that happening is a snowballs chance to survive in hell, compared to all the stuff people could imagine to be that.

So at the very least - make this not about this childs mother being irresponsible here - but make it about what this actually was. Society being utterly stupid as f*ck. Out of fear - caused by media reports.


Look at it that way. If the victim number of school shootings even in america, is now at the level of twice the yearly beesting victims (terminal), are you now calling the police everytime, someone posts a picture of a green lawn?

And yes - many more people do, than posting images of guns - but on the flipside - a bee doesnt kill 40 people in one instance either. Think it through.

The only thing that instance solved - was a common fear of 'what could happen to my child' in the hearts of parents that were involved in that issue.

So thats what you are blaming that childs mother for ("mom would have had to be more responsible in teaching their child to...").

And the probability, that this would have lead in the next school shooting was still so low - that you bringing this story into the media (and that childs youtube videos with it) - makes more of an issue, than it solves.

This is society failing.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 5, 2019)

notimp said:


> If you see a video of someone announcing a school shooting on social media - PLEASE report it. But that happening is a snowballs chance to survive in hell, compared to all the stuff people could imagine to be that.


Are you serious?  In the last couple years, there have been *tons* of shooters that posted stuff on social media before committing the act.  And who's to say it was a parent that reported him and not another student of the school?  Not that it would matter.



notimp said:


> So at the very least - make this not about this childs mother being irresponsible here - but make it about what this actually was. Society being utterly stupid as f*ck. Out of fear - caused by media reports.


I didn't say the mother was irresponsible, I said he almost certainly didn't run it by her and just posted that on impulse.  It was a case of a stupid teen being a stupid teen.  And regardless of the media's role, you can't pretend that mass shootings aren't a problem in this country. 

Besides, it's right-wing media sympathetic to him that are spreading this story, doing more harm than good whether they realize it or not.  I wouldn't have even heard of it otherwise.  More mainstream media is covering Wal-Mart's reduction in gun/ammunition sales along with their request for customers to no longer open carry in their stores.


----------



## notimp (Sep 5, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Are you serious? In the last couple years, there have been *tons* of shooters that posted stuff on social media before committing the act.


And metric tons of people posting gun videos, who then did nothing.

False positives are the issue here.

And yes, if your child comes to you with a suspicious looking instagram video, that one could interpret as that kid shooting up her school tomorrow - statistically, you should still do nothing. Because the chance that you will harm an innocent person who now got his youtube videos in wide circulation, harming them them by comparison, is still far higher.

Of course as a parent you will call the police anyhow. If something happened, and you didn't... There is no chance in hell that you are taking this chance.

But all in all this is an issue about people not understanding statistics (likelyhood of happening vs likelyhood of misinterpretation), and having an inflated sense of understanding them, because of a believe, that they are very prevalent.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 5, 2019)

notimp said:


> And metric tons of people posting gun videos, who then did nothing.
> 
> False positives are the sue here.


All those videos have *context*, which is what you don't seem to be getting.  It doesn't matter where you go to school or work, if you post a picture of an AR-15 with only the text, "finna be lit," people are gonna assume you're about to shoot up your workplace/school.  Nobody is going to assume that if you post a video on Youtube with the opening, "hey everybody, I'm (your name here) and here's my review of the (gun make/model here)."

"Finna be lit" is both moronic and vague.  It's like saying, "about to shoot."  About to shoot what?  And where?  "About to head out to the shooting range" cannot be misinterpreted.  Nobody's gonna call the police over that.  Complete sentences people, they matter.


----------



## notimp (Sep 5, 2019)

The issue here is still that 10000x more likely you will ruin an innocents life, its just that this usually doesnt make it into national news.

So in every case - something goes wrong in that sense, dont blame that childs mother - blame your artificially enhanced sense of danger instead.

If you are watching that video and are thinking about phoning the police. By any means, act like a cavemen. Or phone that childs mother first.

Thats tribal logic. Thats what anyone would do.

It doesnt mix well with big numbers and inflated sense of danger from mass media reports.

So if you've then got police knocking at that guys door to see if it was a misunderstanding or not - maybe dont broadcast that childs videos as 'weirdo' to a mass media audience ('warning other parents'), while they are at it - in case it turns out, that you were just the statistically likely moron, that you turned out to be in this case.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 5, 2019)

notimp said:


> The issue here is still that 10000x more likely you will ruin an innocents life, its just that this usually doesnt make it into national news.


Talk about hyperbole.  Nobody's life was ruined, and a valuable lesson was likely learned.



notimp said:


> So in every case - something goes wrong in that sense, dont blame that childs mother - blame your artificially enhanced sense of danger instead.


That's pretty easy to say when you live a country where civilians can't own guns.  Just about everyone in America has had a mass shooting happen within 50 miles of them, if not multiple mass shootings.  There is no "artificial" sense of danger, the danger is very much real.  That doesn't mean we're all living in fear constantly, most of us have become numb to it, but that doesn't mean we're going to ignore obvious red flags either.

Two frickin' words.  Two more words added to his sentence would've prevented this whole shitshow.  Maybe next time he won't skip English class.


----------



## notimp (Sep 5, 2019)

Also, while we are at it to make another posting all about mass shooting - lets look at some other concepts that just originate from 'mass intelligence' just miserably failing.

(I will make an effort to make every posting from now on about the number of yearly beesting victims in this forum, btw - thats just fair...)

So there is a correlation between victimcount and 'importance as a news story' and there is a correlation between 'importance of the news story' and 'sense of glory the shooter gets out of it'. So if you reduce victim count - you reduce reporting, and you reduce motivation for the shooter at the same time.

Thats a package. If you ban videogames instead (f.e.) thats not. People have not the slightest idea between the difference. Not if they've watched 1000 news reports on the issue.

Why is the first thing about any mass shooting that happens in a forum like this - a person that has to talk about 'how his education methods would have prevented that from ever happening, because...' - its magical thinking. Its 'it happend because of god' - and even that would have been a better explaination - because there is no 'harm' - if it 'happened because of god'. But there is harm done - if people think that they have to "enact" that others should be better parents 'their believe style' to "prevent mass shootings".

Thats arguably - why 'god as a principle also exists' to teach people about 'bulk risk' they have to take - or otherwise, they'll end up as mobs, burning witches.

No matter what you believe - as 'tribal societies' you are exactly as stupid as people in the dark ages. We've just got better social structures that prevent you from acting on it.

Now - if you then introduce Marky Zuckthebergs Facebook - and he is all like 'wayne' I don't care if you pull the gatekeepers, and "everyone should be able to mass broadcast" (edit: without counterspeech) - weird stuff happens.

Has to do with predictably irrational behavior.

Is important in the context of 'social credit systems' as well.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 5, 2019)

notimp said:


> No matter what you believe - as 'tribal societies' you are exactly as stupid as people in the dark ages. We've just got better social structures that prevent you from acting on it.


All the more reason to have common sense gun legislation such as universal background checks with no private sales loophole.  The majority of Americans are in favor of this, Democrats and Republicans both, but the only reason it doesn't happen is because of the NRA and other gun lobbyist groups.  Thankfully they seem to be crumbling in recent days, and even Wal-Mart (as one of the nation's top gun/ammo sellers) has acknowledged there is a problem and has begun to address it from their end.


----------



## notimp (Sep 5, 2019)

We can (over-)extend that in the other direction as well. What do you want as a parent whos now given that child a pretty unnecessary hard time?

Oh you said - an excuse from his mother for not having taught him better? Oh and you want a medal as well, dont you? How about Joe Biden pins that on you for internet denouncement? Would that be something you like?

But think about all the lives you could have saved... Just that - statistically it was never very likely. But what do you care. In that moment 'you had to save you child' in your mind.

So there it's a good thing - that something like the police exists, who you could phone up, right?

And then you went on the internet - and distributed the video to all other concerned parents, and the media to "warn them of incoming danger" - you just had to.

That passes my litmus test for - if I'd know, that you did that and would meet you on the streets in real life - without any 'concept of privacy', I might spit you right into your face.



Now we've tied that up nicely with the why privacy is important concept as well.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 5, 2019)

notimp said:


> We can (over-)extend that in the other direction as well. What do you want as a parent whos now given that child a pretty unnecessary hard time?
> 
> Oh you said - an excuse from his mother for not having tought him better? Oh and you want a medal as well, dont you? How about Joe Biden pins that on you for internet denouncement? Would that be something you like?
> 
> ...


The fuck are you smoking man?  What does posting shit to a public-facing social media site have to do with privacy?  I don't use Snapchat, but couldn't he have at least set the post to "friends only" if privacy was really what he was seeking?  Or, god forbid, just not post it to social media at all?  Regardless, you're entirely too defensive over this topic.  He brought the consequences on himself, and those consequences were by no means harsh anyway.


----------



## notimp (Sep 5, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Talk about hyperbole. Nobody's life was ruined, and a valuable lesson was likely learned.


No - I'm going against the valuable lesson here.

Here is what society probably would like to have made out of it:
"He shouldnt have posted the video, I was worried. How dare his mom."

You couldnt go with that to the police ("I would like for someone to stop posting videos, so I can stop worrying."). So you have to get your activist boots on, and try to stir up a gaggle of people to say "yes we all want to worry less as well - do something about it (politician)", and then the right response would still be - you all are nuts - if you want to prevent people from posting 'I like guns' imagery on the internet.

Now - I hate guns. Never liked them.

But what you are promoting leads to -

Make a taboo.
Shun people that dont succumb.
Make 'liking guns' even more shunned in your societies.
Pronouncing - if I even see someone liking that - I get worried, could we please just say, that people dont like them.

And promoting - his mom, really should have educated that person more to my standards and made everyone of us worry less.

Everything about this is backwards, counterproductive, insane - but the way human tribal culture worked.

With ideas like that - cities - would never have come into existence, and I'm so very sorry - but for the social media age - where every moron can stir up a storm - if just his cat is cute enough, you have to come up with a better solution.

'Mom should have been more responsible here' isnt the issue. Yes it could have been prevented, if 'she would have been', but you insisting that this is a mode we should operate in - is more problematic.

This cycles back to "some risk is just baked in" ('it was gods will' as a way to explain stuff to people), and no - you will not solve it with education tips (likely to be given with pitchfork in hand), you will make it worse. (Introduce more issues - not on the same level, but still.)


----------



## notimp (Sep 5, 2019)

Every group of five people coming together usually can have a conversation about politicians being stupid for not doing what they'd like them to. There is a lesson in there as well.  (Its usually complicated.)


----------



## morvoran (Sep 5, 2019)

@Xzi  I have to admit that it was enjoyable reading @notimp rip you a new one with logic over your feelings and opinions.  You're going to need some of Mr. Popo's sacred ointment after that.



Xzi said:


> Again with the fuckin' blog posts man. For someone who says they hate social media you sure seem to form a lot of your opinions based on the influence of internet randos.


  What is the problem with "blog posts"?  It's unforunate, but that is the main source of "real news" today.  All you get is opinion pieces and leftist garbage on the main stream news sources.  

That source I gave was not a "blog" and was using the data from a Democrat psychologist (who dislikes Trump) revealing through his testing that the big tech companies are able to and have influenced elections.  You just don't like the fact of his findings showing that Clinton gained a minimum of 2.6 millions votes (possibly a lot more) because of Google alone.  How many more popular votes did she have than Trump?  2.8 million?  Wow, what a coincidence.  I'm sure you won't see it, though.

I never said I hated social media.  I hate that it's been overrun by hateful, racist, xenophobic, left leaning individuals who only want to let people with the same way of thinking use the services while shutting down everybody else.



Xzi said:


> Oh cry me a river, a lack of common sense led to a temporary misunderstanding. If he had just added a bit more context to those images other than "finna be lit," this wouldn't have happened. Colorado has had its fair share of school shootings, so better safe than sorry.


  It's odd how people with your mindset always attack the real victim in these stories because they're not on "your side" of politics.  

Did you expect this teen to post a disclaimer video explaining that he was about to post a innocent gun video?  "Hey guys, this video I'm about to post is not suggestive, in any way, of a threat for violence to anybody or to promote gun violence.  Please understand."

Oh, cry me a river.  He posted a video of him shooting a gun and didn't put it into context that you approved of?  It's not like he was shooting pictures of his teachers and other students.  Then he gets accused of being a possible dangerous individual which causes his school to ban him, and you think he was in the wrong?  

You cannot assume that this will not ruin his life either as he will always have this situation follow him.  He will be known in his community as that "likely school shooter who got caught beforehand".
People are falsely accused of things all the time and that accusation becomes them.  Look at Brett Kavanaugh, he will never live down the liars painting the picture of him being a beer loving rapist even though no actual proof was brought forward.  There are people who still think he's guilty.

This whole situation of people on social media being the judge, jury, and executioner needs to stop.  Leave punishments to the court system where they belong.  Social Credit Systems are not good for anyone even for the people who run them because the system they create will eventually turn on them, too.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 5, 2019)

notimp said:


> Make a taboo.
> Shun people that dont succumb.
> Make 'liking guns' even more shunned in your societies.


There seems to be something lost in translation here.  It's not taboo to post images or videos of guns online.  You yourself pointed that out.  It's the context that matters.  It's common sense that matters and seems to be increasingly lacking these days.  Such as with this guy who walked into a Wal-Mart equipped with body armor and a tactical rifle just days after the mass shooting in El Paso.  But you'd probably say the firefighter who made a civilian's arrest on him was "overreacting" too, right?


----------



## notimp (Sep 5, 2019)

Probably not translation, but semantics.  We are dancing around what was actually proper around posting videos on a social networks site. There could be many different viewpoints. 

I actually agree with many of your points (including all of the last ones).  Its just, that I wouldnt go with the majorities optinion on how society would probably frame this. 

Here are the angles.

- lacked common sense to post those, with that little context and that much ambiguity. Agree.
- people were right to call the police on him (presumably). Agree.
- people felt the need to do that. Agree.

- people never should post stuff that ambiguous, so others have to worry less. Disagree (practicality, edge cases (art f.e.)
- it was the moms fault, to a large degree. Disagree
- it was more the persons fault than societies fault. Somewhat disagree

Now - all of this is mostly silly.  But if you get into thinking about automated solutions to this (as we talked about in this thread) - I'm all the way pro individual (moron) in this case - and would find none of the concepts that would side with the majority of society appropriate at all.  (Because statistics, rate of false positives, blah blah blah..  )


----------



## Xzi (Sep 5, 2019)

morvoran said:


> What is the problem with "blog posts"?  It's unforunate, but that is the main source of "real news" today.


Any town crackhead can make a blog post buddy.  It's no wonder you're so miserably ill-informed on every political subject.



morvoran said:


> That source I gave was not a "blog"


It's literally called "Powerline blog," is structured as a blog, and it links to a Breitbart video at the end.  Sources hardly get any sketchier than that.



morvoran said:


> I never said I hated social media.  I hate that it's been overrun by hateful, racist, xenophobic, left leaning individuals who only want to let people with the same way of thinking use the services while shutting down everybody else.


Yeah, 8chan, Voat, and Stormfront are totally full of conservatives with messages of unity and love to spread.  I could've mistook any of the posters there for Marianne Williamson.  

Your gaslighting is cute, but I'm not sure who you think it's fooling.



morvoran said:


> It's odd how people with your mindset always attack the real victim in these stories because they're not on "your side" of politics.
> 
> Did you expect this teen to post a disclaimer video explaining that he was about to post a innocent gun video?  "Hey guys, this video I'm about to post is not suggestive, in any way, of a threat for violence to anybody or to promote gun violence.  Please understand."


He's a "victim" of temporary inconvenience.  Most high school kids would welcome a two-week break from school anyway.  Innocent, unarmed people get killed by police near-daily, so I'm sorry if my sympathy in this case is lacking.  Also, leftists buy guns too, his political affiliations were not the issue here.

And yeah, it doesn't need to be that long-winded, but any sort of disclaimer would've prevented the entire misunderstanding.



morvoran said:


> Oh, cry me a river.  He posted a video of him shooting a gun and didn't put it into context that you approved of?  It's not like he was shooting pictures of his teachers and other students.  Then he gets accused of being a possible dangerous individual which causes his school to ban him, and you think he was in the wrong?


The school certainly bares some of the responsibility for a slight overreaction, but when a student/teacher/parent reports something like this, they can't exactly ignore it either.



morvoran said:


> You cannot assume that this will not ruin his life either as he will always have this situation follow him.  He will be known in his community as that "likely school shooter who got caught beforehand".


I think you underestimate how many stupid teens do stupid stuff on a daily basis.  It'll follow him for a couple months at most, and then another kid at the school will get in deep shit for something else, or there will be an actual mass shooting on the news, and he'll be forgotten about.



morvoran said:


> This whole situation of people on social media being the judge, jury, and executioner needs to stop.  Leave punishments to the court system where they belong.  Social Credit Systems are not good for anyone even for the people who run them because the system they create will eventually turn on them, too.


Social media has no power on its own, it was the school that wielded the power in this case, and in most cases it's the police that wield the power.  It falls to them to determine what is and isn't a credible threat.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 5, 2019)

notimp said:


> - people never should post stuff that ambiguous, so others have to worry less. Disagree (practicality, edge cases (art f.e.)
> - it was the moms fault, to a large degree. Disagree
> - it was more the persons fault than societies fault. Somewhat disagree


On point one, I was specifically referring to imagery of guns with only ambiguous/vague language used for context.  Though I agree that "violent" imagery in art might raise some alarms, I doubt there would ever be the kind of reaction that occurred in this case.  Someone might recommend some counseling and that would be that.  On point two, I never said it was his mom's fault, I said it was his fault for not consulting his mom on the context of his post before making it.  And on point three we'll just have to agree to disagree.



notimp said:


> Now - all of this is mostly silly.  But if you get into thinking about automated solutions to this (as we talked about in this thread) - I'm all the way pro individual (moron) in this case - and would find none of the concepts that would side with the majority of society appropriate at all.  (Because statistics, rate of false positives, blah blah blah..  )


We're certainly in agreement there.  Vague language or no, an automated reporting system would return entirely too many false positives.  If Facebook starts putting up facial recognition towers in cities akin to the ones in China, that's my cue to either leave this country or start a resistance group dedicated to cutting those towers down.


----------



## notimp (Sep 5, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Though I agree that "violent" imagery in art might raise some alarms, I doubt there would ever be the kind of reaction that occurred in this case.


Correct but too specific. The main issue here would be, that people cant be always 'intended' to articulate themselves correctly. There has to be room for failure - without the 'but it made us worry - no one should ever be able to do that again' pushback. Art often works in that space, and it might be the first thing you point to to make people realize its 'importance', but its necesary for more than that (so that failure doesnt always lead to shunning, so that you keep moveable red lines, as culture changes...).

Philosophic stuff. 

I once tried to counter with 'freedom of art' (comedians) In a younger millenials dabate about "political correctness be soooooo great". It didnt work, they didnt even know the concept.  So I thought about the importance of 'room to fail' or 'room to provoke' (art) in the past.

And that even goes to the point, where I'd argue, that even provoking and joking with the concept (mass shootings) should not be outruled (taboo).

Also - here is another interesting red line. All those freedoms I've argued for, can not be applied to real societal taboos (pedos, nazis (imagery outruled in germany)..), but there should be very, very few of them. Because otherwise you get into separated cultures again (we against them thinking, tribes), which essentially you dont need to. And dont want to.

Thats the rough cut of my believe system around this.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 5, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Any town crackhead can make a blog post buddy. It's no wonder you're so miserably ill-informed on every political subject.


 Oh, so crackheads can't watch the news and give their opinions of political topics?  That's not very tolerant of you.



Xzi said:


> It's literally called "Powerline blog," is structured as a blog, and it links to a Breitbart video at the end. Sources hardly get any sketchier than that.


  You also have a "Contributor" title.  That's very ironic in itself. 
The site's address may have blog in it, and it may have started as a blog, but it is structured as a news site now.  Breitbart is not as biased as some of the sources you've used.



Xzi said:


> Yeah, 8chan, Voat, and Stormfront are totally full of conservatives with messages of unity and love to spread.


 Yeah, ok, but that group that calls themselves "antifa", hollywood elites, liberals, leftists, and democrat politicians don't really spread tolerance, free speech, good policies that work, and intelligence.



Xzi said:


> Social media has no power on its own, it was the school that wielded the power in this case, and in most cases it's the police that wield the power. It falls to them to determine what is and isn't a credible threat.


 Social media has a lot of power based on the people who use it to their advantage.  That's why any company whose ads are not fully compliant with the left's agenda gets shut down, conservative actors get blacklisted, and conservative voices are censored due to the power of social media.

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

Another news story about social media credit scores:

*Evil tech giants planning China-style “social score” rollout across America; red-flagged people to be denied access to restaurants and public events*

*American social media platforms are already punishing users for their political views*
*Now for the really bad news: That system is already under development in the United States and, in fact, in many ways it’s already being implemented.*

*As Breitbart News’ tech editor Allum Bokhari noted in June:  *

* We have a corporate version of this already evolving. So if you don’t do the things that Facebook approves of, they’re going to cut you off from their platform, which is now essential for maintaining a social network, building a business, running for office. We rely on Facebook and other social media platforms for so many things. Uber and Lyft will also ban you now — they’ve started to ban people for political viewpoints, so you think China is the only one that’s going to cut you off from transportation for having the wrong opinions — well, Western corporations are now doing that, too.*

The rest of this story can be found at the source.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 5, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Oh, so crackheads can't watch the news and give their opinions of political topics?  That's not very tolerant of you.


No, they can, that's exactly my point: you're basing your opinions on the opinions of others who don't necessarily have any grasp of the subjects they're speaking on.



morvoran said:


> You also have a "Contributor" title.  That's very ironic in itself.


How so?  I contribute game reviews to this site.  I'm not a newscaster or political pundit, nor did I ever claim to be.



morvoran said:


> The site's address may have blog in it, and it may have started as a blog, but it is structured as a news site now.  Breitbart is not as biased as some of the sources you've used.


Hilarious.  



morvoran said:


> Yeah, ok, but that group that calls themselves "antifa", hollywood elites, liberals, leftists, and democrat politicians don't really spread tolerance, free speech, good policies that work, and intelligence.


Oh gee, they aren't tolerant of intolerance!  Better burn them at the stake!  

The fact remains that all these groups understand how to use social media sites within the framework of each site's individual rules.  Modern conservatives can't seem to express their views or opinions without foaming at the mouth, and that's how they get themselves banned.



morvoran said:


> Social media has a lot of power based on the people who use it to their advantage.  That's why any company whose ads are not fully compliant with the left's agenda gets shut down, conservative actors get blacklisted, and conservative voices are censored due to the power of social media.


That's power that you're choosing to grant to social media as an individual.  I don't weight anything posted to Facebook as meaningful or important, no matter what the political agenda.  It's past time society stops granting that type of weight to the platform too.  That way, if they do ever decide to implement a social credit system, everyone just ignores it or laughs it off as irrelevant outside of their own platform.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 6, 2019)

Xzi said:


> No, they can, that's exactly my point: you're basing your opinions on the opinions of others who don't necessarily have any grasp of the subjects they're speaking on.


  I agree with you here, in a way, because Democrats act and think like they smoke crack.  Instead of crack, the Democrat politician have "slaves of their policies".  After the first taste, they become addicted and can't stop lying to their constituents and giving them free stuff to keep them from leaving the plantation.  Democrat voters have "false promises" and "free stuff".  After they accept that first "lie they can believe in", they chain themselves to the plantation of crime, poverty and lies.  



Xzi said:


> How so? I contribute game reviews to this site. I'm not a newscaster or political pundit, nor did I ever claim to be.


  Well, call me surprised here.  It's hard to find reviews since they are list under your "real?" name and not your username. 
I was expecting them to be as biased as your blogs and thread posts, such as "You have to fell a titan like antifa taking down a nazi Trump supporter by hitting it with a bike lock." or "not one titan represented the lgbtq community, shame!"



Xzi said:


> Oh gee, they aren't tolerant of intolerance! Better burn them at the stake!


 They also hate hate by using hate.  Two wrongs does not make a right.  If you are intolerant of anything, that makes you are intolerant.  If you have hate, then you are a hater.  If you look like a duck, quack like a duck, then you are a duck.



Xzi said:


> The fact remains that all these groups understand how to use social media sites within the framework of each site's individual rules. Modern conservatives can't seem to express their views or opinions without foaming at the mouth, and that's how they get themselves banned.


  Oh, so what you're saying is that the conservatives should have just expressed liberal values, and they would have been fine?  They can only express their opinions or show facts as long as they are liberal facts and opinions.  Ironic in how you say they shouldn't do that "foaming at the mouth" since that is a liberal technique when expressing their opinions.



Xzi said:


> That's power that you're choosing to grant to social media as an individual. I don't weight anything posted to Facebook as meaningful or important, no matter what the political agenda. It's past time society stops granting that type of weight to the platform too. That way, if they do ever decide to implement a social credit system, everyone just ignores it or laughs it off as irrelevant outside of their own platform.


 Wrong, you must not be paying much attention here.  The large tech companies are ran by liberals.  They hold the power to influence people on their platform, not just express their opinion.  They have already started implementing a social credit system and Republicans are trying to stop it.  Liberals are the ones letting it slide because, as of today, it fits their agendas.  They just don't realize that, when tomorrow comes, they'll be next.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 6, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I agree with you here, in a way ...


You don't agree with me, you quoted my comment and then went off on a completely unrelated tangent about how "Democrats are the real slave owners who fly the confederate flag!"  Classic projection.



morvoran said:


> Well, call me surprised here.  It's hard to find reviews since they are list under your "real?" name and not your username.
> I was expecting them to be as biased as your blogs and thread posts, such as "You have to fell a titan like antifa taking down a nazi Trump supporter by hitting it with a bike lock." or "not one titan represented the lgbtq community, shame!"


Well, I do enjoy me a good Wolfenstein game.  Though from all accounts the latest one is pretty bad.  Damn you Bethesda and your rapidly-declining quality standards.



morvoran said:


> They also hate hate by using hate.  Two wrongs does not make a right. If you are intolerant of anything, that makes you are intolerant.


Whoops, someone must've forgot to tell Abe Lincoln and the WW2 allied forces.



morvoran said:


> Oh, so what you're saying is that the conservatives should have just expressed liberal values, and they would have been fine?


No, they should revert to values-based conservatism rather than espousing views consistent with the moral black hole that is Trumpism.  I may not agree with conservative values of old, but at least they knew how to be civil under GWB, so they were free to speak their minds without resorting to racial slurs and/or death threats.



morvoran said:


> Wrong, you must not be paying much attention here.  The large tech companies are ran by liberals.  They hold the power to influence people on their platform, not just express their opinion.  They have already started implementing a social credit system and Republicans are trying to stop it.  Liberals are the ones letting it slide because, as of today, it fits their agendas.  They just don't realize that, when tomorrow comes, they'll be next.


As long as you support neoconservative policies and views, you're de facto supporting Zuckerberg's neoliberal policies and views.  The Trump administration hasn't done jack shit to enforce antitrust laws, because they benefit from their corporate donors going unchecked just as much as Facebook benefits.

These social media platforms only grew so large in the first place because of how many people viewed membership as "mandatory."  The users are the ones that grant them power and lend them credibility, and so the users have the ability to take all that away.  Facebook could become just another Myspace forgotten to history, or it could become an all-seeing, all-encompassing oligarchical entity.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 6, 2019)

Xzi said:


> As long as you support neoconservative policies and views, you're de facto supporting Zuckerberg's neoliberal policies and views. The Trump administration hasn't done jack shit to enforce antitrust laws, because they benefit from their corporate donors going unchecked just as much as Facebook benefits.
> 
> These social media platforms only grew so large in the first place because of how many people viewed membership as "mandatory." The users are the ones that grant them power and lend them credibility, and so the users have the ability to take all that away. Facebook could become just another Myspace forgotten to history, or it could become an all-seeing, all-encompassing oligarchical entity.


 Um... what about this?  His administration has done more than the other side.

The only way they are going to fail is to create a replacement platform and get most people to move to it.  No amount of "antitrust laws" are going to stop them.



Xzi said:


> You don't agree with me, you quoted my comment and then went off on a completely unrelated tangent about how "Democrats are the real slave owners who fly the confederate flag!"


 Of course, I don't agree with you.  I use logic in my discussions.  That's your issue if logic is a foreign concept.  
I was expanding on the "crackheads and how their opinions are not valid" comment you made by explaining why democrat opinions are not valid.  Maybe I should have simplified it for you...."Der, crackhead dumb, democrat dumb. derp!"



Xzi said:


> No, they should revert to values-based conservatism rather than espousing views consistent with the moral black hole that is Trumpism.


  Um, your TDS is flaring.  Did you take your pills this morning?  You might want to take another.   Conservatives are just fine, it's the left that is going to far (to the left).

(TDS - Trump Derangement Syndrome)


----------



## Xzi (Sep 6, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Um... what about this?  His administration has done more than the other side.


Good, hopefully this expands to more corporations in desperate need of being reigned in and not just the ones Trump feels have "slighted" him in some way.



morvoran said:


> The only way they are going to fail is to create a replacement platform and get most people to move to it.  No amount of "antitrust laws" are going to stop them.


That's the entire idea behind antitrust laws, to promote competition where otherwise none could possibly exist.



morvoran said:


> Of course, I don't agree with you.  I use logic in my discussions.


Trump-style logic, maybe.  Meaning you contradict yourself every other post and constantly pull nonsense from your ass.



morvoran said:


> Conservatives are just fine, it's the left that is going to far (to the left).


Okay bud, keep telling yourself that.  Maybe if you believe hard enough, Youtube will restore all the racist garbage videos.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 6, 2019)

Xzi said:


> That's the entire idea behind antitrust laws, to promote competition where otherwise none could possibly exist.


 They're not to promote competition, and there is competition.  Antitrust laws keep companies from preventing competition from competing. 
The government can't "promote" a company to compete as that is against antitrust laws.



Xzi said:


> Trump-style logic, maybe. Meaning you contradict yourself every other post and constantly pull nonsense from your ass.


 My ass has more sense than most leftists.  I would say it has more logic also, but that's a given since leftists don't have any or know what logic is.



Xzi said:


> Okay bud, keep telling yourself that. Maybe if you believe hard enough, Youtube will restore all the racist garbage videos.


  I'll keep telling myself that along with all the Democrats leaving the plantation and moving right. 
Free speech is free speech.  Just because you don't like a video's message, doesn't mean it can't exist.  As long as it doesn't involve anything illegal or promote violence, then it is covered by the first amendment and should be allowed on Youtube as long as Youtube is considered a public forum platform.

You seem to keep missing this point so I'll make sure you can see it  - 
*Youtube is considered a public forum platform*


----------



## Xzi (Sep 6, 2019)

morvoran said:


> The government can't "promote" a company to compete as that is against antitrust laws.


Okay, antitrust laws create a space for competition to exist then.  Is that more clear?



morvoran said:


> My ass has more sense than most leftists.  I would say it has more logic also, but that's a given since leftists don't have any or know what logic is.


"I r smart.  Everyone else r dumb."



morvoran said:


> Free speech is free speech.


And terms of use are terms of use.  Things are what they are.



morvoran said:


> Just because you don't like a video's message, doesn't mean it can't exist. As long as it doesn't involve anything illegal or promote violence, then it is covered by the first amendment and should be allowed on Youtube as long as Youtube is considered a public forum platform.


Trumpist videos almost universally promote violence and/or hatred.  That's why they got taken down.  It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the same thing to me, I'm not going to be sympathetic to your cause.  If you're looking for a shoulder to cry on, try 8chan or Stormfront.


----------



## IncredulousP (Sep 6, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Praxis credit score:
> Morvoran = >9000
> Xzi = -500
> Just as most things, I guess you don't get this either. My score is "over 9000". You might be too young to get the reference.


OMG THE CRINGE


----------



## morvoran (Sep 6, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Trumpist videos almost universally promote violence and/or hatred. That's why they got taken down. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat the same thing to me, I'm not going to be sympathetic to your cause. If you're looking for a shoulder to cry on, try 8chan or Stormfront.


 Please take your anti-TDS pills, it's really showing now.  I'm worried for you.

Just because a Trump supporter shows a video of that group of over-priviledged fascists that, ironically, calls themselves "antifa" beating on innocent victims doesn't mean they are supporting violence or hatred.  They are just showing the mentality of the left to assist with the social media credit system.  The leftist tech leaders are just trying to manipulate the system by removing those videos.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 6, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Just because a Trump supporter shows a video of that group of over-priviledged fascists that, ironically, calls themselves "antifa" beating on innocent victims doesn't mean they are supporting violence or hatred.


"Just because someone repeatedly uses racial slurs and posts memes about running over protesters doesn't mean they're a violent racist!  It'S iRoNy BrO!"


----------



## morvoran (Sep 6, 2019)

Xzi said:


> "Just because someone repeatedly uses racial slurs and posts memes about running over protesters doesn't mean they're a violent racist!  It'S iRoNy BrO!"


 Hey calm down, I'm sure all Antifa members are not that way.  Not all, not all, not all, but most.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 6, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Hey calm down, I'm sure all Antifa members are not that way.  Not all, not all, not all, but most.


Antifa posts memes about punching nazis and throwing milkshakes on politicians.  The former might get you banned on most social media, but comparing the latter to actual terrorist events is why nobody takes the right-wing seriously any more.  Conservatism is such a parody of itself these days.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 6, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Antifa posts memes about punching nazis and throwing milkshakes on politicians.  The former might get you banned on most social media, but comparing the latter to actual terrorist events is why nobody takes the right-wing seriously any more.  Conservatism is such a parody of itself these days.



What if that milkshake has acidic or caustic compounds in it?  Compounds like the type used in quick drying cement?  Would that be considered less innocent to you?  Maybe ask Andy Ngo about how great it feels to be pummeled by these sweet, compassionate, tolerant, "non-terroristic" antifa members who beat him and tossed refreshing milk shakes made with quick drying cement on him.  I guess he was just being silly, gay, asian, white supremacist trump lover, huh?

This is just nonsense and made up lies by the right, correct?  Why take any of this seriously?


----------



## Xzi (Sep 6, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Maybe ask Andy Ngo


Maybe don't since he was recently outed as a fraudster and had to quit his previous position because of it.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 6, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Maybe don't since he was recently outed as a fraudster and had to quit his previous position because of it.


You are just too much (by too much, I mean ).  
Oh no, he was caught on video with right wingers.  Hope he didn't mention he was gay or Asian.  He would have been beaten and had milkshakes thrown on him by those big meanies he is now a part of. 

Wait a second, does this mean he faked the part where antifa beat him and threw milkshakes laced with quick drying cement at him, too?  I guess his Nazi sympathizing doctors that said he had a concussion were liars as well?  What a fraud!!! My whole life is a lie....... Give me a break.

Do yourself a favor and turn the "liberal safe" filter off your web browser when you search the web.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 6, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Wait a second, does this mean he faked the part where antifa beat him and threw milkshakes laced with quick drying cement at him, too?


Yep, that was proven fake.  Ngo and Smollett should start a support group together.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 6, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Yep, that was proven fake.  Ngo and Smollett should start a support group together.


Proven fake, huh?  Were those CGI milkshakes he was hit with?  Stunt men that kicked, hit, and pushed him around? 
Ok, you're so full of


----------



## Xzi (Sep 6, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Proven fake, huh?  Were those CGI milkshakes he was hit with?


Nah, just staged because he was desperate for attention.  He got canned from the clickbait site he worked at after admitting to it.



morvoran said:


> Ok, he's so full of


Agreed, like most conservative "journalists."


----------



## Captain_N (Sep 6, 2019)

An episode of black mirror showcased this. When government has control these kind of things will always happen. that's why limited central government is the key to freedom. With more and more of Americans buying into the "Democratic Socialism" BS i fear America will become another large government society that has dumb shit like this. But china is great dont you know. Bernie and his crazy fucks praises governments like china's government.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 6, 2019)

Captain_N said:


> Bernie and his crazy fucks praises governments like china's government.


  Yeah, Bernie really praised them for keeping poverty levels low.  He just didn't mention the way they kept the levels so low, by killing their poor people.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 6, 2019)

Captain_N said:


> An episode of black mirror showcased this. When government has control these kind of things will always happen. that's why limited central government is the key to freedom.


Or it just gives corporations all the power, and you end up with an oligarchy where Facebook creates its own social credit system.  You're way late to the conversation.


----------



## Captain_N (Sep 6, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Or it just gives corporations all the power, and you end up with an oligarchy where Facebook creates its own social credit system.  You're way late to the conversation.


The difference is, facebook is not forcing me to use their system. China's government forces their citizens to use social media and they have to listen. ITs funny, their was a poll about what the citizens think about chinas social credit system. more then 80% like it and thinks its good. lol the poor souls that apposed it will get destroyed. the reason it appears the citizens support it is because they have to lol. Just saying you hate it deducts points. just like in that black mirror episode.

I also dont use social media like facebook or any of the photo social media. I post on forums like gbatemp but thats about it.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 6, 2019)

Captain_N said:


> The difference is, facebook is not forcing me to use their system. China's government forces their citizens to use social media and they have to listen. ITs funny, their was a poll about what the citizens think about chinas social credit system. more then 80% like it and thinks its good. lol the poor souls that apposed it will get destroyed. the reason it appears the citizens support it is because they have to lol. Just saying you hate it deducts points. just like in that black mirror episode.
> 
> I also dont use social media like facebook or any of the photo social media. I post on forums like gbatemp but thats about it.


That's fair, though I was speaking more in a hypothetical dystopian future sense where corporations ARE the government or decide how it operates.  It's not entirely unrealistic considering how intertwined lobbyists have become with our current system.


----------



## Captain_N (Sep 6, 2019)

Xzi said:


> That's fair, though I was speaking more in a hypothetical dystopian future sense where corporations ARE the government or decide how it operates.  It's not entirely unrealistic considering how intertwined lobbyists have become with our current system.



If corporations were the government, that would certainly be bad.


----------



## notimp (Sep 6, 2019)

An important difference here still is, that corporations (in traditional free market economies/countries) - arent government.

It basically goes like this.

Corporations can buy laws, and thats 'wanted', because what benefits them will create jobs.

NGOs can lobby for laws through mass movements, and thats wanted, because they also keep their hand on the pulse on certain sections of society.

People can exchange politicians, if they are unhappy.

Politicians can chose not to act on coporation or NGO lobbying - if other interests are more pressing.


Lobbying is basically wanted. The excuse is, that 'politicians can't know everything on their own'. So the capital cities where lobbyists meet NGO staffers, meet politicians - serve as a pool to discuss interests.

If you are richer - you get more access. If you, as an NGO, have higher population numbers that you can mobilize you get more access. If you as a politician become corrupt (or too corrupt, some would say) - you get voted off by citizens. In the traditional system - media was also needed for that. 

So the important part is still, that those are different entities. Which are not solely reliant on one of their 'sponsors' but on all of them.

So politicians still have to weigh interests. Even if corporations buy laws.


Corporations usually dont buy laws 'directly'. But indirectly they do. The bigger ones have the money to staff good law people 24/7 near the political headquaters, and they write law proposal texts, and they can signal wishes (see first posting) to politicians, and they can ask favours from a head of state (think Merkel), if they are so big - that they became systemic.

Its all supposed to work, even if politicians arent impartial. Because - if it gets 'too bad for citizens' they get voted off.  The systems actually arent designt for politicians to be all smart - and or angels. 
--

The most problematic, and thereby most interesting aspect of all this I came along, was actually international trade laws and international arbitral tribunals.

Because those are actually extranational entities, that arent bound to national laws - and facilitate in trade disputes.

And there contracts that say "your state has to surrender its independence to an international body" - or "has to follow the suggestions of the 'lender of last resort' - by law" are possible - just so that investors can get their promised return on investment.

So in those cases you can utter 'democracy' 100 times, it wont count. International law values the interests of the investor more. 

You do that - so larger Investors have 'safety' on political or legal stability (which basically should allow them to get their expected return on investment) so that they are wiling to invest at all.



If you want to read up on an ultimately failed example of a corparate state being created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Boys

(That one is actually an important story from many different angles - so get to know it.  )

(Also - CD Projekt Reds next game will be situated in the cyberpunk genre. A form of SciFi, that has thought through many concepts of 'what a corporate state would look like'.  Just as trivia. )


----------



## Xzi (Sep 6, 2019)

notimp said:


> Lobbying is basically wanted. The excuse is, that 'politicians can't know everything on their own'. So the capital cities where lobbyists meet NGO staffers, meet politicians - serve as a pool to discuss interests.


The federal government has open and free access to experts in every field and subject.  Lobbyists are not experts, and their role is not education, it's all about quid pro quo.


----------



## notimp (Sep 6, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The federal government has open and free access to experts in every field and subject.


Correct, and important as well.


> Lobbyists are not experts, and their role is not education, it's all about quid pro quo.



'Education' on their sector. Still. (Where they are seen as experts. Lobbyists are seen as experts, just not as impartial ones.)

Also its really not, that politics is supposed to make informed, impartial decisions all the time.

They are rather supposed to make informed but partial (affected by interest groups) decisions.

The point is that companies writing parts of laws (or entire laws), is actually wanted (shares cost, shares burden of coming up with solutions, "creates jobs"). Politicians are supposed do go over and rewrite, or discard entirely - after consulting independant information, and other interest brokers (f.e. NGOs). Or write their own.

And if they made a corrupt decision - its actually not 'all over', because youd still have - opposing corporations (financing), media, NGOs, ... and so on and so forth.

But lawmaking in itself is actually not supposed to be impartial of lobbying interests.

(There are f.e. several instances, where Merkel intervened directly on behalf of the german car manufacturers and got environmental legislation changed. (There are less high profile channels as well.) And that was done to 'safe jobs'. That was them 'educating' politicians, that 'they'd need it'. In this case - that they wouldnt be able to transition that fast.

And then they had NGOs, and businesses and other interests push back on the 'public opinion' side - and it kind of 'balanced out'. Imperfect - sometimes, yes.. but works..  )
-

(You don't want a system with a single point of failure - where a politician got a law wrong - because f.e. he came up with it all on his own.  Or only listened to one set of experts.)


----------



## RandomUser (Sep 6, 2019)

Captain_N said:


> An episode of black mirror showcased this. When government has control these kind of things will always happen. that's why limited central government is the key to freedom. With more and more of Americans buying into the "Democratic Socialism" BS i fear America will become another large government society that has dumb shit like this. But china is great dont you know. Bernie and his crazy fucks praises governments like china's government.


It wasn't the government controlled it was social media controlled that they showcased. The episode I think you're referring to is "nosedive". As posted previously in this post



Captain_N said:


> If corporations were the government, that would certainly be bad.


That idea took place in a show called Continuum. It a Canadian based show and a good watch if you like watching somewhat futuristic shows. Basically the cooperation is the government, warden, etc.


----------



## notimp (Sep 6, 2019)

Also - the part that buys big corporations laws, mostly - is actually not corruption - but a mixture of access and having staffed offices full of actually more, and sometimes better (legal) experts than politicians have access to - they just arent impartial.

So if an issue arises - proposals on how to solve it get often drafted by them first - will be the first thing politicians see on the matter - and so on and so forth. But the process of deliberating solutions ideally should only start there - an not 'be just that'. 

But again - corporations paying for all of this, is actually wanted. More people thinking about how to solve an issue, more people to throw thoughts back and forth. And if corporate proposal works - 'more jobs'. (In classical economic thinking.. )

If you take Brussels for instance, and you stripp out all the lobbying agencies, half of the city would be empty.  Also you want competition amongst them - which is why Brussels arguably is better than 20 national capitals (interest pools).

But on the flipside - you have less public accountability in Brussels - f.e. because media isn't there in the same way they are in bigger national capitals (playing their 'home markets' (as media)).

edit: This is the documentary to watch on this, if you are interested:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2279313/ (It actually holds the view, that all of this might be bad - but shows the 'ecosystem' )


----------



## notimp (Sep 6, 2019)

And here is how think tanks work. You have a bunch of them. All over the world. Financed, by all kinds of partial interests. You have them go against each other for competition, and then you pick out the best proposal that could work for any given situation. 

To stick with the Europe example, the refugees deal we now have with Turkey - was basically worked out by one such thinktank.

Also there are 'culture institutes' - that are basically political thinktanks, but larger (more established, older, ..) - and attributed to a certain parties interests usually.

So you don't just have 'impartial information services' for politicians, you have those as well. So that would be purely political lobbying in the decision making process. And impartialness also isn't what wins the day here.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 6, 2019)

notimp said:


> They are rather supposed to make informed but partial (affected by interest groups) decisions.


Nonsense.  Several countries have been very successful with outright bans on lobbying.  Lobbyists are a big part of the reason that information on climate change was kept suppressed dating all the way back to the late 70s/early 80s.  Their purpose is increased profits for their respective industries/corporations at _any_ cost, consequences for average citizens be damned.  The type of biased decision-making that you're describing has cost people their lives.


----------



## notimp (Sep 7, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Nonsense. Several countries have been very successful with outright bans on lobbying.


https://www.transparency.org/news/f...for_special_interests_amid_lax_lobbying_rules
In the US there isnt much regulation either.

So which countries standards are we following - where it 'just works' without it. 

Now transparency advocacy still is important - although, seldomly very effective. Journalism here is actually more of a counterbalance. But then those transparency NGOs can feed stuff to journalism, and it can move public opinion.

Also - I personally hold the opinion, that it is an imperfect system as well ('not well balanced') - but it is how its meant to work. 

On the climate legislation point - from the corporations and politics view, it was an externality. Something that simply wasn't that important. And if you look at the US - still isnt. Now was that fair? No. Not at all. Babyboomers had all the cake, and have none of the consequences.

But then you have to remember, that politics usually isn't set up to think in 50-100 years timespans.

Society profited from not caring about the environment as long as they could - being the point.

No one is seriously talking about making the main perpetrators pay (not even politically). So all of it is moral furor - but still not how the system works.  (Also in this case it might be well placed moral furor.  Because it shouldnt have been seen just as an externality.)

edit: Here is the condensed version: Would it be a better system with lobbying 'banned'. Probably. Maybe. Would it be realistic to think that money interests would just lean back and say - well in that case, I guess its just separate from our sphere of influence then. No. So the system is actually designed to bring all parties to the table - even, when influence is always tilted in favor of moneyed interests (more access, more staffers, more perks). But if politicians become too corrupt - people are supposed to vote 'the alternative'.  (To maybe also change the legal ramifications, but then they almost never do..  )


----------



## notimp (Sep 8, 2019)

BBC Documentary (current) on the rise of China, the state sponsored 'disappearances' of booksellers in Hongkong and the Uyghur concentration camps. They have enough footage to make a good case.

China: A New World Order - Season 1 Episode 1
China: A New World Order - Season 1 Episode 2

I'm not opening a separate thread for it, but if you want to broaden your horizon, watch it. 

It also goes into Chinas 'communist party movement against corruption within its party', which - was mostly show - and there to eradicate the remains of the other side of a power struggle when Xi Jinping grabbed power. Anything to get you off of the romantic notion, that corruption is there to be fought and eradicated by 'the good guys'. Not how this works.


----------



## Viri (Sep 17, 2019)

Stop cheating in video games!



Spoiler


----------



## notimp (Jan 14, 2020)

KenzooW said:


> it's actually weird because i'm not sure this will work in the long run. But it's worth a try.


4/5 stars?

(Written with the same enigmatic cadence as an Amazon review.)


----------



## Sergey099 (May 28, 2020)

5 stars


----------



## BlazeMasterBM (Jan 16, 2021)

notimp said:


> Rocket man doesnt matter. Russia doesnt matter (starts to matter more regionally, or started until recent protests). Diplomacy still has them covered.
> 
> Its just the easyness that we go from individual rights (privacy, remember?) to - well, we probably should monior our competition now to retain a good social score - thats actually remarkable.


Unfortunately, Russia may start to matter... let's hope they keep good relations with other powerful countries

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



morvoran said:


> Facebook - Potential and current employers, insurance companies, credit card companies, etc. can and have used people's facebook profiles already to judge them based on the material they post.
> Google/Youtube - Google can add you into their search engine so anybody can type in your name and pull up arrest records, personal blogs, even forum posts on extremist websites.  The videos you share can be used to target you for hate/death threats and can be used to silence you if you do not fit into Google's "preferred speech".
> Twitter - people have been fired or lost job opportunities for posts made years ago.
> 
> ...


Trust me, big tech's "preferred speech" is only going to get so much worse. In a few years, frogposting on a certain forum website will probably have you fired from your job and publicly executed


----------



## notimp (Jan 16, 2021)

BlazeMasterBM said:


> Unfortunately, Russia may start to matter... let's hope they keep good relations with other powerful countries


Thats funny, I just watched a WEF panel, where the moderator told van der Layen - that Merkel calling Putin weekly shouldnt matter as much, and that they should get the frack over it. (being a regional power that is) 

See second to last video in this posting in the strange thread:
https://gbatemp.net/threads/occulti...an-maxwell-the-awakening.580893/#post-9329806

Also russia doesnt have that much soft power (international relations, rubel being an important currency in international trade, .. they are more reliant on the export of natural resources), and its population also ages, so the time to expand territory is now. And they did - in the past four+ years.

Apart from that, they were pretty successful in their proxy wars, and their sphere of influence (aside from 'securing their borders') is north/south - so unless other important players arent increasing pressure...

Northstream 2 still a hot topic though... (Although its being finished by russian contractors, last time I checked.)


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 16, 2021)

The Chinese people could have avoided the Social Credit System, but since they just allowed it to go proceed without taking any action (protests, refuse to comply, unite people as one, etc) it's now part of them.

That said, in the West it's not going to take long either since the people just do as they're told and they think it's for their own good.



People just don't learn from history or care to.


----------

