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.
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.
The issues that instantly come to mind: That’s fundementally unconstitutional, there is no mechanism for enforcement, there is no agency tasked with that and US LEAs are already beyond the workload they could ever hope to address, very rarely is “more cops” a solution, how do you address people that say things like “wink wink this is not medical advice”. This is simply not a problem that can be solved in a single paragraph response. It could possibly be done, but it would be spectacularly non-trivial to implement, even if we were in an environment where giving that kind of authority to fhe current administration seemed like a good idea.
The exceptions to freedom of speech are extremely specific, aren’t trivially described and have not been expanded in more than a century. You can’t simply dismiss that constraint because things like libel and active incitement are conditionally established exceptions. This would, under current laws, inarguably be unconstitutional - perhaps an amendment could be passed, but the best route for this would be through the extant libel laws and the civil court.
And there’s no agency for it? Then make one.
Sure, more cops is clearly a great solution! But that’s not what China is doing, which was the initial premise.
Why does it have to be like libel? Why not death threats? Advocating for an intellectual position on things like medicine can cause harm and should be regulated.
Sure, more cops is clearly a great solution!
I didn’t say that you cunt. Why can it not be like what they did with Alex Jones where he was throwing a bunch of conspiracies around school shootings and parents who had their children murdered started getting harnessed so Alex Jones ended up facing consequences. This isn’t “oh so you just want more police. Good.”
It doesn’t get much more “advocating for more cops as the solution” than saying we should make a new law enforcement agency to solve a lack of enforcement capability. What were you trying to say there, if it wasn’t “make a new agency to enforce this law”?
Why can it not be like what they did with Alex Jones
That was a defamation lawsuit - of which libel is a type. The ‘harm’ done in that case was to the parents of the sandyhook children’s reputation, not their physical wellbeing.
The FDA Office of Criminal Investigations, the direct enforcement branch of the FDA, uses bonded LEOs to do the enforcement under their perview. While the majority of actions go through civil proceedings (lawsuits), any investigatory work for those lawsuits is done under the direction of the FDA’s federal law enforcement officers (or their contracted representatives). That’s how enforcement works in the US. If you want to avoid that, it would require a complete restructuring of the entire US legal system from the ground up.
And there is harm when people take misinformed medical advice from people claiming to know better.
Yes, but that harm is resolved in civil court unless the person in question is criminally liable, usually through gross negligence because they have something like a duty of care. The Alex Jones case, which you brought up as an example, is not in any way comparable to that.
(edit: for clarity, bonded LEOs are what you think of as a cop, instead of someone like a building inspector who is technically law enforcement but does not have the ability to do things like make an arrest or charge criminal proceedings.)
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.
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.
The issues that instantly come to mind: That’s fundementally unconstitutional, there is no mechanism for enforcement, there is no agency tasked with that and US LEAs are already beyond the workload they could ever hope to address, very rarely is “more cops” a solution, how do you address people that say things like “wink wink this is not medical advice”. This is simply not a problem that can be solved in a single paragraph response. It could possibly be done, but it would be spectacularly non-trivial to implement, even if we were in an environment where giving that kind of authority to fhe current administration seemed like a good idea.
Why’s it unconsititutional? Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can say whatever you want.
And there’s no agency for it? Then make one.
The exceptions to freedom of speech are extremely specific, aren’t trivially described and have not been expanded in more than a century. You can’t simply dismiss that constraint because things like libel and active incitement are conditionally established exceptions. This would, under current laws, inarguably be unconstitutional - perhaps an amendment could be passed, but the best route for this would be through the extant libel laws and the civil court.
Sure, more cops is clearly a great solution! But that’s not what China is doing, which was the initial premise.
Why does it have to be like libel? Why not death threats? Advocating for an intellectual position on things like medicine can cause harm and should be regulated.
I didn’t say that you cunt. Why can it not be like what they did with Alex Jones where he was throwing a bunch of conspiracies around school shootings and parents who had their children murdered started getting harnessed so Alex Jones ended up facing consequences. This isn’t “oh so you just want more police. Good.”
It doesn’t get much more “advocating for more cops as the solution” than saying we should make a new law enforcement agency to solve a lack of enforcement capability. What were you trying to say there, if it wasn’t “make a new agency to enforce this law”?
That was a defamation lawsuit - of which libel is a type. The ‘harm’ done in that case was to the parents of the sandyhook children’s reputation, not their physical wellbeing.
Cops aren’t the same as say the FDA.
And there is harm when people take misinformed medical advice from people claiming to know better.
The FDA Office of Criminal Investigations, the direct enforcement branch of the FDA, uses bonded LEOs to do the enforcement under their perview. While the majority of actions go through civil proceedings (lawsuits), any investigatory work for those lawsuits is done under the direction of the FDA’s federal law enforcement officers (or their contracted representatives). That’s how enforcement works in the US. If you want to avoid that, it would require a complete restructuring of the entire US legal system from the ground up.
Yes, but that harm is resolved in civil court unless the person in question is criminally liable, usually through gross negligence because they have something like a duty of care. The Alex Jones case, which you brought up as an example, is not in any way comparable to that.
(edit: for clarity, bonded LEOs are what you think of as a cop, instead of someone like a building inspector who is technically law enforcement but does not have the ability to do things like make an arrest or charge criminal proceedings.)