this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2025
317 points (98.5% liked)

World News

50573 readers
1681 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/52036171

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nogooduser@lemmy.world 4 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] gon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] nogooduser@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

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.