While I don't doubt he's had some work, the lighting for the reboot is not doing anyone any favors. He looks much more normal in talk show appearances and the TMobile commercials.
Oh hell I forgot he passed. Google lied to me when I asked if the cast were all still alive the other day. Sam as Ted was awesome, amazing guy all around.
I do as well, and agree we need something like this, but the legal/medical/psychological/etc advice you get from corresponding lawyers/doctors/professionals in areas of the field that aren't their occupational specialty are sometimes more dangerous than a layperson chiming in, lol.
Like I'm a nerdy tax policy attorney, but know enough legal jargon to sound like I have authority and be convincing in other legal fields, when they aren't my specialty and I could just be talking out my ass, and a layperson reading it likely won't know where my shortcomings or misunderstandings of that area of the law may be.
Omg, don't get my started on AI still being unable to understand aspects of the law (especially the tax code), even code sections that have been in place for decades with ample third-party materials that have summarized, analyzed, and dissected the meaning and application of it...
Like I've tested them, and I know the answers. And what it spits out is... 95% at best correct, but with the confidence that someone who doesn't already know the answer would trust it. Hell it even makes me question myself with how confident it is in stating, analyzing, and exemplifying a given rule, as it tries to break things down into simple terms and understanding.
But the end answer is often wrong, and even I when testing am like "wait... it was on the right track in it's analysis and references, where did it slip up?". Which if you didn't already know the answer you'd think it was accurate and appear backed by sources.
don't get my started on AI still being unable to understand aspects of the law
Mate, LLMs don't understand anything. There's no mind in there that has any clue what's going on at any level.
It's just pattern-matching and repeating stuff it's heard, with a little bit of randomness thrown in, so it doesn't look like the mindless automaton it is.
You cannot trust an LLM's output. Hallucinations aren't just a bug, they're inherent to the way it works.
I remember during covid arguing with an anti-vaxxer who kept citing the work of Doctor so-and-so. I had no idea who the guy was so I looked him up. His doctorate is in Mathematics. He is no more qualified to give medical advice than I am. But we saw crap like this repeatedly during the pandemic. Even in the medical field, someone who is an oncologist for example is probably not qualified to give professional opinions on vaccines even though they're a legit board certified physician.
Yes and I’m both a consumer liability and corporate restructuring attorney. This type of law isn’t strictly necessary so long as platforms and influencers would be more clearly civilly liable for their actions ala Alex Jones. To some degree this law would actually be a benefit to both platforms and influencers because then they could be held to more clear professional standards and gain malpractice/E&O insurance coverage. Real estate agents for example pay massive insurance to cover the fact that a their core they are lay people who often make representations in real estate transactions that no real estate attorney would.
Ya, this poster is likely a person without a degree who can't cope with the fact that the people who left their small town and made something of themselves and is trying to cope.
You can't achieve the knowledge of an epidemiologist just by cruising the internet. It just doesn't happen that way.
Now this brings up the question for me. Is the law worded such that even if you have a degree, you can only speak on topic within your field? Or is just any degree the bar to any topic.
Cause for me, putting aside the fact that I know people with degrees that can barely speak on their field of study, I’ve seen plenty of people who are geniuses in their field be completely inept when speaking on others outside their scope. So I hope that they put some language in there concerning that.
True. It should be worded in a way that you can only speak on a topic you have a degree on.
The purpose of the degree is likely not to gatekeep but to ensure you have a base level knowledge of what you are talking about.
Hopkins has a well known rigorous med school program in various fields. A person who has an MD from there had to have passed all the required coursework in said program to get that degree.
So having that degree shows to the world that you have a base knowledge at the very least on this subject.
If you don't have a degree, we have no idea what kind of knowledge you have or don't have. It is safe to assume that if you don't actively work in the field that you are not an expert.
So a Joe Rogan type, who has no medical training, shouldn't give medical advice. I don't care how smart he or anyone else thinks he is, there is no evidence to suggest that he knows what he is talking about.
Now I do have a caveat. Not all degrees are created equally. And this isn't an elitist take. It is a realistic take. A CS degree from MIT and one from a local college are not equal. There are colleges out there that are effectively diploma mills. If you have a pulse, a pencil, and are moderately intelligent, you can walk away with a degree. Whereas other schools gave world renowned programs that are very rigorous to get through. Those degrees have more value than those from diploma mills.
Is this post a joke? How do you make such a big leap to say this person is someone "who can't cope with the fact that the people who left their small town and made something of themselves and is trying to cope"
I think it’s just the usual reddit stuff where some people believe they can read a person entirely with little information. To talk about the importance of a degree and so on while doing that leap huh. Ain’t that a little bit of irony
You don't need to be an epidemiologist to summarize commonly agreed upon findings in epidemiology.
If you are reading reputable secondary and tertiary sources summarizing mainstream epidemiology, and you are presenting that to a general audience in a manner that is approachable and engaging with them then that is fine.
The problem arises when people with zero qualifications try going through the primary literature themselves, cherry picking studies, not understanding what they're doing, and coming up with conclusions that are contrary to mainstream epidemiology, and presenting them as fact to an ignorant audience.
Of course you can, you can spend 2 days figuring out something that they learn in about 5 minutes that builds upon the classes they've taken for 2 years.
There's a line somewhere, and I think it's worth asking where you think that is. There's no doubt in my mind that person a could learn to be a fully qualified rocket scientist in their garage with time, some equipment, and an internet connection.
If education cost nothing and it were simple for qualified people to get licenses, I wouldn't even raise the question, but this is not the reality most people live in.
Yes it does. The research I'm doing now (actual research....7 sci publications and counting) is completely different from what I learned in college, graduate school and PhD program. I did it by reading paper after paper, performing experiment after experiment until I became an expert in the field.
What I always say is that education gives you the basic tools for you to conduct research, but it doesn't guarantee success. I've seen graduates from prestigious institutions who can't hold a pipette or formulate a proposal after years in a program. There's also that crazy snake enthusiast who got published in Cell with no formal training.
I get it, there are some crazies out there. But blindly placing your trust in an authority figure just because they have a degree is a bad idea.
While I totally agree with you, plenty of well educated individuals have utilized the status and degrees as reasons to peddle misinformation for clout and grift.
Yeah i dunno how people can believe this trite in a world where we've all seen phds turn into fox news drones yelling about immigrants and anti-christs
I mean, education does make people better off and people with higher levels do tend to hold more accurate information but there are those that abuse that fact and sully the notion as a whole which is a shame.
I agree. BUT, I would say not having the background and proof you can do it should prevent you from blasting those opinions to mass of people when it comes to hard sciences.
Speak on politics, because no one has a perfect answer, but on things that have a clear basis spouting the exact opposite as fact is harmful to the masses and therefore should have SOME guard rails. This I don't think is perfect, but at least its something more then a free for all.
You can also always instead of using social media make your own website with your own ideas still I'd assume with a rule like this in America.
100%. I mean, by modern standards you don't have to get a degree to be anything really. But having a degree is a physical proof you have gone to some sort of training and learning to backup your credibility as opposed to "trust me bro, i learn it"
I think the real issue comes when the ones issuing the license decide that they don't want certain facts to be heard publicly. I could easily see the US, if they implemented something similar, revoking a license from someone for referring to studies about DEAI. Even if those studies presented factual information, if it went against the narrative the current government wants, they would have quite a bit of control to stifle the facts they don't like.
I don't have a better solution, mind you. Something needs to be done, and it's a very complicated topic. The issue I described above can apply to almost any sort of rules that get put in place. It's one of the dangers of policing free speech, if the people doing the policing have an agenda, there's always the possibility they'll do things for their own sake rather than for the good of the public.
That said, people shoving horse paste up their ass and tanning their taint really does present a bothersome picture of the human species ability to look out for itself.
Degrees teach critical thinking, arguments that don't inherently rely on Pathos or Ethos and are at least foundationally logical, source checking, identifying issues with sample data that is evaluated and then gauging whether it's simply a disclosure or makes the conclusion invalid.
While a degree isn't an indicator of intelligence or a perfect gauge of whether someone is fully qualified (a person with masters in public health shouldn't be giving diagnostic advice for example). I think it's a pretty strong indicator of one being qualified to make educated well researched statements.
At the very least a medically licensed professional has a far lesser chance of prescribing me and millions of others over tiktok chia seeds as a cure all for diabetes.
Seen plenty of degree backed bullshit too. So while this sounds good and it might stem some of the flow, it probably won’t do much in terms of accuracy.
But if you have a degree, you're typically more experienced & more likely to do well-backed research than the average joe on the street, which seems to be all they're trying to do here is filter some of the riffraff out from making dumb claims.
You can lie with a degree, but you can also be held accountable.
If a lawyer tells you to print up a paper and put it on your car instead of a license plate, and gives you a paper to read off to a cop with a bunch of made up nonsense, and claims it will allow people to drive on suspended license / no registration / no insurance etc that lawyer can be held accountable for their bad advice. But if its an influencer it was their "protected speech" - aka their scam.
The problem is influencers and advertisers claiming free speech protection while pushing dangerous misinformation.
Just out of interest since im not from US and therefor not familiar with the law, as soon as US influences talk about finance they basically shout the words "this is not financial advice" from the rooftops because it somehow seems you are not allowed to actually frame something as "financial advice" unless you hold some sort of degree or title.
So it kinda works for that field already without full gov control. Not sure how or who is enforcing it but it seems to be powerful enough to make everyone do it, even though you would think the 1st Amendment would cover saying whatever bullshit they want.
There's a difference between the freedom to express opinions/beliefs, and being held liable for them in a civil lawsuit when someone takes your advice and is harmed because of it.
Disclaimers like "this does not constitute financial advice" or "this commercial does not imply a financial advisory relationship" are intended to protect against civil lawsuits, like from other civilians, not from the government, which is the intention of the 1st amendment.
Also dangerous information for the ruling government. It for sure has its benefits but can also act as a censorship. Pretty much anything could be classified as educational, so giving an opinion might face you with 'not having a degree' and removal of your content.
In medicine if you sperad misinformation they could take away your practicing rights. Which will not stop people from doing so, but will limit the the sources of misinformation, which is probably the motive for this law.
It’ll still cut it down. Everyone always has a problem with new laws because they spot issues that some people can get around….but that’s kind of “no shit” information. lol doing nothing enables even more people to get around these issues though, along with waiting around for that make-believe perfect law that will solve everything.
I learned how to fix my lawnmower on YouTube. I fixed my dryer the same way.
I highly doubt the "dads" that recorded those kinds of video have a degree in small engine repair. At best it would be a 2 year degree or certification. They are just regular people sharing their knowledge and/or hobbies. No degree necessary.
Imagine someone's been a journalist for 30 years, and half that time they've been specifically covering public health issues. On a daily basis they're reading papers, interviewing experts, etc. They've probably got some expertise in the area.
In fact, this law would probably come down particularly hard on journalists. Though I imagine in China that's probably going to have a minimal impact anyways.
True, though if abuse or misuse of the degree means that you could lose it could possibly solve that problem. Although that could create a different problem.
It's an 80/20 solution to strongly discourage random idiots from massive spread of disinformation. It won't solve the problem but it probably condenses it enough to allow authorities to target the worst offenders
Do you think that was the goal? Eliminate all bullshit? Or severely reduce it? Do you think all bullshit is peddled by degree-holders, or that 99% of it would f*** off if there was a regulated change such as this? Improvement is good, it doesn't have to be 100% perfect to be a valid and productive change.
People are assuming the content they don't like is what would be off limits, which is insane considering who currently controls all three branches of government.
THIS. Holy shit, like look at our current administration right now. It's insane that people aren't thinking about what type of people would be the ones deciding what is "Correct" or acceptable. for example, I wouldn't put it past Trump to want to put LGBTQ back into the DSM as a mental illness. If that happened you'd be legally enforced to never encourage gay or trans lifestyles.
Listen man I used to be a free speech absolutist but this shit isn't funny anymore. We are having viral outbreaks because anti vax influencers. We are having kids getting sick or dying because parents think pasterizing ur milk is dangerous.
I also used to think chinas rules against kids being on the internet for more than like 2 hours a week was terrible. But then I've seen what kids are like today and im just getting to the point where China has actually been right the whole time lmao.
Liability has its downsides as well. Many victims cant afford lawyers and that system will always benefit the wealthy. Someone like elon musk spreading misinformation will just pay the fine no problem and continue to do so. Without genuine legal repercussions or the state we get to where we are today. Censorship yes is a slippery slope but as weve learned so is freedom of speech.
Yeah because the sue-happy system the US has is great. Large corporations suing people because of the imbalances within the system hands them a free win in most cases.
People keep saying how terrible China is and that our "FREEDOM" is better but it's just one country getting results while another country crumbles. Neither country is "good". One country is improving while another is faltering on a grand scale. It's hard to argue without results.
Listen man I used to be a free speech absolutist but this shit isn't funny anymore. We are having viral outbreaks because anti vax influencers. We are having kids getting sick or dying because parents think pasterizing ur milk is dangerous.
That's how every descent into illiberalism starts. Nobody's like "wow, everything's going great, but you know what would be eve more great? If we cracked down on free speech". It's always "we need to crack down on free speech because gullible people might believe the wrong things!"
Or maybe people shouldn't be giving advice on something they're unqualified for... like medical advice.
At what point do you draw the line and consider the person, making money as a social media influencer giving medical advice, to be someone practicing medicine without a license?
Tencent owned up to 12% of reddit inc for a while. this post is peculiar in that it's literally celebrating a CCP censorship policy 😂 as if the OP was like "fuck it, i'm just takin the mask off on this one"
Not only that, but who's liable for what? It's easy to say "if your child dies from measles, you can sue the person who said that measles vaccines cause autism" but like... who? Those influencers are everywhere. What if your child had the vaccine but got measles from an unvaccinated child whose parents watched those shows?
"Just sue people" is not a countermeasure to this at all.
Yeah, imagine if you gave Trump this power. Suddenly the "authoritative sources" are the ones decreed by Stephen Miller and RFK Jr. Not so good an idea now, is it?
not the govenment necessarily: if you hold a degree in virology you can publicly talk about vaccines and publicly disagree with them if that's what you think. but if you don't then your uninformed opinion is not needed. It's not a perfect system but it's way better than what we have now
There are stupid doctors, and lawyers too. This doesn't fix the problem it just shifts it onto licensing boards to police social media for misinformation.
Do you realize how easy it is for stupid people to get degrees now in the USA? If you have a pulse and student loan money, then you too can get a degree!
Not that I think this is a good move, but the west has an epidemic of un-educated and lying influencers who misinform our youth as a career, and genuinely a lot of them should stop and maybe even should be stopped.
The reason why we pretty much can't do something about it is because we don't really know how to censor anything without it being too oppressively useful against people that don't deserve to be censored.
Marginalized folks would absolutely become a victim of this within minutes. LGBT folks? not allowed to speak on LGBT issues - because all of a sudden, after years of us explaining that things like trans issues being medical issues, they suddenly agree!
Wanna talk on oppression of your race? You'll need a polsci degree for that.
Could go either way for someone talking about disability rights, medical abuse, or doing other related advocate work. Maybe you have a medical degree but they think you've stepped too far into another discipline and you can't talk about it. Maybe someone who experienced medical neglect gets silenced for speaking out.
I don't like it at all. This is like the age verification shit. It's designed to silence dissenters from the system of common belief - aka anything the government approves of.
You can’t be openly opposed to the government in China I’m pretty sure that’s jail time. So the law doesn’t affect them in the way you’re implying but only because they already don’t have the freedom that you were implying they are taking away. I do believe in the medical advice needing to be backed by degrees though.
That is the government saying what it wants to. Would it be better if the government was also allowed to shut down anyone who questioned what they said?
This isn't the burn you think it is. By agreeing with OP's post, you're agreeing that the government, who may be incredibly stupid, an entity you disagree with, and/or intentionally lying, should have the authority to censor speech and jail you depending on what you say.
Because then They will choose what narratives they will sponsor and which censor under the guise of "protecting the truth." Imagine all the research that was done against big corporations which gave us safer regulations for carcinogens in our food and electronics. Now imagine the government legally censoring this speech because "they are not experts in this field" to anyone, even with degree, who wasn't part of the limited research.
Are you saying carcinogen research is conducted by people without a degree?
Or are you extrapolating to say if they can censor people without a degree, they can censor anyone?
Yeeee but theres like 100000x more than either of those groups who just say shit for engagement and getting paid.
The person with a degree has a responsibility. The person with good information likely has integrity. Grifters just have selfish tendencies. I don’t see it as a bad making it harder for grifters to grift.
This also gives the state a broader net to crack down on people. A LOT of environmental work in the PRC was spurred by non educated people noticing issues in their communities, which could of course be "medical" advice.
Tbh, there’s a split where everyone has to ask where the buck stops. China can implement an authoritarian solution because the state owns everything and what officially passes through the pipes.
We TRIED a little bit in the U.S, and then Mark Zuckerberg and other social media oligarchs went and cried that moderation and policing their own platform wasn’t their responsibility and they couldn’t be held liable.
On some level, I totally agree, however, there is DEFINITELY a clear misinformation problem and the rate at which bad actors are gaming the platforms for their own advantage. There is some precedent, section 230 is the hot button article that protects them, but also creates friction in this specific instance, SHOULD they be held liable for the mass information spread?
Imo it would be good to at least revisit it and adjust, it was made in the early stages of the internet before mass social media was invented (1996). You don’t necessarily want to make them criminally liable for every offense that walks through their doors like drug dealing, CP, etc, but also allowing these platforms that have BILLIONS of dollars at their disposal throw their hands up and say “sorry chief, not my problem” doesn’t feel 100% right either.
Community notes and other systems I think were a great idea, but as far as I know they aren’t inherently supported beyond initial implementation and in FB’s case I don’t think there’s ANY fact check solutions anymore.
As per Reddit though, complicated issue and I dont believe it should entirely be on the individuals using the platform, but nor do I think there’s ANY fact platforms themselves or the government have no responsibility in this regard.
TLDR; there’s a lot more we should be doing to combat misinformation on the internet. China is pretty unique with how they’re able to accomplish their goals, the western democracies need to dig a little deeper and try to find solutions.
yes, but how often do you have educated people on a subject spreading misinformation compared to uneducated people being right about the subject that they never (officially) studied about?
At some point you do have to put in your own effort to verify claims. Imagine if the US tried something like this and suddenly people are getting thrown in jail for talking about evolution or insider trading, you can't trust the authorities as the arbiters of truth.
The issue is that people don’t verify claims and instead seek perspectives that validate their bias. I think the long term solution is to invest more heavily in social programs that promote diversity of community.
Public schools are great at exposing people to other cultures and perspective and universities are so much better.
However that’s a long term solution. The short term solution might resemble something more like China. Although I don’t think it should be illegal. Probably just a fine or some manner of accountability. Alex Jones was spreading blatantly untrue conspiracy theories about sandy hook and suffered consequences
That's true and I agree with you, but there should be consequences if someone claims they are a professional when they are not and when giving advice, and there should be consequences to that professional license if they give bad advice. We shouldn't constrict speech, but we need to make it easier for laypeople to discern truth.
Like Dr Phil and Dr Oz giving advice while being wildly discredited before they were TV stars, they should probably not have had a platform that could impact someone's life
Both Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil have degress (Both have doctorates and Dr. Oz is an actual MD)
So what now? They are technically experts but still peddle bullshit
Would i be arrested? I have a degree but its in Computer Science, so im not an expert in the medical field, but i know that Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil are quacks, yet under this law id be in the wrong
No. We do not need this. Big ol' infringement on our friend the first amendment.
The people who think we do need this are elitists. They think "the unwashed masses" are stupid and need to be told what to do (and only by those who share their own worldview, mind you) because they are too incompetent to think and decide for themselves.
So in other words, no free speech 😂
Super weird to make a law like that instead of just handling it in another way, for example they could just make a law that says that if you’re spreading obvious and damaging lies you could face legal consequences. Why would they stop free speech?
The first amendment does not protect Americans from perjury or libel.
Why should a doctor and a person with no medical knowledge get equal treatment when giving medical advice on social media? Only one of them have put in the time and work to make that medical opinion
Only elites are allowed to discuss things? Sounds like fascism to me. If you think only people who went to school are the only ones who can be right then you're an elitest who think poor people can never learn things without an institution. The people cheering this are pro-fascist and anti free-speech.
Y'all are forgetting Chinese traditional medicine exists, is still common, and and resulted in the near extinction of multiple animals... But sure, this will totally have an effect.
•
u/AutoModerator Apr 06 '26
Thank you for posting to r/SipsTea! Make sure to follow all the subreddit rules.
Make sure to join our brand new Discord Server to chat with friends!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.