this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2025
238 points (98.4% liked)

World News

50573 readers
1676 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
NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
lemmyAtom@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
238
China bans influencers from speaking on ‘serious’ topics like finance or health without university degree (mothership.sg)
submitted 10 hours ago by schizoidman@lemmy.zip to c/world@lemmy.world
40 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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

top 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 7 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

This is quintessential “Modern CPP”

Take a real problem screwing up the western world bad (like influencer mis/disinformation), and smash it in a way only their massive state apparatus can…

Superficially.

It’s “proof” their party line works and, as always, a good way to control the populace, if abused. It’s probably effective, but not as effective as it appears on the surface.

I’m sympathetic here.

In past years I was a “free internet” libertarian leaning diehard, but something has to be done about algos boosting shameless outrage peddlers; it’s literally destroying the planet and our collective psyche, just for short term corporate benefit (Or corpo-state benefit in China's case, as its “Big Tech” is under the party's thumb). But China just took the problem and used it as an excuse for more control.

[–] Comrade_Spood@quokk.au 4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

The issue is our society encourages it. When the most important thing in life is money, people are gonna do shit like this to exploit others. Take away the possibility of profit for grifting people and the incentive to do this drops. Would it completely go away? No, there will always be stupid grifters striving to gain popularity or attention, but I think that without the monetary factor it would be a negligible presence.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 1 points 56 minutes ago

I don't agree. Tons of folks spend tons of time influencing for basically no financial gain (or the platform taking the vast majority of it). Attention is everything.

In other cases, people are just tribal, and like following someone.

That's always been (and will always be) an issue, but the monster of this story is engagement optimizing design. Technology has made this human tendency extremly dangerous, and "engagement at any cost" needs to be a social taboo.

[–] AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 hour ago

There's no shortage of bad faith influencers who have degrees and misinform anyway. Such laws shouldn't be centered on pressuring people into expensive educational programs. They should focus on outlawing claims that are demonstrably false and harmful.

[–] biotin7@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Apparently people with degrees cannot lie

[–] quetzaldilla@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

I once worked for a CPA who asked me what a balance sheet was for.

He was from a wealthy Tibetan family dynasty and clearly paid his way into the industry, but who knows why he would choose to do that because he clearly was completely over his head.

We used to call him Michael Scott sans charisma.

[–] TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip 8 points 4 hours ago

Curious to see if this leads to licenses or degrees being revoked as universities have their name tied to what people are saying.

[–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 27 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I can see how this would play out in the states. First you make it so only degreed people can talk about certain things. Then you dismiss them as educated elite ivory tower academics. Because we live in a nation that scorns experience and expertise.

Someone asked for an example the other day of something that didn't believe was true and I listed seven. They dismissed me with "I didn't ask for an encyclopedia." It was the best way they could ignore that someone knew more than them and not have to actually process the information they explicitly asked for.

[–] frunch@lemmy.world 8 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Sounds like they thought they could just argue on easy mode by putting the burden of proof on you. When you accommodated their request, that blew up their spot. Having no other recourse, they retreated to an insult since there was nothing else for them to do (but they were seething to get the last word, so you got that response).

Good on ya for making the fucker squirm.

[–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 6 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I know that there is absolutely zero chance of educating some that doesn't want to learn. But I also know that online others are reading and those people are either looking for information they can use in future conversations or they don't have a vested interest in the conversation and can be reached even if they don't poke their heads up to be seen.

[–] frunch@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

That's 100% the reason I'll bother with these idiots when i do. Sometimes it's also a chance for me to further prove out my logic and refine my arguments and understanding of the topic as well, so it can be a win-win-win in the best case scenario (troll proven wrong+me learning something new/refining my knowledge+bystanders learning why the troll is wrong)

[–] orioler25@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Genuinely curious if anyone has info on how something like this is enforced.

[–] diablexical@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 hours ago

Selectively. If there are enough laws on the books that everyone is in violation all the time you can justify taking down anyone at any time.

[–] AbsolutelyNotAVelociraptor@sh.itjust.works 66 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

I think the main focus here should be the word "influencers".

One thing is for a relatively unknown person to speak about any kind of topic even if they know nothing about it.

But when someone with millions of followers spreads misinfo, that is dangerous as it can end up killing lots of people.

People with a certain amount of followers should be held accountable for what they say the same way that a newspaper should.

[–] thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago

sure, but that's not what this is doing. it doesn't say they'll be held accountable. it just places a high barrier to entry.

i understand the sentiment behind it, but I don't think this will be effective at curtailing disinformation. it would, however, be a very useful tool for controlling online speech. especially with a government that has so much control over its universities.

[–] Krompus@lemmy.world 14 points 4 hours ago

Yup, as someone who loosely follows streamer drama, this is kinda based.

[–] Dreaming_Novaling@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 hours ago

Yeah, I think if it's more about policing the misinformation influencers spread, then I can calm down a bit, although it still makes me nervous to think about the government picking and choosing what a person with a crowd can say.

For now, it's making sure influencers don't spread anti-vax bullshit, but what if tomorrow it's no talking about Palestine?

Even then, medical professionals themselves can fall to propaganda and spread lies, so we can't use a single person as an arbiter of truth.

[–] z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml 6 points 5 hours ago

There's so much where this could be used to silence people, I can't trust this. What if you're an expert in a related field to the "serious" topic and disagree with the mainstream opinion held by experts within that field? Who gets to decide what constitutes a "serious" topic?

I just keep thinking of the recent Ms. Rachel controversy where conservative voices basically said she should stay out of talking on Palestine because she was "only" a children's educator. But one should be able to express their opinion on this serious matter even if you aren't an expert, and yeah, even if you're a major influencer.

I want societies to address misinformation and disinformation campaigns as much as the next person, but to be clear, I just don't trust governments to be the ones to do that. Granted governments are admittedly experts in misinformation and disinformation, so at least we can rest assured that experts have eyes on it though...

[–] devolution@lemmy.world 18 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

I'm conflicted. On one hand, I'm American and believe in free speech. On the other hand, I want assholes to be held accountable for lying.

So conflicted.

[–] Soktopraegaeawayok@lemmy.world 0 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Go with free speech. People usually get what they deserve, one way or another.

[–] beetus@lemmy.world 13 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Usually due to laws rules and regulations holding their words/actions to account..

[–] bluesocks@lemmings.world -2 points 4 hours ago

Not really.

[–] icelimit@lemmy.ml 13 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

There are plenty of dumb as doornails graduates as well so ..

[–] dubyakay@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Are there plenty of dumb as door nails graduates with millions of followers on social media though? Because this is what this legislation is supposed to target. Basically if Trump was in "Chyna", he'd be in jail already for spewing nonsense non-stop on stuff that he knows nothing about, because he's not actually educated on it.

[–] thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

yes lol, look at any conservative influencer on American tv. they all have degrees.

i don't think this law would actualy change much here in the states. almost every dangerous spreader of misinfo i can think of did in fact graduate college in some way.

i can't possibly see this law s anything but a tool to control online speech rather than a tool to fight disinformation.

if the goal of to reduce disinformation then this law will be ineffective.

[–] 0tan0d@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

MBA's and nursing degrees come to mind. Is there a group as educated and just as likely to fall for a MLM scam?

[–] despite_velasquez@lemmy.world 16 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Idk how to feel about this. If this news came from the UK, the replies would've been:

you got a loicense for that, mate?

But because it's China, people will gladly glaze this move.

[–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 5 points 7 hours ago

"Nanny State"

Somehow we don't get memed on for that, even though it's all the same downunder.

[–] xc2215x@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

Good for China.

[–] TheCriticalMember@aussie.zone 8 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

I'm sure there's ways to see it as a bad thing, but the idea of only letting experts on a subject speak publicly about the subjects sounds like it could be really beneficial, particularly in some areas.

Of course if universities are corrupted or controlled it's definitely a bad thing. And of course shitty people are always going to be trying to control whatever mechanism or criteria keeps certain people from speaking.

But it's a nice idea.

[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 8 points 7 hours ago

It's one thing to curb misinfo, but this smell like trying to control the population. You can't just blanket ban people from speaking a certain topic, that's like saying all science communicator now need to have science degree to talk about science. Now they say only people with degree able to talk about it, then if someone talk about topic not permitted, they lose their privilege. It's a very basic tactic for authoritarian.

[–] gon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Is it a nice idea?

Of course, I see the good side, too. However, besides the possible negatives you've already mentioned, I feel like this measure begs the question: Should everyday people be allowed to sway public opinion?

I think the answer is, unequivocally, YES! I think it is wrong to say that you need a degree to comment on a topic or that you need a degree to say what you think, publicly, about a topic.

I very much appreciate stricter regulation on misinformation, but this is concerning.

I suppose it will depend on how and how much they enforce this.

[–] nogooduser@lemmy.world 4 points 7 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 2 points 3 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 1 hour 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.

[–] Atherel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Disclaimer: I didn't read the article

I think it depends on how you define "influencer". Talking about these topics should absolutely be possible and forbidding it is censorship. But influencer with ten thousands or more followers have a responsibility and I think it's necessary to enforce some kind of quality and to prevent misinformation.

If the way China does it is the right way I don't know, but I can see why they are doing it.

[–] gon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 hours ago

I think it depends on how you define “influencer”.

It seems to me that it's basically anyone that posts content. I read both the linked article and the referenced CNBC article, and there doesn't seem to be any clarification on the issue...

[–] Skiluros@sh.itjust.works 10 points 10 hours ago

While I am pretty skeptical of US-style polemics on free speech, I of course support free expression, strong journalistic culture, limiting the influence of oligarch propaganda and significant safeguards to censorship.

That being said there are clear externalities to easy access to digital content distribution platforms that prioritize engagement above all else and do not bear responsibility for their actions.

I of course would never trust the CCP on this, but I think in the long term the externalities inherent to social media distribution will have to be accounted for.

[–] roserose56@lemmy.zip 1 points 8 hours ago

What a beautiful country to live! One day you talk about health and finance, and the other day you are in heaven or in a basement getting tortured.