Every country uses their advantages, but I think you've painted a false equivalence here. Your comment won't get you a reduced Social Credit System score. Nobody's going to come knocking on your door. You can post critiques of Britain, US, EU etc but you'll still be unjailed and alive in the morning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System

I think the point is that China is exploiting the same system that other countries created and started exploiting prior, but it is doing so on a larger scale and to a more obvious degree than the others. That is to say, yes, it's a problem, but let's take a look at all the other instances of this type of behavior, so we can work toward a general solution, rather than just saying 'fuck china!'.

That system is a bit more complex than one would perceive.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/11/16/chinas-orwellian-social...

It will. There's no false equivalence.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/surveillance-te...

But to the broader point: my comment was about much more than social scoring systems.

I wouldn’t be so sure about that,

> One of the few things known about the Kill List is that it’s compiled in part by algorithm.

> In 2014, former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden said in a public debate, “We kill people based on metadata.”

> According to multiple reports and leaks, death-by-metadata could be triggered, without even knowing the target’s name, if too many derogatory checks appear on their profile. “Armed military aged males” exhibiting suspicious behavior in the wrong place can become targets, as can someone “seen to be giving out orders.” Such mathematics-based assassinations have come to be known as “signature strikes.”

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/how-...

You seem to be suggesting that the Chinese should be excused for such attacks because the British somehow helped them establish a propaganda program or that that they should be excused because Poland dismissed it's supreme court.

Do you not believe that any state sponsored attack on a non-state entity is inappropriate, or only those conducted by "the West"?

Can you explain how the op is suggesting that?

From my reading, it seems OP is saying that these types of articles need to include the broader context if they're to do any good in educating their readers on the issue at hand.

No context interpretation: 'China is the devil we need to stop!'

With context: 'China is one of the devils we need to stop!' (natural follow up: What is the common source of these devils?)

Common theme: Preventing future crime.

I think that is wrong. Personally. People should be judged for their past, not their future.

I don't think this is quite "whataboutism" (and no, that's not what you said, either), but if I were to speculate about your parent post's intent, it looks like they're suggesting that many more governments than the Chinese are doing this sort of thing, and any solution to this class of problem needs to take in the larger landscape.

As the author of the above comment, yes confirmed that is how I intended it.

No, I don't think this understands my comment.

"Chinese hackers aren't "Us versus Them". The British _helped_ the Chinese establish a modern propaganda program over the past decade. Where are the British in this article?"

Can you point us to some articles about this? I've never heard of this. It's fascinating!

Looking for them.

I got this from following reports and dialogues from American Think Tanks (primarily the Center for Strategic and International Studies). Essentially over the past decade there's been fairly regular dialogue between the British government and China regarding online, radio and publication public engagement.

There's been some British universities, thinktanks and others "accused" of helping China (e.g. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/westminster-and-kings-acc...) but from strategy side of the house (at least at CSIS, which is American) there hasn't been a lot of angst or fretting over it. I'll look for some specific CSIS reports.

>The United States has a threat scoring system automatically scoring political, social, economic, and other "risk" data into municipal police departments so that these people can be monitored and managed without a warrant.

This wouldn't be surprising if true, but do you have a source to verify this claim?

Here are some articles to get you started.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/surveillance-te...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/1209...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/the-new-w...

National data from intelligence agencies are provided to municipal police through "fusion centers". Different cities provide their own data into these centers (e.g. Seattle recently built and tore down a city-wide camera surveillance system) which are consumed in the other direction. Threat scoring software use various data feeds including those from social media platforms.

I agree, but at the bottom of the article it states that the article is an excerpt from a book about the great firewall. From this context, I can understand the scope of the article. An article centered around your statements here would be interesting to read.

New technique:

Spot articles mentioning China's bad behavior before they get comments.

- Write a comment about how the very top comments will be blatant whataboutism/otherwise pointing out that ... "other people do X too!"

- Encrypt and publish the comment.

- Wait.

- Publish the key.

- Look like a time traveler.