Why do people believe random people online though, what makes you think they aren’t lying
Of course its imoossible to do, you are wasting bytes with such high numbers
A char would be much more efficient at storing the data and would only require about 1.4 Gb to store all the numbers
no,So many goods cannot be produced by children, it is inefficient
Lol, love the focus on productivity, knows how to read the room.
Swapping CIA propaganda with CCP propaganda, I see. Temu does use slave labor for some products, or rather, they dont check whether the seller does and dont care when it happens. Just because that persons factory doesnt is not proof.
edit: ah it says child labor, ok no idea where that came from
They clearly state they don’t use child labour, because the little cunts are too inefficient apparently. (Multiple reports show that children are specifically used in Chinese factories, including assembly lines for Apple and Samsung, because their small hand are better at assembling components.)
+1000 Social Credit
I wonder what happens if I mention 天安门广场 in the comment section or the independent Republic of China or Uyghur treatment.
You get banned from the app. People have already done that and posted results.
For real? Then I believe these people from OPs screenshot really are paid government clowns.
☂️
Do I trust Sexy cockroach, +_+, et. al, or do I trust wikipedia?
Doesn’t the wiki say the same thing, that it’s considered a myth? English page instead of chinese: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit_System
Edit: trying to translate bits and it seems the pages are very different. I assumed different language versions of a page on Wikipedia are more or less the same, but that does not seem to be the case here
As someone who has used both romanian and english versions of wikipedia, i can say that language versions are radically different
The english version of a page could have thousands of words, while the romanian version be only one sentence long
“There has been a widespread misconception that China operates a nationwide and unitary social credit “score” based on individuals’ behavior, leading to punishments if the score is too low. Media reports in the West have sometimes exaggerated or inaccurately described this concept. In 2019, the central government voiced dissatisfaction with pilot cities experimenting with social credit scores. It issued guidelines clarifying that citizens could not be punished for having low scores, and that punishments should only be limited to legally defined crimes and civil infractions. As a result, pilot cities either discontinued their point-based systems or restricted them to voluntary participation with no major consequences for having low scores. According to a February 2022 report by the Mercator Institute for China Studies (MERICS), a social credit “score” is a myth as there is “no score that dictates citizen’s place in society”.”
Exactly, but I found out that if you read the Chinese version (google translated link) then the content is very different.
This not only answers my original question, but also highlights the irony that we trust English Wikipedia pages over social media comments, but not Chinese Wikipedia pages over social media comments.
I was hoping someone with more knowledge about Wikipedia and how language-specific pages are vetted can help figure this one out.
Pages in different languages have no connection to one another outside the subject being linked. Each language’s page is written and moderated by speakers of that language who can choose to write whatever they like.
Wikipedia is apparently banned in China, so on that basis, I’d probably be a bit dubious about content regarding life there where I couldn’t verify the sources
“Social credit isn’t real” Australia: Hold My Bear
