Citizen scoring.

originally posted by: dreamingawake
Imagine how many people in the US have problems due to credit scoring issues-especially ones that should not be having due to errors, theft of SS numbers and more, a China-like scoring system will make issues even more complicated.

A proper national ID could fix that.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Aazadan

Eff happiness.

So says the person who is obviously not happy, jealous of those who might be, and thinks no one should be happy because it's not important. *snort*

You have to be the most miserable person out there.

You certainly exemplify the socialist saying that it's the equal sharing of misery.

I'm not jealous of happiness. People who are hooked on heroin are happy while shooting up. Happiness is nothing more than something which distracts from accomplishment.

Existence is suffering.

The solution to that isn't to be content with how things are, it's to improve the world until that is no longer true.

originally posted by: dreamingawake
Exactly, look at the bi partisan divide. Imagine being scored lesser on their social score because they are vocal or required to state their voting party.

That's why you look if someone is vocal and votes, not at what they say or how they vote.

a reply to: Aazadan

Without a reason to improve the world, without incentive, you'll find no cooperation or rebellion. The stick is far less effective than the carrot.

You want people to be driven to succeed according to your standards and measures of it because they're forced into it through threat of punishment (the stick), but to what ends?

You would produce a joyless existence full of dread for most people. "It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again ..."

And when people refuse to comply? What then? Are there camps? Or do you simply line them up against a wall for culling?

originally posted by: ketsuko
Without a reason to improve the world, without incentive, you'll find no cooperation or rebellion. The stick is far less effective than the carrot.

I included an incentive, if you score in the top half of people you pay fewer to no taxes, bottom half you pay more.

And when people refuse to comply? What then? Are there camps? Or do you simply line them up against a wall for culling?

They pay more in taxes and support those who do.

a reply to: Aazadan

Ah, but the people in the bottom are already going to be non-producers anyhow.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Aazadan

Ah, but the people in the bottom are already going to be non-producers anyhow.

Not really. I don't think money has any bearing on if someone is a good person or not. So it should be an equal distribution.

If you want to live with every facet of your life out in public then piss off to China where this is becoming a real thing, we don't need social credit scores we definitely do not need everything we do and associate with to be known by everyone.

We don't need more societal controls or restrictions, this isn't the middle east or some communist dictatorship.

This is a f***ing terrible idea......

a reply to: mikescort

Then how do you propose creating a system that stops societal decay? You can't leave it only up to individual drive, because that's precisely what is leading to decay in the first place.

a reply to: Aazadan

Not with a massively authoritarian system as you propose.

Short term finances (access to sufficient liquid assets for emergency spending) - Great if you're well off but what about the majority of families that live paycheck to paycheck, you are going to penalise them?

Long term finances (investments, retirement plans, etc) - Again see above

Debt (at "healthy" levels, growing/shrinking as percent of income each year - Again see above

Home affordability (not over spending on housing) - Nice if you have that luxury but again most families can only live where they can afford. where I live average rent is approx. 60% of average income

Transportation access (able to travel, get to work, etc, without over spending) - If you don't have a drivers licence you will be penalised, if you bus/train fares are ridiculously expensive which is out of personal control, you get penalised

Physical fitness (gym membership that gets used, some sort of documented regular physical activity, physicians notes) - Don't need a social score for this, need to stop calling it Fat shaming and society will let these people know they are unhealthy, also with that it is a personal choice.

Health responsibility (smoking status, drug free, alcohol free, health insurance, etc) - Again these are personal choices, this just removes peoples freedom to do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt others.

Formal education (high school, college, etc... from accredited universities, not alternative explanations to physics from youtube) - Up to college I agree but further education is not for everyone, there aren't the jobs out there for everyone to go to Uni and it be a good financial choice, only the smartest should go to higher education and I believe this should be paid for by an employer after a little time in a work placement.
Education level should have no relation to a 'societal score'

Official online presence (giving up your online anonymity) - Why??

Political engagement (voting in each election) - Does it matter who you vote for? what if someone voted for an unfavourable candidate or party?

Charitable contributions (as percent of disposable income) - Why should I be penalised for not giving away the money I have earned?

Volunteering (x hours of community service per year) - So if I don't want to give up what little spare time I have I get a lower score, sounds fair......

Responsible reproduction (not having more children than you can afford) - Kinda agree people should be more responsible but this can be accomplished already with welfare reform better sex ed and more emphasis on the family unit.

Family units (not a single parent household) - How exactly, all we can do is educate on the pros of a strong family unit. How do you propose you tax a single mum with 4 kids and no income?

Criminal record (obvious) - We have prison/jail/community orders for this, If they have a criminal record then hopefully they have already paid their debt to society and penalising them further is just #ty.

Multilingual (knowing more languages) - How does this make you a better person? personally I think if you are moving to another country or living/working for any extended period you should be learning the local language anyway. Generally if you can speak more languages you will get paid better or have more opportunities available to you



What are you talking about 'societal decay' please explain.

Who is going to decide what is good or bad for society?

Who is going to keep the scores?

Who decides who is putting in effort to better themselves?

What happens when people sabotage others scores?

If you are at the bottom of the rankings but have no income how do you pay the tax?

Seriously it's a terrible idea sorry

a reply to: Aazadan

When I was at school a similar system was in use. You got stars for good work and punishment for bad behaviour. I was always getting punished. Incentives/disincentives don’t work for some people, there are plenty of incentives out there already. Some of us are non conformists, we have different ideas about what we value and want out of life, on top of that nobody can agree on what’s best for society as a whole.

All the laws, regulations, rules and codes of conduct we already have are constantly being broken, bent, manipulated and otherwise stymied so people can achieve their goals or get one up on others. You want to fix society, you need to start with what people really value and provide a means for them to achieve it, without wronging others.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
You want to fix society, you need to start with what people really value and provide a means for them to achieve it, without wronging others.

That's precisely what this would do. It gives each person an incentive to adhere to societies values.

originally posted by: mikescort
Short term finances (access to sufficient liquid assets for emergency spending) - Great if you're well off but what about the majority of families that live paycheck to paycheck, you are going to penalise them?

Yes. Even many well off families live paycheck to paycheck. 2/3 of the professional class in the US makes at least $100,000 per year, yet half of them don't have access to an emergency $500 in cash.

Long term finances (investments, retirement plans, etc) - Again see above

Many more poor people would have long term financial holdings if the safety nets in the US didn't encourage financial irresponsibility. Food stamps, disability, welfare, etc require that one has below a couple hundred dollars in total assets. With so many of the poor on one or multiple programs that require this, it essentially means that the poor must give up proper financial planning in order to meet their day to day needs.

This is wrong and needs overhauled.

Most people, if given the opportunity to actually invest in their futures would do so. Especially when you can phrase it in such a way as, "invest X, or we'll tax you X". One results in losing the money, and the other results in growing it.

Debt (at "healthy" levels, growing/shrinking as percent of income each year - Again see above

People do not respond to interest rates, and when good lenders get more strict, people go to more risky lenders. As a society we can address some of this by legislating away predatory businesses like pawn shops and payday loans. But, at the end of the day it's up to the consumer to make the choice to not borrow money at high rates.

Being poor is expensive, I've been there. But, one contributor to being poor is the financial traps out there who prey on people who aren't good with money. Access to debt is one such thing.

Home affordability (not over spending on housing) - Nice if you have that luxury but again most families can only live where they can afford. where I live average rent is approx. 60% of average income

Then you're paying too much. A monthly rent payment should be no more than 18% of after tax income. If rent is 60% of average income, that means you haven't worked hard enough to get a better paying job, and that you should have the fortitude to go without housing until you're in a position to actually afford it. This would in turn result in reducing rent prices. Renters need additional incentives to actually use their ability to say no.

Transportation access (able to travel, get to work, etc, without over spending) - If you don't have a drivers licence you will be penalised, if you bus/train fares are ridiculously expensive which is out of personal control, you get penalised

Transportation is supposed to be 8% of income. Ideally less. That's your car payment, gas, maintenance, parking fees, and public transit. So all together that means your car payment should be around 4% of income. If it's not, then you should be improving your earnings potential and not settling for whatever job comes along that doesn't enable that.

Physical fitness (gym membership that gets used, some sort of documented regular physical activity, physicians notes) - Don't need a social score for this, need to stop calling it Fat shaming and society will let these people know they are unhealthy, also with that it is a personal choice.

Health care is a communal cost, it doesn't matter what system you use. It's either on the government books, or it's factored into your insurance risk pool. Unhealthy lifestyles cost everyone more money.

Health responsibility (smoking status, drug free, alcohol free, health insurance, etc) - Again these are personal choices, this just removes peoples freedom to do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt others.

People who drink, smoke pot, or smoke cigarettes are worse than people who don't. If you want society to be better, then you should remove vices from society. Prohibition failed, it proved you can't go after the providers of a vice, therefore, you need to go after those who participate in it.

Formal education (high school, college, etc... from accredited universities, not alternative explanations to physics from youtube) - Up to college I agree but further education is not for everyone, there aren't the jobs out there for everyone to go to Uni and it be a good financial choice, only the smartest should go to higher education and I believe this should be paid for by an employer after a little time in a work placement.
Education level should have no relation to a 'societal score'

You are confusing job skills with education. They are not the same thing. Furthermore, education does not ask much from a person. All a phd asks is that after 20+ years of education you can come up with and explain a single original thought.

Official online presence (giving up your online anonymity) - Why??

Because anonymous groups promote radicalization. When people aren't anonymous, they have more moderated ideas and are more prone to working through a problem using an official process.

Political engagement (voting in each election) - Does it matter who you vote for? what if someone voted for an unfavourable candidate or party?

What if they do? Who cares.

Charitable contributions (as percent of disposable income) - Why should I be penalised for not giving away the money I have earned?

Because having empathy and helping others is part of being a good person. Society is better when people help each other than when they don't.

Volunteering (x hours of community service per year) - So if I don't want to give up what little spare time I have I get a lower score, sounds fair......

See above. Your time is not yours. It belongs to society. Your job is to advance it.

Family units (not a single parent household) - How exactly, all we can do is educate on the pros of a strong family unit. How do you propose you tax a single mum with 4 kids and no income?

Cashless society. Make it impossible to work under the table. And then you tax her. If she has no income, then that means she has no job, which means she should have plenty of time to work on improving herself until she can afford those children. If she can't pay the tax, then make her family pick up the burden.

Criminal record (obvious) - We have prison/jail/community orders for this, If they have a criminal record then hopefully they have already paid their debt to society and penalising them further is just #ty.

I would want some sort of system where all crimes are treated as felonies are now. They follow you forever. However, I would also like to see a better process for expungement as the final step to eliminate a crime. After which, it's like it never happened.

Multilingual (knowing more languages) - How does this make you a better person?

A person who speaks multiple languages is superior in that aspect to a person who speaks only one.

a reply to: theatreboy

Bull#. None of that is true about succeeding in our "capitalistic" system what so ever. Do you even exist on the same planet with the rest of us? I mean a casual glance shows how much BS that is.

a reply to: Aazadan

No it’s just more rules and regulations, that’s not an incentive. Neither are financial rewards for certain behaviour that some would feel abhorrent. I was hinting at freedom and liberty. The opposite of what you’re proposing.
I appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to this thread, but you need to understand human nature better, what drives us and re think your ideas.

a reply to: surfer_soul

Freedom and liberty don't inspire enough people to greatness to create informed electorates and highly skilled work forces. Just take one look at our current job sector. Employers literally cannot find people qualified for the jobs they need. We're not suffering a brain drain, the skilled are not fleeing the country. We're just not pumping out enough skilled people anymore.

The median wage is barely above minimum wage, while 2/3 of professionals are over 6 figures. The middle range is quickly disappearing.

Look like scoring is being implemented with Apple. So far,
"Apple is secretly giving people 'trust scores' based on their iPhone data "

Apple has quietly introduced "trust scores" for people based on how they use their iPhones and other devices.


The tech giant, which last month became the first public company to be worth more than $1 trillion (£757bn), said in an update to its privacy policy that the scores would be determined by tracking the calls and emails made on Apple devices.

Continued...

The vagueness of the language used in the update, however, means it could be interpreted in a broad and potentially invasive way. It is also unusual that it is applied to Apple TVs, which are unable to make or receive emails or phone calls.

Source

Thoughts?

originally posted by: Aazadan
As I'm sure most are aware, China has been working on implementing a citizen scoring system. They're still tinkering with the criteria and exact scoring mechanisms but the general idea is that people who score higher, being better citizens according to the state, are afforded greater social freedoms. In the Chinese system some of the privileges that can either be given or taken away are public transit access, internet speed, school choice, job qualifications, and public shaming/recognition.

This system is getting a lot of criticism from freedom advocates, but I think that has more to do with the results, than the process itself.

The truth is, I think a system like this would be fantastic in the US as a way to encourage competitiveness among the population and force people to be better.

The truth is, I'm not surprised that someone would think dictatorship is the path to utopia. It's an old (and unpopular) idea (especially among those most likely to end up with their head under a boot in a dictatorship). Also not too surprising that China has gone from the frying pan into the fire from communism to this garbage.

I'm frankly pleased that I only buy what I need and do my best not to buy made in China garbage. Obviously, you can't avoid it entirely (many would if they could).

Oh, I would be a very low rated citizen in China. I would probably be forbidden to post about how unhappy I was with the way things are there. I guess that's the idea, huh?

No star, no flag. Bad boy! Fortunately it won't cost you anything but your pride here.

originally posted by: mikescort
If you want to live with every facet of your life out in public then piss off to China where this is becoming a real thing, we don't need social credit scores we definitely do not need everything we do and associate with to be known by everyone.

I happen to agree with you and I have a feeling many people do. The problem is that most of them do not practice what they preach. They will say this is a terrible idea and then they'll log into Facebook. Which is probably where this idea came from to begin with.

People who disagree with this kind of nonsense should leave platforms like Facebook and never return there and take every opportunity to tell other people why. I practice what I preach. I have never had a Facebook account or a Twitter account. As close as I get is forums like this one. And really, the whole rating thing here (while fun) is kind of distasteful.