JojoWakaki

Yeah could you, since you have found it. I haven’t, clearly my basic research ability is lacking. Can you point me where the salary of public servant is public including the premier’s and validated by a neutral body?

What are we arguing about then? I thought the argument is about one being better than other to which I disagree. Just because the censorship is transparent (which is another point of contention) doesn’t make the censorship ok and the censoring body “not authoritarian”. Bias exists, everybody is biased, it is very hard to be unbiased unless one grows up in a vacuum, even then it’s not a given. I think it’s harmful if the bias is hidden or if certain biases are censored, that is a mark of authoritarian government. If a government can covertly, subtly, informally, and sophisticated-ly censor parts of the narrative, cherry pick theirs and declare what can or cannot be published, I see that as a clear authoritarian government. This can make it that one person can rule for ever and any body that even questions this, can be made illegal and censored in the name of peace and harmony. If that is not authoritarian/dictatorship, then I don’t know what is. I am not claiming the freedom of media owned by government owned by capitalist class is press freedom. But you have to believe there are press media that is netural, and some countries that thrive to have a netural press which has transparent press donations and funding which is used to judge how neutral or bias is the press. One example being Reporters sans forntiers who carry out this investigation and rankings.

On the note about government run by a capitalist class, what would you estimate the premier of China (Xi Jinping’s) monthly salary and net worth is? How much would that be compared to minimum wage. Is it transparent? Are there any country that you can just call somewhere (e.g. tax office) and ask a public figure’s salary and net worth and they would tell you. I assume in an ideal system this would be possible and not censored, you’d be able to see which of the politicians profited from “playing the stock market”?

I agree with that statement. So what would be evidence?

Here’s my anecdote, which is not evidence by any means and you don’t need to believe it. I practiced wushu when I was growing up and was always interested in different martial arts. I understand some are more practical than others but I have always been keen about how the top practitioners from each martial arts would perform against others. One of the examples was Xu Xiadong, who was a mid tier mixed martial artists went around beating masters of kungfu and even offered money if they could beat him. To which many accepted the challenge, of course he won all of them. So he was hit with defamation from what I understand for defaming the masters and showing the culture in wrong light. We can argue with the verdict. But either way he was to pay a fine and to apologize, which he did. He was also ordered to not demean chinese martial arts again, which he didn’t comply, so he lost social credit for not complying with the court. He was still challenging masters but he was not allowed to compete with his name and had to put clown makeup to compete. And to get to his fights, he couldn’t take fast trains or plane, he couldn’t rent hotels, houses or buy property, because he lost social credit. Again this is not evidence, it’s my anecdote, I could have pulled this out from my ass.

Now what is evidence? News? [1] [2]. Or his interviews e.g. [1]? But maybe he just an actor because there are no official chinese government news sources that have reported this? What about the articles about an app which would show if there are any people in debt around you? The app created by the government and tested in Heinan province [BBC], is that evidence or probably just propaganda or just assertions?

And about censorship in china, what is evidence?

I am not here to say american system is better. In fact it sucks. But this doesn’t mean chinese system is better, I think it sucks too. I think it’s an example of authoritarian regime who can dictate what is fake news and ban the said fake new, about the same Trump is trying to do now, what russians have been doing all long. I am not from USA and don’t live there, I am from a social democratic country and we had the youngest PM (also SD). We also have one of the best press freedom in the world, not the best but top 5. China is one of the worst only better than North Korea and Eritrea. If there is no freedom of press, it’s probably an authoritarian country. Again you could say the press freedom index is a propaganda against china, as no chinese state sanctioned media has reported that they are not free.

I would like to point out Jimmy Kimmel who made joke about charlie krik and got fired. Thankfully people from both left and right came together to make that unhappen, because that would be against press freedom. Now imagine what would happen if you did that in Russia, China, Eritrea or North Korea.

P.S. Marxist internet Archive is also one of the blocked websites in china. And I know I am not making a good case of ‘not being banned in here, but whatever’, at least I feel i have tried to have honest discussion.

Interesting, you recognize it as sarcasm. Curious to why you think this is sarcasm, if none of it is true? Isn’t that a conundrum?

I concede. There is no social credit, people not being allowed to travel in trains, rent or buy property, get government appointment is a myth. The Chinese government cannot compel any company to handover data. There is no censorship on china, no websites are banned there. You can criticize the government as much as you want without repercussions. People from Tibet have equal rights and citizenship of China. Ughyurs are not being oppressed, neither are the fallongongs who are just a cult

If anybody believes otherwise, it’s a hoax by the west.

And your source is mintpressnews.

Also it’s not my main source. You just cherry picked one. Ok sure mybad on that, lets diregard that one. What about CIS, DHS, and NCSC?

Also BBC. Let’s also add wikipedia [1] [2] because why not.

And do we want to talk about censorship? Sounds like something an authoritarian regime does.

That is interesting reason. From what I read, Reuters were just banned and they inquired to the Cyberspace Administration (CAC), they didn’t get any response. If this is to believed to be true then Reuters weren’t notified about needing a license and suddenly blocked and nobody responded when they inquired why were they blocked. And this was in 2015, is there a reason Reuters haven’t managed to obtain such license yet, as according to them 13% of their revenue is from Asia and I assume china was a big part of it.

Also I was unaware news agency needs license to operate in countries. Again apologies if I sound ignorant, but I can’t read chinese and I assume a lot of these information are only covered by chinese news agencies on why were each of those services banned which includes duckduckgo (a search engine) and internet archive (archive.org). I would appreciate if you have any links or sources which cites reason of banns or any news coverage e.g. by licensed chinese news media (I can translate).

Thank you for the reply. I do find it strange that certain things blocked puzzling. Such as google, youtube, reddit, crunchyroll, hbo. The one I find the most puzzling is reuters, from what I understand are one of the most independent news reporting institute. I don’t claim to know much but from what I read the reason cited is ‘criticism of communist party leaders’. Is it illegal, to criticize leaders in China? I assume there is more to this right?

Thank you for taking time to answer.

One additional question; what do you mean by political or regulatory issue? You mean that is a grounds for something to be banned? Also who dictates that certain thing is ban-able from political or regulatory issue and what is the threshold?

I put some links in the comments below. But most of the ‘information’ I have is from news and documentaries about Xu Xiaodong. You can check the wikpeida article, but it’s just wikpedia.

I also know of someone who went to tibet as a tourist through Nepal. Their phone had to be surrendered for thorough checking, they apparently painstakingly checked all images. I don’t expect anybody to believe this as I can’t provide proof that it did happen.

I see, that was the result of not following court orders. So not complying with court orders will prevent you from these things (flights, high speed rail tickets, and luxury hotels?). Some institutes also report rent or purchase property, are those also restricted when you don’t comply with court order? What if you already own property? I am only asking to know.

I guess this questions are more about authoritarian rather than soical credits. How about xiaodong’s account being wiped 9 times was it (?) for having a viewpoint against the government. Is that somehow illegal and hence banned?

And about censorship. Wikipedia has a list of things that is banned from china including the marxist internet archive and Kanzhongguo, how much of that is true?

There is also one funny things that maybe you can shed some light on. There was this joke that if you get spam call from china, you can text them “Tiananmen Square and June 4, 1989 (1989年6月天安门广场屠杀)” or something about Taiwan being a country and their internet will be cut and they will be arrest or something x’D. I suppose it’s only a meme but is there some truth to it, memes do come from somewhere right?

I agree, and I would really want to know. The only “news” I found is the tests from Heinan province in 2019 but I couldn’t find anything after that. But testing of this system (introduced by the government), where you can see and report debtors itself feels quite scary and authoritarian to me.

Ahh I see. I read about and watched few documentaries about Xu Xiadong who criticized kungfu masters and lost social credit (among other things) and couldn’t rent, own property, stay in certain hotels, travel on high speed rail, or buy plane tickets. I guess that was not true then.

The bit about data handover. I guess the center for internet security is misinformed so is the australian strategic policy institute, department of homeland security, and NCSC.

About the app, BBC is probably where it comes from, it’s more for debtors and not with people with bad social credit but I suppose there is an overlap. So this didn’t make it pass the trial phase?

Here’s some comparison:

• In both USA and china you can’t buy a ticket to a fast train if you’re credit score is bad. In china there is direct ban, in USA there is no fast Train.
• In china, this also applies to flight tickets. Basically if you have bad social credit, you are kinda fucked in almost anything in china including apointment to government services. USA it’s mostly tied to taking new loans or getting a new house or renting an apartment (?). Does not have actual effect on your ability to purchase flight tickets.
• In China they can check your phone (for images) and your online activity is quite accessible to the government. The checks can happen not only in international borders but also in inter regional borders. In USA, i know it’s a thing for foreigners during entrance to USA, not sure how is it for the citizens.
• In China you have to give away all your data (as a company), regardless of where that data is stored, if the government or the communist party requests it. They are technically different entities but practically the same entity. Failure to do so will fuck up your social credit. In USA you also have to hand over all your data (as a company) if the government asks regardless of where it is stored (since the CLOUD act), but hey at least you’re not handing over to the commies and it will probably not have any effect on your credit score.
• In china there is an app that notifies people of other people with poor social credit so they can generally avoid them. USA hasn’t invented that YET, although people from other political party are usually considered subhuman and beneath themselves and someone is [probably] looking [to develop an app so they can actively avoid people supporting the other political party].