A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
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.
Yup, as someone who loosely follows streamer drama, this is kinda based.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
This is quintessential “Modern CPP”
Take a real problem screwing up the western world bad (like influencer mis/disinformation), and smash it in a way only their massive state apparatus can…
Superficially.
It’s “proof” their party line works and, as always, a good way to control the populace, if abused. It’s probably effective, but not as effective as it appears on the surface.
I’m sympathetic here.
In past years I was a “free internet” libertarian leaning diehard, but something has to be done about algos boosting shameless outrage peddlers; it’s literally destroying the planet and our collective psyche, just for short term corporate benefit (Or corpo-state benefit in China's case, as its “Big Tech” is under the party's thumb). But China just took the problem and used it as an excuse for more control.
Turkey requires a college degree to become president. Then they started revoking the college degrees of the opposition candidates.
I'm conflicted. On one hand, I'm American and believe in free speech. On the other hand, I want assholes to be held accountable for lying.
So conflicted.
Go with free speech. People usually get what they deserve, one way or another.
Usually due to laws rules and regulations holding their words/actions to account..
Not really.
Can we skip to the part where Trump, Putin, Netanyahu, Farage, Wilders, Musk, Le Pen, the ICE agent that lives down the street, Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg, etc etc etc get what they deserve please?
It doesn't seem to have happened yet.
Skip it? It might not be until eternity, but they will reap what they have sown.
What they deserve
Like heading the department of health and human services?
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.
There's no shortage of bad faith influencers who have degrees and misinform anyway. Such laws shouldn't be centered on pressuring people into expensive educational programs. They should focus on outlawing claims that are demonstrably false and harmful.
Does a degree cost anything in China other than time and effort?
While I am pretty skeptical of US-style polemics on free speech, I of course support free expression, strong journalistic culture, limiting the influence of oligarch propaganda and significant safeguards to censorship.
That being said there are clear externalities to easy access to digital content distribution platforms that prioritize engagement above all else and do not bear responsibility for their actions.
I of course would never trust the CCP on this, but I think in the long term the externalities inherent to social media distribution will have to be accounted for.
Curious to see if this leads to licenses or degrees being revoked as universities have their name tied to what people are saying.
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.
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.
not on things that are proven facts.
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 Expert^TM^ 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 this is much, *much* harder to pin down than you seem to be implying.
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.
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.
Apparently people with degrees cannot lie
I once worked for a CPA who asked me what a balance sheet was for.
He was from a wealthy Tibetan family dynasty and clearly paid his way into the industry, but who knows why he would choose to do that because he clearly was completely over his head.
We used to call him Michael Scott sans charisma.
I'd imagine the number of people with degrees who are confidently incorrect on the subject of their major is much smaller than those without a formal education.
While I don't agree with China's tactics, something needs to be done about people like Joe Rogan peddling harmful misinformation to millions of people.
lol
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.
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.
seems like a way to silence dissident speak, or rhetoric, anything critical of the CCP.
What a beautiful country to live! One day you talk about health and finance, and the other day you are in heaven or in a basement getting tortured.
Idk, a basement is starting to seem like the best place to put RFK Jr now.
Personally I'd like to see a total global ban of social media.
Humans aren't designed to communicate with this many people at once, and it shows.
Good for China.
