Turkey requires a college degree to become president. Then they started revoking the college degrees of the opposition candidates.
post
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.
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.
If we held news accountable for misinformation then fox and all the other fascist networks wouldn’t even exist.
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.
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.
There's a lot of nuance to be discussed and Republicans shouldn't be in the room at all when it is, but yeah this is objectively true. We used to have laws regulating the news for a reason.
main focus here should be the word “influencers”
So, anyone: got it.
Is that what your attention span lasts? Or are you leaving the rest of the comment out on purpose for some reason?
When an influencer is literally anyone online, then yes: anyone. Nothing else you wrote matters, because anyone can be an influencer.
People should be held accountable for their lapses in judgement to believe whatever: they aren't mindless automatons. We can't depend on anyone (certainly not big daddy government) but ourselves to think critically for us.
So you didn't read past the first sentence, got it.
Nah, your point is worthless.
Here's a nice picture.

Ah... I see... My bad, I understood it too late that I wasn't talking with someone able to fully read a comment before making a "sharp" remark about it.
Get butthurt all you want about others not caring about & disagreeing with your point.
Someone's lack of sense to question unreliable information is entirely their fault. That's no justification to violate a fundamental right.
Not butthurt at all. I just accepted that I'm not discussing with someone capable of reading a comment beyond the first sentence of it. It's fine tho, I'm not gonna explain it again just because you refuse to read the first comment.
You don't need to explain your delusion that critics didn't read your comment.
"I'm a free speech absolutist who can't read and believes that people shouldn't be held responsible for what they say".
You're not a critic, you just sound awfully like a maga snowflake yelling "but muh freedom!".
Let's hold people responsible for what they say by violating freedom of speech.
Little Jimmy injured himself trying to fly like Superman, so we must hold those media execs responsible by violating freedom of expression.
Nah, shit argument: mere falsehoods do not incite imminent, unlawful harm. The time to discuss & criticize that speech before acting is unbounded. Any harm is the own doing & responsibility of someone failing to exercise reasonable sense of challenging unsound information & sources.
You keep sounding like a maga snowflake that doesn't like when their words bring them consequences. It's fine tho, I understand that you are not equipped to understand the nuances of freedom of speech and its limitations.
Calling anyone who doesn't oppose free speech MAGA (a straw man or ad hominem fallacy) isn't serving you. Mere falsehoods do not constitute violations of free speech limitations (eg, true threats, defamation, imminent lawless action). Try respecting logic.
You are trying to debate something you haven't read in the first place. And you ask me to "respect logic". I mean... try respecting logic?
You just seem offended by something you simply refuse to read, which is very much in line with what MAGAs do. As I said, you are not ready to discuss the limits to free speech and the concept of "consequences to what you say".
You are trying to debate something you haven’t read in the first place.
I refer you back to
You don’t need to explain your delusion that critics didn’t read your comment.
Everything else you wrote was addressed.
concept of “consequences to what you say”
Right: criticism, condemnation.
Those taking ill-advised actions causing actual (not imaginary) harm must bear the consequences of their actions, not anyone else who didn't make them do it.
See? But you didn't address anything because, by your own admission, you didn't read my comment. So you don't even know what you are criticizing. You are just butthurt because someone dared to defy "your freedom".
Just admit that you don't want responsibilities for your words. That's it, that's all you are saying. And that is a very MAGA thing.
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.
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)
Nah, if this happened in the US someone would just set up a diploma mill and rake in the money.
There are plenty of dumb as doornails graduates as well so ..
MBA's and nursing degrees come to mind. Is there a group as educated and just as likely to fall for a MLM scam?
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.
Surface-level, seems good idea. In practice, it depends entirely on who gets to define an "influencer", what is a "serious topic", what activities meet the threshold of "speaking on" that topic, and which universities' degrees will be respected and which won't. It seems like a very flexible framework that their government could use to remove nearly any person from any platform for any reason. If I post "fruit is good for you" on a social platform and someone else sees it, that falls under these rules as I understand them. I anticipate selective enforcement of these rules against those not aligned with the CCP, in fact the rules seems to be specifically written with that in mind.
In China, the level of trust people have in the Government is very high compared to the US and Europe. That is the reason why this policy would work and would have reasonable public support.
In the US or Europe, a policy that seems reasonable but could be exploited by the Government for political control is a bad policy. In China, people have already sort of accepted that the Government is pretty secure in its position so it really doesn't need to suppress speech in roundabout ways; if the intention is to suppress speech then they will be explicit about it by using the words "this threatens state security" or "this is offensive to public morals". The thing about being a secure authoritarian regime with reasonable popular support is that you don't need to come up with pretexts to suppress speech or dissent. You can just say "this threatens our power" and put a stop to it. If the policy states the goal is to stop uninformed people from spewing nonsense on the Internet then people will accept that to be true, and the reality is that it probably is what the goal is.
"They are so powerful that they no longer tell lies" isn't a take I think human history would support.
That "high trust" is only because the government hides a lot of information from them where in a free country it would be discussed in public. The government heavily controls what information is available, what topics can be discussed and what opinions are allowed.
Its not because they govern responsibly and earnt the admiration of the general public.like you seem to suggest.
You are half right and half wrong.
The Government controls all media. There are no major independent news organisations in China. Therefore, they won't allow negative press about it to spread.
Because the news and social media only ever have good or at worst neutral news about the Government, never critical news, the result is that people think the Government does a good job governing.
At the same time, the poverty alleviation and anti-corruption efforts of the CCP have indeed brought millions out of poverty (even though that poverty is largely a result of bad leadership decisions by the same CCP in the past) and eliminated most forms of petty corruption. That is something that the Government makes sure everyone knows about and is always talking about. And to their credit, it isn't wrong.
I do not and will not suggest that popular support for the Government would be anywhere near what it is now if it weren't for the Government's propaganda efforts and the suppression of speech, dissent, and criticism.
I wouldn't suggest that people think their government is doing a good job because the media doesn't expose the bad. Rather, the goal of speech suppression is to limit factions forming, organizing, and growing. Public discussion is the fuel for organization. Limiting speech keeps everyone in the same tent or in their own tiny, isolated pockets.
And you are correct. But it doesn't matter to my original point. For any reason, people trust the Government. Because of this trust, policies like the one discussed in the original post don't alarm the average Chinese netizen.
Although an interesting side note is that while some people think that saying anything bad at all about the Government will get you arrested in China, that's not really true. You are free to talk all the smack you want about the Government, in private. It's when you try to start some kind of political movement or organise something in public that now you will be labelled a threat to public order and state security.
Absolutely.
The only fair way to handle it is to pay lip service to the free flow of information, and then get your friends who own every mass media platform with reach to push your own agenda, burying the rest in lawsuit threats and filtering algorithms.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not defending the Chinese government as saints, but I think at this point we can safely acknowledge EVERYTHING sucks. If there's a country fairly managing to promote truth while keeping dangerous nonsense from propagating, I sure haven't found it.
How does a post where you make a bunch of uneducated guesses about a country get only up votes? Oh right, china bad, got it.
If only China would live up to the shining standard of the USA...
One country is spiraling into civil war while the other is the fastest growing economy in the world, and yet its the suicidal countries citizens constantly talking shit about the rest of the world.
China is not a third world country. They aren't oppressed people. America is both of those things.
Well I'd watch out from posting anything like this unless you have a degree in Political Science from an approved institution. You might accidentally influence me and get fined!
So... Did you bring anything to the discussion? What's your take on the new policy?
I'll still take the USA over CCP run China, because over half of the US voting population is against the MAGA insanity. When the mainland Chinese vote for Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party, then we'll talk.
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.
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...
Curious to see if this leads to licenses or degrees being revoked as universities have their name tied to what people are saying.
Apparently people with degrees cannot lie
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'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.
We have this thing called Fact-Checking
This seems like it could be abused pretty easily. IDK are there any Chinese citizens here to comment
Naw come on, China's not known for their extreme degree of control over what they'll allow their citizens to see or post online, that's just wild talk man. They certainly don't have enormous human and technological infrastructures dedicated to making sure that their internet is squeaky-clean and government-approved for all their citizens who they totally trust.
The only reason it seems that way is because western countries would use that to control their populations, and you are likely from one of them and are fed anti-china propaganda.
Please define anti-China propaganda.
Is it that the Chinese have extreme wealth inequality while cranking out more billionaires than any other country?
Oh wait, is it the old China is just another imperialist state that abuses minorities?
China didn't get the fastest growing economy by themselves. In fact, it was businesses in the US that gave them the money to do what they did. This means that China is great because of the US not despite it.
I get that confused westerners get a China boner when they get disillusioned by their governments. I think that these sort of people are just reactionary and can't see the bigger picture. There are no good guys.
Is chinas wealth inequality worse than america? Do you really know what's happening in Xinjiang? Chinas economy is the fastest growing because the western world exported every bit of skilled labor there. The west trained them on everything they know, and then stopped training their own people on the same things. China has problems but people constantly acting like its a third world country and so far beneath any western country is extremely laughable.
Even more rididiculous are comparisons to the US which is about to be shattered apart by civil war.
Yes, by far. Yes. I already explained their economy is propped up by trade. They did not create it in a vacuum.
Much of China is rural with great wealth inequality. China had its own civil war where horrific things like hundred of thousands of civilians were starved to death.
As I already said. Disenfranchised westerners often latch onto China as some kind of alternative without doing any real research. I will say China has done well for itself economically. They deserve credit where credit is due.
Having said that their government is authoritarian and saying the wrong thing will get you locked up for years and sometimes decades in prison.
China abuses minorities and engages in imperialism. They sell weapons to conflict regions and project their power in the same way western countries do.
You speak of propaganda and then say the US is about to be shattered by a civil war. Sounds like propaganda to me.
Got any sources? Anything from the last 10 or 15 years?
Ongoing minority repression.
China creates record billionaires.
Rising wealth inequality.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10670564.2023.2172553
Starving to death hundreds of thousand of civilians during the violent revolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Changchun
Millions of people killed during revolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Civil_War
The US economy and China's are inexorably linked.
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/contentious-us-china-trade-relationship
Credit where credit is due. China has lifted close to a billion out of extreme poverty.
How China's authoritarian streak has had it limits.
Chinese arms supplied to conflict areas
You are right that every country has its problems, and the larger the country the larger the problems can be. All I'm saying is, if I had to bet on one countries future as just an average citizen, I'd choose China easily. I appreciate the sources, its a hard subject to learn about objectively.
What? You mean you'll have to actually KNOW something , before you blather on about it? That's un-American!
Which is precisely why China's quickly taking the world leadership title away from the US.
Needing the Chinese government's blessing of your online activities, is, I totally agree, very un-American.
America doesnt have free speech.
Is this really true? I cast suspicion because to me it sounds like they are trying to convince the world that whatever comes out of their influencers about the topics they are interested to push is of higher quality than the rest of the world.
Oh the media keeps reporting that there are human rights abuse going on some place remote. Those are obvious lies because our double MBA PhD influencer is quite clear that everyone is happy.
Yes it would be nice if only knowledgeable people spoke on complex subjects in a language that allows less knowledgeable people to understand. But one has to be able to trust what is being said.
This is funny because the US anti-intellectual MAGA movement is doing the exact opposite. People with degrees who know what the fuck they are doing are being shunned and idiots with feels are being rewarded.
How long to learn Mandarin? 🤣🥹🤷🏼♂️
Heres your intro lesson: ma ma qui ma man, ma ma ma ma means "mother is riding a horse, when the horse is slow mother curses it."
mama ma ma ma? means "Does mother scold the horse?"
Wo he ni muqin fashengguo xing guanxì means "I had sex with your mom."
I might have missed some tone symbols here and there but you get the picture. Its an easy language to pick up, you should absolutely do it. A few words a day and you're Jinze-de (golden). Not to be mistaken for Jin ze de (responsible)
They say it's the hardest language to learn...
top 94 comments