[ryandrake]

"Consequences and reputations stemming from one's actions" isn't necessarily draconian social scoring. Without a structure for imposing consequences on wrongdoers, we're not a society, we're just monkeys flinging poo at each other.

[blackqueeriroh]

The problem is that everyone imagines some sort of just and fair arbiter of these things, when the reality is all of the social scoring and consequences and reputations rarely actually stem from one’s actions, and far more often stem from how much money someone has put in someone’s pocket, who someone knows, the color of someone’s skin, or what’s between someone’s legs.

Until we’re actually serious about treating people equitably, (not equally, as that would simply leave the lopsided power structure we have in place) we aren’t getting out of this.

[somenameforme]

I don't understand the desire to argue against this in identity politics terms, which I assume you realize is going to be extremely divisive. There's a far more simple argument that people, independent of ideological framing, would tend to agree upon. And that's what is valuable to one person isn't valuable, to the same degree, to another. For things that are completely illegal, like murder, such a system would be pretty useless because we already have systems in place to punish that sort of behavior and defacto social scoring on it as well.

So this is going to come down to things that aren't usually illegal or 'that illegal', but otherwise affect society. So for instance one group might want to reasonably punish the directors of a company that causes emissions. Another group might want to reasonable reward the directors of a company that creates a large number of desirable jobs. And even in this one example you immediately end up with a weird scenario. Is it okay to pollute as long as you make enough jobs? Who gets to decide that?

There's no need for cartoon villainy for this to be a bad idea. Even completely well intentioned, it just doesn't work out well. And the more diverse a society, the worse it's going to work.

[knollimar]

How do you combat review bombing or someone just being bigoted?

[bell-cot]

The same ways that you have to combat fudged scientific data and didn't-write-it authors and lazy reviewers and hate from people who are in the opposite school on the whole Alzheimer's Amyloid issue and shite-quality citatations and etc. etc. etc.?

Yes, there can be obvious patterns to money/friends/skin color/gender that should be watched out for. But if you're paying much attention to those, then your science will quickly become a mere side gig to your new Cultural Warrior job.

[bob001]

> social scoring and consequences and reputations rarely actually stem from one’s actions

In my experience, this viewpoint is most strong in people whose actions are the most direct cause of their social issues. Almost always these people strongly refuse to admit that their actions should or are under their control. At which point others start to avoid them.

There are large scale social stratifications due to various things however individuals live in a very wide band in my experience. Some make choices that put them at the top of that band and others make choices that put them at the bottom.

Let's take two of your examples:

> how much money someone has put in someone’s pocket

> who someone knows

Careers choices directly lead to having higher income and more money. Socializing and putting effort into building a social network gives you more people to know. Both are to a decent degree under someone's control and based on their actions. You claiming otherwise is exactly proving my point on people wanting an excuse for their poor historical actions.

[bell-cot]

> The problem is that everyone imagines ...

I'd phrase it "most people want to imagine". Or will claim they want to - since not believing sounds depressing, or suggests that the person is an evildoer hoping to escape justice. (But unfortunately, people usually disagree about exactly what would be "just" or "fair". While wanting to imagine that they don't. Yes, the problem just went meta.)

> when the reality is ...

Try asking some really old folks about how much drama, inequity, and nastiness there often was in social settings where everyone was the same color and gender, nobody was notably wealthy, and nobody had any great connections. Or talk to an experienced junior high teacher. Or read some history. Humans are quite capable of dividing themselves into camps over any "differences" that they're able to perceive. Or invent, since dividing themselves into camps is often the unspoken objective.

[dwattttt]

For a more mathematically rigorous treatment, negative feedback is fundamental to Control Theory; it allows us to stabilise processes that would otherwise go out of control.

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

Even monkeys have society and they tend to only throw poo at those who have done wrong by that society. Monkeys have and try to maintain reputations.

[tough]

Is it reputation or hierarchical standing or just "power" within the society what makes them not throw poo tho

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

I'm not sure what you mean, but not throwing poo is the default behavior. They only do it when feeling stressed, or zoo settings they might even do it to get a reaction from the crowd. Figuratively speaking, no different than humans.

[csallen]

People react negatively to this, because they fear a dystopian society of the sort we've seen in plenty of movies, and rightfully so.

But it's also worth pointing out that "consequences and reputations stemming from one's actions" is already the world we live in and always have lived in. Hell, even Hacker News has karma points, downvoting, shadow banning, and the like. There's no such thing as a society with zero consequences and zero reputations. The only real question is a matter of degree, structure, severity, reach, and various idiosyncrasies that differ across cultures.

So it would be nice to have a more nuanced discussion about this instead of treating it like a 0 or 1 decision.

[unknown_user_84]

this reminds me of an episode of the TV show. the Orville that I recently watched where they stumbled upon a planet that had the social credit scoring system and everybody had little badges with literal upvote and down vote buttons on them. and when your grandma buys you ice cream and you're a little kid you say thank you and you hit the upvote button and she likes you even more because you hit the upvote button then because you said thank you.

and so it was obviously portrayed as kind of you know for the story and it worked and I like the episode and everything but it got me thinking in terms of a society like that of people could probably construct something that used that kind of a system but in a more regulated way and a more humane way and I think that's turns into the question of do we want to try and make this new thing or do we want to try and fix the old thing?

regardless, it got me thinking about some kind of a potential implementation of a formal social reputation system that essentially mirrors what goes on informally now, but makes it visible and makes the actions of affecting somebody's reputation visible.

My basic intuition here and for most things that deal with society or whatever is that Satan lives in the details and infinite potential dystopias and the potential for extreme inhumanity lurks in every crevice and corner. unknown unknowns and shit.

[bob001]

> regardless, it got me thinking about some kind of a potential implementation of a formal social reputation system that essentially mirrors what goes on informally now, but makes it visible and makes the actions of affecting somebody's reputation visible.

In general you can already get this by asking and taking feedback from others. I've seen a lot more people shoot or ignore the messenger in those cases then actually take the feedback. Everyone is the hero of their own story.

[nightshift1]

The Orville is excellent. I am a fan. Here is another show/episode that is very similar and relevant here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosedive_(Black_Mirror)

[cucumber3732842]

>Hell, even Hacker News has karma points, downvoting, shadow banning, and the like.

Internet Right/WrongThink scoring should be an argument against any sort of formalized or standardized social credit, not for it.

[globalnode]

and then you have to ask who defines good and bad behaviour and who determines consequences when power is lop sided.