Curious to see if this leads to licenses or degrees being revoked as universities have their name tied to what people are saying.
Turkey requires a college degree to become president. Then they started revoking the college degrees of the opposition candidates.
Pro gamer move.
Genuinely curious if anyone has info on how something like this is enforced.
Selectively. If there are enough laws on the books that everyone is in violation all the time you can justify taking down anyone at any time.
Yeah, that’s what the law is. Im curious about the mechanics of this, this certainly is not a new issue and AI could feasibly make mass surveillance necessary to enforce such a law easier. If that’s the case though, what kind of process would exist to confirm the person’s qualifications? Just some examples but that is more of what I’m talking about.
Arbitrary laws as a form of suppression is centuries old here in NA.
lol
I think the main focus here should be the word “influencers”.
One thing is for a relatively unknown person to speak about any kind of topic even if they know nothing about it.
But when someone with millions of followers spreads misinfo, that is dangerous as it can end up killing lots of people.
People with a certain amount of followers should be held accountable for what they say the same way that a newspaper should.
Yeah, I think if it’s more about policing the misinformation influencers spread, then I can calm down a bit, although it still makes me nervous to think about the government picking and choosing what a person with a crowd can say.
For now, it’s making sure influencers don’t spread anti-vax bullshit, but what if tomorrow it’s no talking about Palestine?
Even then, medical professionals themselves can fall to propaganda and spread lies, so we can’t use a single person as an arbiter of truth.
sure, but that’s not what this is doing. it doesn’t say they’ll be held accountable. it just places a high barrier to entry.
i understand the sentiment behind it, but I don’t think this will be effective at curtailing disinformation. it would, however, be a very useful tool for controlling online speech. especially with a government that has so much control over its universities.
Yup, as someone who loosely follows streamer drama, this is kinda based.
Imagine the h3h3/Hasan drama if this was a thing
Yeah I gotta agree with you on this, there’s a frankly insane amount of pull these people have in society and as we saw during the pandemic not only did it cause people to endanger their own health, but those of others around them.
If we held news accountable for misinformation then fox and all the other fascist networks wouldn’t even exist.
I don’t see the problem with that.
That sounds desirable.
It just becomes a question who decides what is and isn’t mis/disinformation. Imagine the trump regime doing this.
There’s a lot of nuance to be discussed and Republicans shouldn’t be in the room at all when it is, but yeah this is objectively true. We used to have laws regulating the news for a reason.
Good for China.
Is this really true? I cast suspicion because to me it sounds like they are trying to convince the world that whatever comes out of their influencers about the topics they are interested to push is of higher quality than the rest of the world.
Oh the media keeps reporting that there are human rights abuse going on some place remote. Those are obvious lies because our double MBA PhD influencer is quite clear that everyone is happy.
Yes it would be nice if only knowledgeable people spoke on complex subjects in a language that allows less knowledgeable people to understand. But one has to be able to trust what is being said.
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”
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.
I’m mostly just quoting a video game that was eerily predictive, is all.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I get that you don’t want misinformation happening on certain topics. The scary part comes when you’re going to decide to police it. Can you still share info on the health journey of you or your loved one? Can you still ask people to buy your products that are meant to save more money in the long run than they cost? Can you tell people you had a bad experience with a certain bank? Not a fan of the approach, but I do understand the basic concept of why they’d want to do something.
Idk how to feel about this. If this news came from the UK, the replies would’ve been:
you got a loicense for that, mate?
But because it’s China, people will gladly glaze this move.
“Nanny State”
Somehow we don’t get memed on for that, even though it’s all the same downunder.
I can see how this would play out in the states. First you make it so only degreed people can talk about certain things. Then you dismiss them as educated elite ivory tower academics. Because we live in a nation that scorns experience and expertise.
Someone asked for an example the other day of something that didn’t believe was true and I listed seven. They dismissed me with “I didn’t ask for an encyclopedia.” It was the best way they could ignore that someone knew more than them and not have to actually process the information they explicitly asked for.
Nah, if this happened in the US someone would just set up a diploma mill and rake in the money.
But then you can’t claim to be fighting the system against all those academics. You lose credibility once you have credentials, even diploma mill ones.
Sounds like they thought they could just argue on easy mode by putting the burden of proof on you. When you accommodated their request, that blew up their spot. Having no other recourse, they retreated to an insult since there was nothing else for them to do (but they were seething to get the last word, so you got that response).
Good on ya for making the fucker squirm.
I know that there is absolutely zero chance of educating some that doesn’t want to learn. But I also know that online others are reading and those people are either looking for information they can use in future conversations or they don’t have a vested interest in the conversation and can be reached even if they don’t poke their heads up to be seen.
That’s 100% the reason I’ll bother with these idiots when i do. Sometimes it’s also a chance for me to further prove out my logic and refine my arguments and understanding of the topic as well, so it can be a win-win-win in the best case scenario (troll proven wrong+me learning something new/refining my knowledge+bystanders learning why the troll is wrong)
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.
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.
That’s who I was referring to as PeeWee Mengele.
There’s so much where this could be used to silence people, I can’t trust this. What if you’re an expert in a related field to the “serious” topic and disagree with the mainstream opinion held by experts within that field? Who gets to decide what constitutes a “serious” topic?
I just keep thinking of the recent Ms. Rachel controversy where conservative voices basically said she should stay out of talking on Palestine because she was “only” a children’s educator. But one should be able to express their opinion on this serious matter even if you aren’t an expert, and yeah, even if you’re a major influencer.
I want societies to address misinformation and disinformation campaigns as much as the next person, but to be clear, I just don’t trust governments to be the ones to do that. Granted governments are admittedly experts in misinformation and disinformation, so at least we can rest assured that experts have eyes on it though…
The idea is great on paper, but execution is everything.
It’s China. I’m sure there will be executions.
