Anyone remember Dr. John Campbell on Youtube. He got popular by posting videos during COVID. Then veered off into full blown anti-vax conspiracies.
He’s a “doctor” because he has a PhD in making Youtube videos. No, seriously. His doctorate thesis is based on using Youtube as a teaching method. He’s not a real medical doctor.
His bullshit antics prompted actual doctors and scientistics to regularly post their own videos response.
5 year plan. It’ll happen under a democrat president and the right will be screaming bloody murder that their right to
misinformfree speech is being encroached, and build a their political platform on it.Would it apply to politics? That’s just an opinion mostly. I don’t think that right or left could be considered 'experts ’ by any means, and both would be culpable for spreading misinformation. I guess one of the ways that they could get them would be when they say blatant untruths or have no evidence to back up stories that they promote.
Not sure exactly what actions they’d be willing to take, but fake experts on “non-political” subjects are definitely used to push political agendas.
For example, climate change deniers.
But climate change deniers would need to prove their expertise on weather and the climate etc. I was referring to the other post… I don’t think it would or could apply to politics.
So much wrong with this comment. As if the left are immune to all misinformation lmao. Both the left and right are two of the most dupable groups I’ve ever witnessed.
How is this going to work with djt toadies in top government positions? Like advice not to vaccinate kids with the current secretary of health? Is this just another vehicle for persecuting rubes?
Just like with electric cars, the US takes forever to do anything, while China just gets things done with a better approach:
Late last year, the Cyberspace Administration of China issued a sweeping regulation: any content creator discussing medicine, health, law, finance, or education must prove verified professional credentials before posting or going live. In essence: no degree, no license, no post.
[…]
In all, China’s approach is preemptive: One has to prove their credentials before they post. The FTC’s approach is reactive, allowing American creators to post health tips or investment opinions without a diploma. The FTC only steps in after the harm is documented—but for both, if the creator lies, they pay up
The US has freedom of speech, so having the government vet every poster is kind of a problem. Also, both the US and China give licenses to woo-woo doctors like traditional medicine doctors and chiropractors. It adds a hurdle, but isn’t going to stop people from becoming supplement salesmen.
Giving legal/medical advice is technically practicing.
Offering an opinion… is another matter.
The US has freedom of speech, so having the government vet every poster is kind of a problem
That’s true, but it could be the platforms doing the vetting rather than the government.
Is it any different to requiring an ID in order to use a service, like what Discord is doing (as required for legal compliance)?
I guess I’m just annoyed at how much bad health advice is on social media.
That’s true, but it could be the platforms doing the vetting rather than the government.
I’m frankly not sure if that’s any better. It’s not in the interest of the platforms to do a proper job of it especially if said platforms allow payments through them and get a cut of the sales. So it ends up being the government to enforce it and that opens up another can of worms.
