this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2026
664 points (85.9% liked)
Memes
54920 readers
515 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Here's some comparison:
The existence of this infamous app should be easy to prove. I have never seen anything but armchair reddit-tier experts making bold claims about.
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.
This comparison mixes a few real policies with a lot of exaggeration. For example, the train and flight issue people always bring up is not about having a vague “bad social credit score.” What actually exists is a court enforcement measure. If someone refuses to comply with an effective court judgment (most commonly paying a debt or damages) the court can place them on the judgment-defaulter list (失信被执行人) and issue a high-consumption restriction (限制高消费). That mainly blocks luxury consumption like flights, first-class rail seats, and luxury hotels until the court order is fulfilled. The purpose is simply to pressure people to comply with the judgment and protect the creditor’s rights (why should sleazy business people who don't pay their debts get to live lavishly).
Because of that, the claim that “if you have bad social credit you’re basically locked out of everything” is misleading. These restrictions target specific high-end consumption, not normal daily life. Even Chinese legal explanations make clear that they are meant to restrict non-essential spending such as flying, luxury hotels, expensive travel, etc., rather than basic living or ordinary transportation.
The surveillance point is also mixing separate issues. China does have strong state monitoring powers and extensive digital infrastructure, but that is not what the court enforcement blacklist system is. The travel restrictions and blacklists people talk about come from civil enforcement procedures in the courts, not from scanning someone’s phone or some universal personal “score.”
The same confusion shows up in the company data point. China has strict data and cybersecurity laws, but those are regulatory and national security frameworks. They are not the mechanism that puts someone on the judgment-defaulter list. That list exists specifically because someone ignored a legally binding court ruling, not because they refused to hand over corporate data.
And the idea that there is some nationwide app warning citizens about people with low “social credit” is another exaggeration. What actually exists are court databases of judgment defaulters, sometimes publicly searchable, similar to debtor registries in many legal systems. Again, the target is people who lost a case and then refused to comply with the ruling.
So the reality is much more mundane than the viral version. China absolutely has strong enforcement tools, but the famous travel bans people cite are mainly a judicial enforcement mechanism against people who refuse to comply with court judgments, not a universal social-credit score controlling everyone’s daily life.
Thanks for your post, your explanations are appreciated!
Don't answer if annoying, sorry for rudeness, but do Chinese high-level officials openly live lavishly and flaunt their wealth like US leadership?
How many Chinese high-level officials have you seen on yachts?
The real leadership in the US isn’t the politicians; it’s the capitalists who own them.
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?
The Xu Xiaodong case actually illustrates the exact point I was making. He wasn’t punished for “criticizing kung fu masters” or for having the wrong opinions. What happened is that he lost a defamation lawsuit and the court ordered him to apologize and pay damages. He refused to comply with the ruling, and because of that he was placed on the judgment-defaulter list (失信被执行人). Chinese reporting describes the reason as “有履行能力而拒不履行生效法律文书确定义务”, having the ability to comply with a court judgment but refusing to do so. Once someone is on that list, courts can impose high-consumption restrictions (限制高消费), which include things like flights, certain high-speed rail tickets, and luxury hotels until the judgment is fulfilled. In other words, the trigger was refusing to carry out a court order, not some general punishment for speech.
On the data issue, you’re citing reports from Western government-linked think tanks and security NGOs, which obviously approach the topic from a national security perspective. China’s cybersecurity and data laws (like the Cybersecurity Law and Data Security Law) exist because the state wants control over critical data flows, infrastructure security, and cross-border data transfer. That approach isn’t unique in principle; governments everywhere are tightening control over data because it has become a strategic resource. But those laws are regulatory frameworks about data governance, not mechanisms that automatically “ruin someone’s social credit.” The think-tank papers you cited are describing geopolitical risk concerns, not explaining how the Chinese court enforcement system actually works.
On the app point, what the BBC article referred to were tools connected to the court defaulter database, sometimes nicknamed things like a “laolai map.” That’s basically a searchable database of people who have lost a case and then refused to comply with the judgment, which courts use to pressure them to comply. Many countries have debtor registries or public enforcement records; the difference here is mostly presentation. Western coverage often framed it as part of a sinister “social credit” ecosystem when in reality it was tied to a specific court enforcement list, not a universal citizen score. It's good to have a database of those who have defrauded people. And to be honest, the BBC has a long history of framing Chinese policy in a particular narrative, so it’s not surprising that nuance tends to disappear.
The reality is that some of these mechanisms absolutely exist, but how they work, who they apply to, and what they actually do is often somewhere between heavy exaggeration and outright fantasy in viral discussions. What exists in practice is a mixture of court enforcement lists, regulatory blacklists, and sector-specific compliance systems. Turning that into a story about every citizen having a constantly changing “social credit score” controlling their life is a much simpler narrative, but it’s not how the underlying policies are actually structured.
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?
On the property point, it’s the same principle as the other restrictions. When someone refuses to comply with a court judgment and is placed under high-consumption restrictions (限制高消费), the court can restrict certain forms of luxury spending, which can include purchasing additional real estate or carrying out non-essential renovations until the debt or judgment is fulfilled. The idea is that if someone owes money according to a court ruling, they should not be spending large amounts on luxury consumption before complying. Existing property is not automatically taken just because someone is on the list, although assets can be enforced as part of normal debt collection(just as in every other country).
As for Xu Xiaodong’s accounts being wiped, that situation was tied to the series of lawsuits and disputes he became involved in, along with platform moderation rules. That falls under content moderation and legal disputes on private platforms, not the court enforcement mechanism we were discussing earlier.
The blocked-website lists you see online are a very mixed bag. Some sites are inaccessible because of political or regulatory issues, but many cases come down to compliance requirements, such as rules around data protection, licensing, and the requirement for companies handling Chinese user data to host or manage that data within China’s regulatory framework. When companies choose not to comply with those requirements, their services often simply do not operate in the mainland market.
And that meme about texting someone “Tiananmen 1989” to get them arrested is honestly pretty ugly. It basically jokes about condemning random Chinese people to some vague punishment for the sake of a punchline, which is a pretty dehumanizing way to talk about an entire population. Fortunately it’s also just a meme, sending a phrase like that to someone does not magically cut their internet or get them arrested.
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 meant that internet content in China is governed by formal laws and regulations, mainly enforced by the Cyberspace Administration of China (国家网信办) and related regulators. Chinese rules such as the 《网络信息内容生态治理规定》 classify online information and require platforms to prohibit illegal content and prevent harmful content, including material that endangers national security, spreads rumors that disrupt social order, promotes extremism or violence, or infringes on others’ rights. Platforms are legally required to monitor and remove such content and regulators can order services restricted or removed if they violate these rules.
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?
Most of the platforms you listed are "banned" largely a result of regulatory and data-governance issues. China requires internet services operating in the mainland market to comply with domestic regulations covering data protection, content management, and licensing, which generally includes managing Chinese user data within the Chinese regulatory framework and cooperating with local oversight. Many large foreign platforms chose not to operate under those requirements, so their services were never integrated into the mainland internet environment.
As for Reuters they aren't banned per say they simply haven't obtained the licences required to operate in the mainland (to my knowledge).
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).
The consequences for what you're calling "social credit score" in China is actually court orders issued on a case by case basis, not some automatic/bureaucrat-run all-encompassing system based on rating each citizen. I.e. it's not a social score system.
Do you have sources for any of these claims?
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.
Your main source is ASPI, a far right war-hawk australian defense industry think tank.
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.
I am once again begging liberals to learn how sources work
You've got nothing and you know it
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.
Cheap sarcasm won’t bolster your case.
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?
You understand that assertions are neither arguments nor evidence, even when they’re delivered sarcastically, right?
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.
This conversation is buried deep below the fold in a two day old post, so I’ll be brief. I don’t have the time or energy to look into this martial artist.
No one will deny that China has censorship. We do as well, but it’s more subtle, covert, informal, and sophisticated, which Michael Parenti and Noam Chomsky have explained in great detail. China’s censorship is largely out in the open. It’s made clear where the lines are. The press freedom in bourgeois democracies, A.K.A. social democracies, is the freedom of the media owned by the capitalist class and by the government, a government which is run by the capitalist class.
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"?
Yes, the compensation for civil servants is public information. Am I supposed to do your basic research for you?
President Xi's official monthly salary was approximated around ¥11,000–12,000 RMB (~$1,500 USD), based on extrapolation from China's civil service pay scale for national-level officials. "级差八九百，国家主席月薪大概1万多". This reporting however dates to 2014 and explicitly frames the figure as an estimate, not an official disclosure. China does not routinely publish itemized, real-time compensation statements for top leaders on public government portals.
As with other senior leaders, the role includes regulated, position-based benefits to support official duties: an official residence in Zhongnanhai, access to designated medical facilities for senior cadres, official vehicles and so on.
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?
You do know that social credit shit has been proven to be a lie, right?