It's remarkable how someone living in 2019 still finds grounds to complain about stiffing political correctness.
>After Mr Miller questioned why the complainant was being described as a “victim” if no crime had been committed, the officer told him: “We need to check your thinking”.
I guess technologists don't want to see the future they're creating, and would rather just come up with tactics that barely defend against the surveillance we have now.
> The social credit system is used to punish citizens for bad behavior with numerous blacklists preventing them from traveling, getting loans or jobs, or staying in hotels, and even by limiting internet access.
https://www.businessinsider.com/china-social-credit-system-b...
Maybe people find it hard to believe these will be implemented in western countries?
AirBnB seeks out and blocks people going to the American Renaissance conference https://gizmodo.com/airbnb-doesnt-want-extremists-on-its-pla...
Credit cards cancel payments to "hate" groups https://nypost.com/2017/08/16/credit-cards-are-clamping-down...
These are all political censorship against people or groups that aren't doing anything illegal, and the standards are applied differently based on ideology rather than any objective standard.
That's the one that bothers me, as there is hardly ant competition possible in the security checks business.
Airbnb, banks.. all it takes is some open minded provider to make those political police institution to loose ground. Although its matter a time before open minded providers also get pressured to police their customers.
I don’t agree with the downvoters at all, but I think it’s fairly obvious why he’s being downvoted: either folks think he’s wrong that such a thing is possible, or folks think he’s right but don’t care (i.e., they think that the society he describes is desirable, or at worst neutral).
I don’t think that his described society is impossible, and indeed we already see a slow, less-regimented version of that playing out.
I cannot emotionally understand someone who would find such a society desirable, but intellectually it kind of makes sense: one needs to be just authoritarian enough to want to control non-violent behaviour, while just naïve enough not to realise that there are aspects of one’s own behaviour which would be controlled, too (i.e., every one of us disagrees with the majority on at least one or two items).