[clouddrover]

> I'm glad she "married for love", but I don't see why it would be relevant

They're just making the point that she didn't marry him for his social credit score, even though he happens to have a high score under the system.

To quote the article immediately prior to that section:

"Who your friends and family are will affect your score. If your best friend or your dad says something negative about the government, you’ll lose points too. Who you date and ultimately partner with will also affect social credit."

It seems like your social credit score is positioned as your key to happiness. Better not get a bad one or associate with anyone who did. Better not wreck your child's future by saying something bad about the government.

[bopbop]

>They're just making the point that she didn't marry him for his social credit score, even though he happens to have a high score under the system.

Yes, that makes sense. I still hold that the deliberate omission of her party relationship until later in the article is to initially position her as a third party positive voice who happens to support the system.

And yes, the network affects are particularly awful.