lol
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:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Turkey requires a college degree to become president. Then they started revoking the college degrees of the opposition candidates.
Yikes
It's incredible that despite how shit the US has become It's still a better place than 1984 land
A real communist country would have a UBI that doesn't pressure people to become scammers and grifters, just to make a wage in a shit economy with little financial opportunities.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Does a degree cost anything in China other than time and effort?
Apparently people with degrees cannot lie
I'd imagine the number of people with degrees who are confidently incorrect on the subject of their major is much smaller than those without a formal education.
While I don't agree with China's tactics, something needs to be done about people like Joe Rogan peddling harmful misinformation to millions of people.
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.
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.
Nah, if this happened in the US someone would just set up a diploma mill and rake in the money.
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.
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.
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)
Curious to see if this leads to licenses or degrees being revoked as universities have their name tied to what people are saying.
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.
main focus here should be the word “influencers”
So, anyone: got it.
Yeah I gotta agree with you on this, there's a frankly insane amount of pull these people have in society and as we saw during the pandemic not only did it cause people to endanger their own health, but those of others around them.
If we held news accountable for misinformation then fox and all the other fascist networks wouldn’t even exist.
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.
Yup, as someone who loosely follows streamer drama, this is kinda based.
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.
Genuinely curious if anyone has info on how something like this is enforced.
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.
Yeah, that's what the law is. Im curious about the mechanics of this, this certainly is not a new issue and AI could feasibly make mass surveillance necessary to enforce such a law easier. If that's the case though, what kind of process would exist to confirm the person's qualifications? Just some examples but that is more of what I'm talking about.
Arbitrary laws as a form of suppression is centuries old here in NA.
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.
America is already censoring free speech indirectly. Censorship from platforms. Shadowbans. Now even directly arresting and deporting it.
But look at Julian Assagne or Edward Snowden to see the myth of free speech.
load more comments
(6 replies)
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...
There are plenty of dumb as doornails graduates as well so ..
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.
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.
They have to have a degree on the relevant topic. I assume most of those influences have business degrees or whatever that wouldn't qualify them to speak on the dangers of vaccines.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
"Nanny State"
Somehow we don't get memed on for that, even though it's all the same downunder.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
view more: next ›