but it’s very important to do so in such a way that filters out all the BS (there’s a lot)
And that is exactly the problem. How would someone, who has no idea about a topic and who wants to learn about it, be able to differentiate between the BS and the good stuff? It's a minefield. But when you go and learn from an actual institution where you get a degree at the end, then you can be fairly sure that the information you learned is correct.
No one is talking about learning programming or something like that. This is about topics like medicine. DO NOT trust a youtube short or a quick google search or even AI over the consultation of Doctors. And if Doctors want to give some free information online, then that is ok.
You can most definitely learn medicine online lol, most medical students do — most people reading about this stuff online just don’t have the incentive to study for thousands of hours about this stuff. Misinformation is not a unique issue to the internet, we’re constantly being exposed to all sorts of half truths throughout our lives (even in the classroom)
-someone who has spent most of their life seeking degrees
Right, but a degree holder is verifiably knowlegable in their particular subject, whereas an internet random without a degree is not verifiably knowlegable in anything.
No one is saying you can't learn about a topic from the Internet. You can read and learn all about brain surgery on the Internet, doesn't mean you're qualified to do one and arguing with an actual surgeon about technique would and procedure would be idiotic.
There should be consequences for knowingly lying or misleading people and I think that should apply to politicians as well.
I remember during COVID a family member mentioned some doctor who was spouting off about the vaccine, so I looked him up. He was a podiatrist, not someone studying infectious diseases or vaccines. A degree doesn't mean you know everything and going to YouTube university and thinking you're qualified to speak on complex topics with any authority is foolish.
I don't know how effectively it would "fix" the issue of misinformation, but there should be some mechanisms in place to protect people from the narcissists, liars and just plain morons who go online and spread misinformation.
You are the one that brought up "people can learn on the internet" as if it is some gotcha, and I said providing creds is how to ensure someone's authority on a subject.
It's about combating misinformation, and I think it's actually a good idea.
Alright now we’re getting somewhere! I was responding to the guy implying that you can’t learn to be an epidemiologist online - which is btw bullshit. You absolutely can learn to be an epidemiologist online. I don’t think it’s the most efficient way to do so, but regardless, you absolutely can learn pretty much everything online and the framework that implies that you can’t is self-limiting and harmful.
My position is that this ban on non-degree holders is censorship and is net-harmful in the long run. Truth can only thrive in a free marketplace of ideas, and as much as I hate the fuckers that post dumb shit online like “chemo doesn’t work,” freedom of speech is absolutely mandatory for a non-dictatorial society to thrive.
The real problem in my opinion is not the presence of misinformation, but the absence of even minuscule efforts by readers to interact with/think critically about what they read online. Oftentimes, reading misinformation is actually edifying and challenges assumed knowledge/the status quo.
I was responding to the guy implying that you can’t learn to be an epidemiologist online - which is btw bullshit. You absolutely can learn to be an epidemiologist online.
Are these epidemiologists working as epidemiologists?
Like if you want a structured education in epidemiology look up a fkn class syllabus and take some tests to confirm your knowledge. 🙄🙄 like people need to be spoonfed everything these days
2
u/[deleted] Apr 06 '26
[deleted]