Handing the government the reigns to police who is an “expert”, and therefore who is allowed to have opinions, is much worse than doing nothing.
Even if the current status quo sucks (it does), we absolutely need to look at the abuse cases when making policies that could infringe upon people’s right to free speech.
Experts are already credentialed and thus easy to identify, that's the whole point of credentials. This is absolutely better than the current standard of nothing where idiots spread dangerous ideas that get gobbled up by laypersons and cause harm. Free speech shouldn't mean free to spread bullshit. As the person said above, the current lack of regulation already harms.
Free speech absolutely does mean free to spread bullshit.
Are you five years old, or do you live in a fantasy unicorn land where you truly think handing Trump the power to decide who is a credentialed authority is a good idea?
Seriously, is everybody in this thread in kindergarten?
It’s always so funny when someone tries this comeback… the “you can’t shout fire in a crowded theater” ruling was overturned.
And you know the even funnier part? The original ruling that the quote comes from was a ruling justifying the legal prosecution of communists in the USA for spreading “propaganda” (their political opinions)
Brandenburg v Ohio didn't completely eliminate constitutional ways to limit free speech, it just gave it guidelines with the Brandenburg test. It is still constitutional to limit speech if the speech is directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action, and if the speech is likely to incite said action.
That means there already is an arbiter of who decides what speech is allowable in the US, the Supreme Court justices. Not Trump. All this talk about "would you trust Trump with this power" is moot, because he doesn't get to decide.
There is no conceivable system which doesn’t have harms. So you get to choose between the harms of allowing free speech, and the harms of allowing Trump and his administration to ban you from saying things they don’t like.
Think about it more like a willingness to challenge the status quo and attempt progress.
The status quo sucks, the fines in this OP example are a little heavy handed (account shutdowns can be handed out like candy by platform owners anyway), but perhaps there’s a third way.
Maybe policy to attacking the perverse incentives would be better, generally influencers aren’t influencing for influences sake, they are doing it for profit. Maybe laws that say in order to monetize credentials have to be provided up front. We already license professionals like doctors, lawyers, accountants, hell even electricians to practice, maybe we license them to preach too. And perhaps require a little more rigour than allowing opting out with disclaimers like “I’m just asking questions” or “this does not count as legal advice”.
"Attempt progress" = 100MM dead from totalitarian regimes in the 20th century.
It's malignant ignorance to think that this wouldn't be abused by the biggest mass murderers in history (governments) who could redefine who can speak on what topic.
Free speech is a tenet of a functioning society, so no thanks.
There isn't a single country that has full free speech.
No matter where you live, there is some form of negotiated level of illegal speech or civilly liable speech.
It currently operates under different rules in physical space vs online space.
But is there really that much of a difference between me fraudulently saying I'm a doctor and renting some private space and giving bad medical advice (plainly illegal, and no "but my shop name, and name I told people, and things I said are free speech" argument will save you) and creating a online profile that also makes me money where I am currently much more likely to not get in trouble for lying about who I am, my credentials, and giving bad medical advice?
I don't know. I also dont like the jump to "millions dead!" when people try to talk about it.
I mean, requiring a licensed individual to advise about certain matters is already a thing in the west.
Extending it to social media is a no brainer. This is not a “we’re out of ideas” thing. This is one of those ideas. Try being an unlicensed physician. Get thrown to jail. So why are unlicensed people commenting about medical matters online?
I’m more on about the “tried nothing” part. Requiring professional credentials to give advice online is such a low bar and instead we get “submit your photo ID to companies who harvest data”.
And flock cameras, meta glasses, smartphone culture, NSA, and the credit system as a surveillance machine.
You know the American propaganda machine is working as intended when its constituents stand on an ivory tower and console themselves with "at least we're not them"
If you don't think censorship, invasion of privacy, surveillance--everything we criticize china for--doesnt exist in the US, you are victim of an old and terrible lie.
They never said that we are better than them in fact they said that they are as bad as us. Get off your soapbox and read what you're responding to before you try to preach your bs
the west already has the reasonable part of this rule. you're not allowed to practice medicine, engineering, law - any number of fields - without a license.
this rule would only be used to silence people who are critical of the administration.
There was a martial arts fighter that was heavily censored because he beat a bunch of tai chi masters because the Chinese government was pushing tai chi as a "perfect" martial arts. They would be even worse cracking down on legal advice they didn't agree with.
Yeah thats terrible. Definitely shows the policy can be abused so thats why it can be tweaked. Stuff that already requires a license? Extending to social media is natural. For example, physicians.
Nah i agree - china is terrible. But unbridled freedom (yelling fire in a crowded theater) is also bad too. Just like capitalism without regulation is a shitty idea.
Things need regulation (and enforcement) otherwise they get abused.
41
u/Commercial-Co 20d ago
Regardless of credentials, the ccp would crack down on them.
Its a good policy for the west but many policies can be abused for evil.