I’m sure there’s ways to see it as a bad thing, but the idea of only letting experts on a subject speak publicly about the subjects sounds like it could be really beneficial, particularly in some areas.
Of course if universities are corrupted or controlled it’s definitely a bad thing. And of course shitty people are always going to be trying to control whatever mechanism or criteria keeps certain people from speaking.
Of course, I see the good side, too. However, besides the possible negatives you’ve already mentioned, I feel like this measure begs the question: Should everyday people be allowed to sway public opinion?
I think the answer is, unequivocally, YES! I think it is wrong to say that you need a degree to comment on a topic or that you need a degree to say what you think, publicly, about a topic.
I very much appreciate stricter regulation on misinformation, but this is concerning.
I suppose it will depend on how and how much they enforce this.
I also have mixed feelings about it but come out on the side of this is bad.
I feel like this measure begs the question: Should everyday people be allowed to sway public opinion?
They should be able to sway public opinion on things that are a matter of opinion, not on things that are proven facts.
I’m specifically thinking of anti-vaxxers here. The US is currently suffering from its largest measles outbreak since 1992 when the disease was declared eliminated in 2000. We shouldn’t be having this problem and it’s caused by people sharing opinions that contradict with scientifically proven facts.
The reason that I come out on the side of the law being bad is that the line between things that should require a degree to talk about and things that shouldn’t isn’t an easily defined one so the law is very open to abuse.
I think this is much, much harder to pin down than you seem to be implying.
It isn’t particularly hard to find research that, at least partially, seems to corroborate or lend credence to some of the more asinine beliefs ripping US public health to shreds. It’s also not particularly hard to find people with degrees or certificates, people in positions of authority, that spout that stuff. Tylenol? Yeah. If people take this law to mean that “if you see the Qualified ExpertTM badge on a video, you can trust the information,” then I fear misinformation might have a new weapon.
What I mean to say is that, at the end of the day, it seems like it’ll be up to the state authorities to decide (1) who counts as a qualified expert, and (2) what subjects require qualifications to be discussed, and I do think that both are dangerous premises.
I’m not certain it’s a bad idea though, I really can’t say which side I land on, for now.
I think it depends on how you define “influencer”. Talking about these topics should absolutely be possible and forbidding it is censorship. But influencer with ten thousands or more followers have a responsibility and I think it’s necessary to enforce some kind of quality and to prevent misinformation.
If the way China does it is the right way I don’t know, but I can see why they are doing it.
I think it depends on how you define “influencer”.
It seems to me that it’s basically anyone that posts content. I read both the linked article and the referenced CNBC article, and there doesn’t seem to be any clarification on the issue…
It’s one thing to curb misinfo, but this smell like trying to control the population. You can’t just blanket ban people from speaking a certain topic, that’s like saying all science communicator now need to have science degree to talk about science. Now they say only people with degree able to talk about it, then if someone talk about topic not permitted, they lose their privilege. It’s a very basic tactic for authoritarian.
I’m sure there’s ways to see it as a bad thing, but the idea of only letting experts on a subject speak publicly about the subjects sounds like it could be really beneficial, particularly in some areas.
Of course if universities are corrupted or controlled it’s definitely a bad thing. And of course shitty people are always going to be trying to control whatever mechanism or criteria keeps certain people from speaking.
But it’s a nice idea.
Is it a nice idea?
Of course, I see the good side, too. However, besides the possible negatives you’ve already mentioned, I feel like this measure begs the question: Should everyday people be allowed to sway public opinion?
I think the answer is, unequivocally, YES! I think it is wrong to say that you need a degree to comment on a topic or that you need a degree to say what you think, publicly, about a topic.
I very much appreciate stricter regulation on misinformation, but this is concerning.
I suppose it will depend on how and how much they enforce this.
I also have mixed feelings about it but come out on the side of this is bad.
They should be able to sway public opinion on things that are a matter of opinion, not on things that are proven facts.
I’m specifically thinking of anti-vaxxers here. The US is currently suffering from its largest measles outbreak since 1992 when the disease was declared eliminated in 2000. We shouldn’t be having this problem and it’s caused by people sharing opinions that contradict with scientifically proven facts.
The reason that I come out on the side of the law being bad is that the line between things that should require a degree to talk about and things that shouldn’t isn’t an easily defined one so the law is very open to abuse.
I think this is much, much harder to pin down than you seem to be implying.
It isn’t particularly hard to find research that, at least partially, seems to corroborate or lend credence to some of the more asinine beliefs ripping US public health to shreds. It’s also not particularly hard to find people with degrees or certificates, people in positions of authority, that spout that stuff. Tylenol? Yeah. If people take this law to mean that “if you see the Qualified ExpertTM badge on a video, you can trust the information,” then I fear misinformation might have a new weapon.
What I mean to say is that, at the end of the day, it seems like it’ll be up to the state authorities to decide (1) who counts as a qualified expert, and (2) what subjects require qualifications to be discussed, and I do think that both are dangerous premises.
I’m not certain it’s a bad idea though, I really can’t say which side I land on, for now.
I agree which is what my last paragraph said. It might seem easy to pin down for a very small number of topics but not for most.
Disclaimer: I didn’t read the article
I think it depends on how you define “influencer”. Talking about these topics should absolutely be possible and forbidding it is censorship. But influencer with ten thousands or more followers have a responsibility and I think it’s necessary to enforce some kind of quality and to prevent misinformation.
If the way China does it is the right way I don’t know, but I can see why they are doing it.
It seems to me that it’s basically anyone that posts content. I read both the linked article and the referenced CNBC article, and there doesn’t seem to be any clarification on the issue…
It’s one thing to curb misinfo, but this smell like trying to control the population. You can’t just blanket ban people from speaking a certain topic, that’s like saying all science communicator now need to have science degree to talk about science. Now they say only people with degree able to talk about it, then if someone talk about topic not permitted, they lose their privilege. It’s a very basic tactic for authoritarian.