• hark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Dr. Oz is a heart surgeon, but that doesn’t prevent him from selling bullshit.

  • MourningDove@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    I mean, it’s not really a horrible idea, so long as it’s not being used to promote propaganda. (Which considering the source- it is)

    Influencers are fucking horrible. Popularity should not default to trustworthiness. Remember: it was this type of thing that led to the idea that vaccines cause autism.

    Gating influencers behind having even a bachelor ya degree in whatever field they’re teeing to bullshit people into buying, will cut down on the amount of ignorance spread as a result.

  • khepri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    Surface-level, seems good idea. In practice, it depends entirely on who gets to define an “influencer”, what is a “serious topic”, what activities meet the threshold of “speaking on” that topic, and which universities’ degrees will be respected and which won’t. It seems like a very flexible framework that their government could use to remove nearly any person from any platform for any reason. If I post “fruit is good for you” on a social platform and someone else sees it, that falls under these rules as I understand them. I anticipate selective enforcement of these rules against those not aligned with the CCP, in fact the rules seems to be specifically written with that in mind.

    • NateNate60@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      4 hours ago

      In China, the level of trust people have in the Government is very high compared to the US and Europe. That is the reason why this policy would work and would have reasonable public support.

      In the US or Europe, a policy that seems reasonable but could be exploited by the Government for political control is a bad policy. In China, people have already sort of accepted that the Government is pretty secure in its position so it really doesn’t need to suppress speech in roundabout ways; if the intention is to suppress speech then they will be explicit about it by using the words “this threatens state security” or “this is offensive to public morals”. The thing about being a secure authoritarian regime with reasonable popular support is that you don’t need to come up with pretexts to suppress speech or dissent. You can just say “this threatens our power” and put a stop to it. If the policy states the goal is to stop uninformed people from spewing nonsense on the Internet then people will accept that to be true, and the reality is that it probably is what the goal is.

      • Fizz@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        24 minutes ago

        That “high trust” is only because the government hides a lot of information from them where in a free country it would be discussed in public. The government heavily controls what information is available, what topics can be discussed and what opinions are allowed.

        Its not because they govern responsibly and earnt the admiration of the general public.like you seem to suggest.

      • khepri@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 hours ago

        “They are so powerful that they no longer tell lies” isn’t a take I think human history would support.

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      5 hours ago

      How does a post where you make a bunch of uneducated guesses about a country get only up votes? Oh right, china bad, got it.

      If only China would live up to the shining standard of the USA…

      One country is spiraling into civil war while the other is the fastest growing economy in the world, and yet its the suicidal countries citizens constantly talking shit about the rest of the world.

      China is not a third world country. They aren’t oppressed people. America is both of those things.

      • khepri@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        Well I’d watch out from posting anything like this unless you have a degree in Political Science from an approved institution. You might accidentally influence me and get fined!

      • ThirdConsul@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 hours ago

        So… Did you bring anything to the discussion? What’s your take on the new policy?

      • Gammelfisch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I’ll still take the USA over CCP run China, because over half of the US voting population is against the MAGA insanity. When the mainland Chinese vote for Taiwan’s Democratic Progressive Party, then we’ll talk.

  • Gammelfisch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 hours ago

    There you have it, another MAGA dream, because most of those university graduates are fucking CCP members.

    • khepri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Naw come on, China’s not known for their extreme degree of control over what they’ll allow their citizens to see or post online, that’s just wild talk man. They certainly don’t have enormous human and technological infrastructures dedicated to making sure that their internet is squeaky-clean and government-approved for all their citizens who they totally trust.

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      5 hours ago

      The only reason it seems that way is because western countries would use that to control their populations, and you are likely from one of them and are fed anti-china propaganda.

  • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    What? You mean you’ll have to actually KNOW something , before you blather on about it? That’s un-American!

  • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Those damn Commie bastards!

    Hey! That’s actually not a bad idea. Can we do that in our government, as well as dopey influencers? Start with PeeWee Mengele.

    • Oppopity@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 hours ago

      America has a guy in charge of the health department that says a bunch of wack shit. It’s not just influencers but people with positions of power.

  • Ilixtze@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Americans: “This is censorship” Also hundreds of American dumbass youtubers: "Covid vaccine makes you a transhuman robot; drink horse de-wormer instead. " Also american dumb shit tech ceo’s talking out of their asses about shit they never studied: “Trans people are a conspiracy against humanity.” The list goes on and on.

    • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      Well like, yeah, it is in fact censorship. I don’t think it’s a fundamentally bad idea by any stretch, but if it were implemented here in the US it would be instantly abused to dictate the political narrative. Given that’s the basis pretty much all american commentators are basing their reactions from, and that chinese citizens are restricted from sharing their impression with the broad internet, it’s understandable why the narrative on this topic is that way. The opposing viewpoints are all contained within a country that is extremely ideologically isolationist.

      For what it’s worth, China isn’t particularly better on the issue of abusing policy to dictate the political narrative either. As examples of some of the concerns I’ve seen expressed by my chinese colleagues about this: nobody is clear (neither on english-language sites or on what chinese news sites said colleagues can access) about what these rules would actually entail - Will they then require university educated people (or certified or etc.) to present broadly accepted established scientific claims? Will those claims be restricted to their relevant field (that seems reasonable, but impossible to police) or is anyone with a university degree allowed to comment? What about people with university degrees, but politically inconvenient opinions about, say, Covid? We’re not very far out from a Chinese government that advocated for TCM and Barefoot Doctors, so while it’s good the government is working to combat medical disinformation, they also have been historically a source for some of the most damaging misinformation that’s still extant in chinese society today.

      It’s fine to cheer this decision on the face, but dunking on youtubers is easy and by association dismisses the very credible concerns people are raising over this policy.

      • Oppopity@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 hours ago

        I don’t think it’s a fundamentally bad idea by any stretch, but if it were implemented here in the US it would be instantly abused to dictate the political narrative.

        I don’t get this logic of “yeah it’s a good idea but if we do it we’ll do it wrong.” Like okay… Then do it right then?

        It’s like when someone advocates for higher taxes on the rich and someone responds with “yeah that’s great and all but the rich will just find loopholes” like okay. Then close the loopholes as well.

        • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          I do not think the concept itself is bad (verifying credentials for people presenting information on social media), and something like it could theoretically be implemented in the US. This system specifically though, as it appears to be being implemented by china, would be utterly unworkable in the US. There’s absolutely no infrastructure in place to allow for that sort of broad centralized verification, and constructing some centralized system for credential verification across all US states would be an absolute field day for identity theft.

          It’s currently unclear how China anticipates handling that requirement too, FWIW. As far as I can find, that centralized resource also does not exist for chinese credentials (possibly one exists for degrees from major universities, but since this is not restricted to just university degrees, it’s still an open-ended question). I’ve got no idea how they plan on verifying claims, and I suspect neither do any major service providers in China right now.

          • Oppopity@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            55 minutes ago

            Make it illegal and prosecute those that wind up with an audience. You can’t stop everyone giving out bad advice but you can prevent people making it their career and building a large following.

  • Count Regal Inkwell@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Man

    Of all dystopias why is Deus Ex becoming true?

    This has shades of a conversation you can have in that game’s Hong Kong where a bartender tells JC something to the effect of “China’s ‘repression’ has ironically preserved people’s ability to keep on like, LIVING. Whereas the United States with all its freedom was carved up and eaten by megacorps”

    • kadu@scribe.disroot.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Whereas the United States with all its freedom

      The United States is the country that leans on their supposed freedom the most in the world, but they are not the country with the actual highest freedom. And that’s even entertaining the rhetoric that absolute freedom is indeed desirable, which it most certainly is not.

  • crispy_caesus@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    18 hours ago

    I like the idea of not letting stupid people spread misinformation on the internet (unless it’s myself), but this is just gatekeeping the right to speak out in public about certain topics which I find deeply problematic.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      10 hours ago

      There’s got to be something to do for accountability, but ….

      Just want to point out the guy who made up the whole vaccine-autism scare was a scientist. All of the propaganda against anti-smoking, anti-climate change, anti-pollution, anti-lead efforts over the years has been produced by scientists

      Educated people are people too. Just because they should know better doesn’t mean they are

      • r0ertel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 hours ago

        You’re spot on with accountability. Why not just legally allow people harmed by following the advice to be ableto sue the influencers and allow those with proper credentials to become certified in the topic and certification protects from lawsuits?

        Or maybe not the second part. Anybody giving bad advice should be sued.

        “This isn’t medical advice, but drinking battery acid will allow you to live forever.” Would never hold up in court.

        Freedom of speech seems to be the most misunderstood right.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          The challenging part is a lot of it is indirect. General incitement to violence or misinformation is difficult to tie back to directly causing harm.

          Freedom of speech was simpler before internet when you were likely singled out as a kook and ignored. Now with the internet you have a much bigger audience as well as other kooks where you can build on each other. Your reach is farther, you can more easily appear to have common opinion, you can do more harm, and yet are more distanced from the harm you do.

          I have no idea what to do differently but we’ve seen free speech in an online world without any accountability has been able to do a lot of harm.

    • loldog191@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Yeah, I think more is being lost here than “solved”. Sometimes you need to ask simple questions about complex things. Ask any teacher and they’ll say that students deepen their own understanding just as much as they teach back. It’s part of the flow of creative ideas and inspiration. Everybody should have the right to be curious, ask questions, learn and make new discoveries.

      Instead, this feels like “You are only allowed to have ideas once you’ve gone through the propogandization program to have the right ones”. But I still do agree that we need to start trying lots of things to combat misinformation. Maybe a rebrand of education to show how much more interesting reality is than conspiracy theories. A focus on the truth that so much remains unknown, and conspiracy theories are like unhealthy junk food that never satiates that truth.