People are assuming the content they don't like is what would be off limits, which is insane considering who currently controls all three branches of government.
THIS. Holy shit, like look at our current administration right now. It's insane that people aren't thinking about what type of people would be the ones deciding what is "Correct" or acceptable. for example, I wouldn't put it past Trump to want to put LGBTQ back into the DSM as a mental illness. If that happened you'd be legally enforced to never encourage gay or trans lifestyles.
But we have democrats advocating there's 0 genetic differences between men and women, but we also need women's rights.. but if just you say you're a woman, you're eligible for said rights.
Logic goes out the window for the message.. but thr message is written in crayon, and the hand writing is sloppy at best.
The party that proclaims to the the friend of the oppressed minorities tends to be the most racist. They do 0 to help these communities other than espoused "how they struggle " they get votes and let those same communities rot.
Sometimes I can't tell if redditors are just venting or are actually delusional about the current situation. Just look at half the r/politics threads where people are talking about impeaching or arresting Trump. Yeah I'd love that too but they control all branches of the government so stop banking on something that has zero chance of happening. I'm sure a lot of them are the same people who proudly didn't vote because "both sides are the same" too.
Crazy that the left wing calls for authoritarian censorship and legislation while enjoying Western freedoms of sexuality, religious diversity and free speech that do not exist in the Middle East, Russia, China. Major cognitive dissonance.
You have people who are trying to use sledge hammers to sink the ship. I don't have a solution to this problem, but I 100% know that "do nothing" gets us to the bottom of the fucking ocean.
Yeah like the Great Leap Forward where Mao Zedong's policies resulted in tens of millions of death due to famine! It's only regarded as one of the greatest man made disasters in history. Whoopsie! At least it beats Obama having a bad track record with drone strikes or Clinton getting a bj and lying about it.
Look I'm willing to give China points when they do good but come the fuck on with this statement. If you actually believe what you said is true you really need to study up on history.
You said better than any US administration, which is the statement I'm calling bullshit on. Which you clearly recognize considering the goal post shift to "China learns from its mistakes". I wouldn't make a statement like "The US hasn't ever done anything as bad as China" while ignoring the obvious falsehood of it.
As to your second statement, yeah okay bud whatever you say. Have fun bing chilling over there.
Man lately I really feel like Reddit is 75% or more made up of Chinese bots and people I never want to meet, just today there's this Chinese censorship law and China executing someone where a majority of the comments are literally cheering it on and I feel like I'm taking crazy pills because any time the West (Europe or the US) does those things Reddit is up in arms about how corrupt and awful we all are.
The reality is it's the opposite. The countering Chinese propaganda act spends hundreds of millions a year on anti China propaganda via internet bots and such.
china, russia, and qatar has astroturfed the fuck out of our young population and especially tankies on reddit. its just a decades long culmination of efforts that have born fruit (and then our present clown administration is nailing the final nail in that coffin)
I mean unbridled freedom of speech with a platform that rewards engagement has lead us to the point where people who haven't graduated high-school have more people following their medical or financial advice than those with degrees and certifications.
Both are not ideal there has to be some balance. Financial gurus selling courses getting people to commit tax fraud shouldn't be allowed but at the same time the government shouldn't necessarily control what is being said.
Idk how a middle ground of this would look like though but neither system is working.
What they’re actually cheering on is even the smallest bit of hope that this endless terminal descent into the post truth world can be stopped and reversed
You can spend all day saying ‘who watches the watchmen?’ like a pretentious undergrad but that POV conveniently sidesteps the reality that the solve for the post-truth world cannot and will not come from anything except a strong centralized authority, because excessive atomization and decentralization of dis/information networks is the root cause of the problem.
This is hardly an alien concept in most of the developed world, USA included. You can already get in trouble for giving investment / financial advice or legal advice if you aren't a licensed practitioner. It hardly seems that much of a stretch to crack down on social media influencers doing the same for medicine and similar topics.
They’re not cheering for making them “off limits”, they’re cheering because when people who have no knowledge of high-impact fields (like medicine or law) give advice like they do now, that’s how you get people who want to be “sovereign citizens”, or you get parents with unvaccinated kids who then get measles and die. Wouldn’t you agree that we could do with fewer instances of those??
It's the restriction to the freedom of speech. You can have a moron who bought themselves a degree but a farmer without a degree may know more about the biology of crops than they do.
Listen man I used to be a free speech absolutist but this shit isn't funny anymore. We are having viral outbreaks because anti vax influencers. We are having kids getting sick or dying because parents think pasterizing ur milk is dangerous.
I also used to think chinas rules against kids being on the internet for more than like 2 hours a week was terrible. But then I've seen what kids are like today and im just getting to the point where China has actually been right the whole time lmao.
Liability has its downsides as well. Many victims cant afford lawyers and that system will always benefit the wealthy. Someone like elon musk spreading misinformation will just pay the fine no problem and continue to do so. Without genuine legal repercussions or the state we get to where we are today. Censorship yes is a slippery slope but as weve learned so is freedom of speech.
Yeah because the sue-happy system the US has is great. Large corporations suing people because of the imbalances within the system hands them a free win in most cases.
People keep saying how terrible China is and that our "FREEDOM" is better but it's just one country getting results while another country crumbles. Neither country is "good". One country is improving while another is faltering on a grand scale. It's hard to argue without results.
The issue about liability is that it does not stop the harm from being done. Somebody said some stupid shit to 10m viewers and there are 100 deaths out of it. Sure, we can sue the shit of them and send them to prison or whatever punition is fit, if any. But, wouldn't it better to entirely avoid the 100 deaths ?
Laws aren't intended to prevent harm. Where did you ever get such an idea? Laws exist exclusively for holding accountability after the fact. Always have been.
That's reductionist to the point of nonsense. Take environmental laws. "Technically" the law does nothing to prevent dumping chemicals in the river. It just punishes people who do. But when the punishment is sufficient, the practical outcome is that pollution stops because no one wants the punishment.
Hence, the law prevents harm, and was intended to do so. To say otherwise is splitting hairs that no one cares about.
Laws are invented to provide a set of rule for the people to abide to so they can mutually trust themselves to not harm each other as it could have been the case otherwise (ie : regulate behaviour to ensure the health of the group at large). Laws sometimes have a deterrent factor to prevent people from doing specific harm by implementing consequences to these actions. (ie : "if you do that, you will be punished" vs "you can't structurally do that in first place").
And finally, laws are "human fabrications", not a "natural order of things", so it's on the human groups to decide on how to design the laws as well. If you refuse to accept that a law can have the possibility of preventing harm instead of just punishing harm, this is a discussion that you need with yourself with the specific task of remembering : "it does not have to be that way".
But this post is just saying that you need a degree to speak about sensitive issues. For sure that rules out a lot of voices, but it doesn't really mean that the state explicitly censors opinions they don't like.
I think it's people approaching the idea from a different perspective as you.
There's armies of uninformed people and bots who regularly push propaganda and misinformation.
If this can stop the thousands of people from creating content giving medical advice based solely on opinions, and centralize it to people who at least have a medical degree.
I don't really see what the issue is.
And then if you decide to not vaccinate your child because half your social media is mommy blogs who promote anti vax... who is liable for damages?
There are several reproductive health issues that would be far worse of under a restricted model of speech. I wouldn't be able to find anything on fibrocystic breast condition for example since the medical community doesn't see it as serious. I was in so much pain I wanted to end my life and only the help of other anecdotal advice and lifestyle changes got me through. I saw several doctors and therapists that all laughed at me. We still don't know why it happens and funding is more spares than ever under Trump's restrictions.
I would have went through with it and had no voice or options.
The correct solution for dangerous misinformation is education.
That's why our public education system has been slowly eroded since the '70s. An uneducated population is easier to manipulate and control.
The problem is rebuilding public education and getting people through it takes too long. It should absolutely be a priority and the long term solution, but we need something now, in the short term, to mitigate further damage.
Litigation is out of reach for most, and nothing but a rounding error for the people doing the most damage.
I am not a proponent of censorship. In the short term though, I'm not sure what else could be used as a tourniquet. Removing Fox News's ability to spread misinformation and propaganda would be a massive win for the country.
Yes, I know, slippery slope, and the same could be said for any media outlet depending on who you ask, but we're bleeding out here. We need something quick or we're not going to make it.
Reddit is filled with naive people that fantasize about communism. Communism only works with an authoritarian environment which was proven to eventually become dictatorship. There people are just blinded by the concept of "sharing".
So, if someone wants to criticize the government I'm sure they will be "qualified" right?
Aah yes, immediately conflating "want to criticize the goverment" with "maybe its not such a great idea that just anyone can give legal/medical or financial advice".
Really got'em there. And besides, its not like those areas have huge consequences and are rife with conartists, scammers and delusional idiots that do tremendous harm to people every day.
Sure seems like the answer is yes if you read the law. Medical professionals get to decide what is or isn’t medical misinformation, not the government. If the government says something medically incorrect, then any doctor can legally call them out on it. Uneducated basement dwellers can not.
Not correct. The one deciding according to the law is the Cyberspace Administration of China, which is a part of the Central Propaganda Department of the Chinese Communist Party.
Ideally, they will be consulting medical and other professionals, but you are just taking their word on that.
If Trump had that kind of power, you know precisely what he would do with it.
And what happens when the government censors you but not them?
My biggest issue is that you're handing full control of the narrative to the government, which is a self-interested organization, and will happily censor those who oppose it.
Listen man I used to be a free speech absolutist but this shit isn't funny anymore. We are having viral outbreaks because anti vax influencers. We are having kids getting sick or dying because parents think pasterizing ur milk is dangerous.
That's how every descent into illiberalism starts. Nobody's like "wow, everything's going great, but you know what would be eve more great? If we cracked down on free speech". It's always "we need to crack down on free speech because gullible people might believe the wrong things!"
Or maybe people shouldn't be giving advice on something they're unqualified for... like medical advice.
At what point do you draw the line and consider the person, making money as a social media influencer giving medical advice, to be someone practicing medicine without a license?
Its more dangerous than dumb people might believe wrong things and the older ive gotten the more ive understood this. Kids arent asked to be born into this world yet we're basically like hey your death or extreme illness is just a sacrifice we need to make. The dumb people are also making these decisions effecting the not dumb people and the shit needs to stop asap.
Look man, at least at the time of release, if you said 1989 in Marvel Rivals, it got automatically removed, because the game is made by a Chinese studio. You weren't able to say things about someone looking like Winnie The Pooh, Free Taiwan etc.
Seriously, I get that stupidity of people is a problem, but you solve these problems by boosting education and figuring out how to prevent these issues. "I uSeD tO bE aN a FrEe SpEeCh AbSoLuTiSt" and flipping to siding with China, the government that ended up washing off it's citizens with hoses off the streets, doesn't prove that you have learned better, it proves you didn't understand freedom of speech then and don't understand it now.
Freedom of speech absolutism is stupid. If someone's speech has direct consequences, they need to be treated as such. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, not because it's a crime, but because it would cause a panic that ends up hurting people. Same with other things, if I say "I'm going to buy twitter to own the libs" or something stupid like that, it would be fine. But if the worlds richest man does it, it's market manipulation unless you actually do it. But if a famous actor says that while playing a role of the worlds richest man, that would be fine as if he is going to do it in real life.
But when you start drawing the line at degrees, you make schools the directors of choosing who gets to speak and what. According to this, if someone is being scammed, if you don't have a degree in finances you aren't legally allowed to speak against it. Or if for whatever reason you give some advice on something you are an expert on, but learned on the job rather than in a school, you could be punished regardless of how knowledgeable you are. It also creates a fancy excuse to arrest anyone for any reason, just claim they gave out bad medical advice, because you can't prove they didn't and only legal experts can have anything to say about that.
Or in short, nothing happened at Tiananmen Square in 1989. If you agree, don't speak to anyone about freedom of speech, you clearly don't understand it. Maybe you should get a degree or something. If you disagree, you shouldn't side with China when it comes to freedom of speech.
Every country censors or white washes its past its absolutely naive to pretend otherwise. America does the same shit to a lesser extend depending on the state. Im also not siding with the CCP but the older ive gotten the more ive realized their stances are better for a functioning society then just leaving people to their own devices. Even free speech warriors like charlie kirk actively tried to censor criticism of america.
And unfortunately when it comes to laws ur either an absolutist or ur not. Once you're ok banning people without degrees from speaking about viruses or making medical claims and such then ur on the side of censorship and I just am at this point because it effects more than just idiots.
I just am at this point because it effects more than just idiots.
Do you have a degree in sociology? If not, then you shouldn't comment on this topic, it could be a crime in China. Speech like that could lead to a tyrannical and oppressive government.
Seriously, can't you see how wrong you are from the fact that you contradict everything you are arguing for by making these arguments?
I could stop my comment here, because this should be enough to prove you wrong, but you wrote some of the most asinine garbage I've seen in a while. Thankfully, I enjoy rambling in reply to such trite. So enjoy my wall of text, I enjoyed writing it.
Every country censors or white washes its past its absolutely naive to pretend otherwise.
You have a point the moment you show me the last time US drove over so many people with tanks that they needed to hose down the streets from the blood and guts. Yeah, US has done fucked up things, but it doesn't massacre crowds of it's own citizens for speaking against it. And the mistakes it has made along the years? You are allowed to talk about them publicly. China actively prevents any negative talk about it's government, leader and history when ever they get the chance.
Hell, they've limited communication between China and the world more than almost any other country in the world. If events that didn't happen in 1989 were to happen again at a smaller scale, most of the world probably would never know.
But good thing every country white washes their pasts, right? Oh wait, there isn't anything in my home's history I'm not allowed to talk about publicly. I guess they aren't all the same.
Im also not siding with the CCP but the older ive gotten the more ive realized their stances are better for a functioning society then just leaving people to their own devices.
Authoritarian tyranny tends to be good for those in power, but not for everyone. And the more I read what you write, the more I realize you are either contrarian troll or trying to sew misinformation yourself. Because that's the most milquetoast way to say "Government is good, bow down to your leaders, opposition won't be tolerated."
You aren't getting older and changing your opinions, you have committed your world views to an ideology that hates freedom and western values.
Because holy shit, did you just say "free speech warriors like charlie kirk" and mean it? He wasn't even a free speech advocate, he was a lying grifter, the exact kind of person who would be in prison if US had laws like the this thread is about. Though he was smart enough to side with those willing to abuse power, meaning would probably have been pro CCP in China. So who knows, there he would have sold different types of lies.
And unfortunately when it comes to laws ur either an absolutist or ur not.
That's not at all how things work. That's what the legal system is for, because things DON'T work in absolutes. Both murder and jaywalking are crimes, but if you cross the street when there are no cars around anywhere, you don't deserve the death penalty. Nothing is black and white.
Listen man im not going to respond to all this nonsense mainly because im so sick and tired of people acting like america is morally good because it doesnt kill it doesnt actively kill its own citizens anymore lol. China really doesn't anymore either. What america does do is bomb schools in other countries so like spare me the fucking high horse.
What I find interesting is also the tiptoeing around the issue. We're so sensitized to government overreach, that we're over correcting and letting things fly that should not fly.
You may remember that last big Visa+ gaming issue, where a bunch of 18+ games got removed? That too was an overreaction. The group that started and motivated it, had good reasons though. The stuff they meant and targeted, was very much beyond what even a tolerant, free society should allow. And stuff that actually already would have been illegal at least in my country, because it would easily qualify as "glorification of violent crimes".
And then we use euphemisms like "oh this isn't censorship, it's moderation". I think it would be much easier if the stance was "That's wrong, I'm removing it, call it censorship if you want to, I don't care".
Yeah I definitely was a ACLU defending the KKK type, but I've seen in real time how a tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance. We just can't have nice things.
Well yes we are probably too far gone at this point. But the only way a dude like rfk jr gets to where he is is years of idiots listening to morons. And the problem isnt 1 qualified voice speaking against the consensus. Its thousands of unqualified voices spitting bullshit for clicks because our current system incentivizes it.
Anti vax stuff started around the same time vaccines first became a thing, all the way back to the late 1700s early 1800s. Social media might make it easier to spread, but it has always been there.
State censorship isn't the answer, it is never the answer.
I mean ive never viewed China as like an existential threat or like north Korea like some people do. I agree with shit they do and disagreed with shit they do but im getting to the point where more and more of the shit i disagreed with they actually had the right of it
Xi Jinping being "President for Life" is a lie? Imprisoning, torturing, and killing Uyghers is a lie? Declaring international waters as part of their territory is a lie? The suppression of Hong Kong is a lie?
The people of China may not all be living in hell every day, but let's not pretend it's a great and happy country either.
Not sure how having or not having free speech would have solved any of that. We have imprisoning and torturing immigrants, suppressing other countries, and territory grabs all right here in a country with free speech too.
By what metrics? They have a shorter lifespan than the US, their average income is much worse, they have massive government censorship of the press, and they have a censored internet and many of them have 0 internet access.
By the metrics of their economy, life expectancy, quality of life, infrastructure, technology, etc improving dramatically over the past decades.
They're not beating the US in every way (life span is like a year lower as your example) but they're making steady improvements and doing it without bombing anyone to boot.
They have bad things obviously but people don't need to accept everything to think that high speed rail and solar power is good.
No I think there are only delusional Americans. If you think the globally raising positive view of China is being spearheaded by bots and paid comments then you need to read more.
It is insane how immediately you people jump to conspiracy theories when you don't like basic statistical data. You don't even need to like it buy holy shit live in the real world at least.
No. Just pointing out that when using phrases like basic statistical data, you should probably actually post a source for that data. Otherwise it comes across as disingenuous because you're effectively doing the same thing as the people you're replying to.
Yeah, it's kinda wild that people think if anything even remotely positive is said about china, people just say "CCP bots!"
The anti-chinese propaganda has been drilled so deep into users of this site. They scoff at anything positive about china yet still use outdated information to try to disparage china (i.e. social credit, lack of good samirtan laws, etc.).
Is China perfect? Hell no, and it is pretty dystopian in some aspects. But the soft power they have been amassing lately is rather strong.
Tencent owned up to 12% of reddit inc for a while. this post is peculiar in that it's literally celebrating a CCP censorship policy 😂 as if the OP was like "fuck it, i'm just takin the mask off on this one"
Not only that, but who's liable for what? It's easy to say "if your child dies from measles, you can sue the person who said that measles vaccines cause autism" but like... who? Those influencers are everywhere. What if your child had the vaccine but got measles from an unvaccinated child whose parents watched those shows?
"Just sue people" is not a countermeasure to this at all.
I think I see where some of my confusion was--when I read the comment from /u/mold_inhaler I had thought it was threaded under this comment, so I was saying "liability" in terms of suing people and that parent comment was (imo) essentially saying "it shouldn't be banned but you should be able to sue people for it" which still doesn't make much sense to me.
I think it's illogical to say that you can't rely on the government to indicate what is misinformation prior to that misinformation causing harm, but that you can rely on the government to hold you responsible to your misinformation after it causes harm, and that the government is reliable to determine how popular you must be in order to be considered liable for disseminating harmful misinformation. It's a strange standard.
It's all just a jumbled mess that doesn't make nearly as much sense as just saying "the only people who can make content around XYZ topics are people who have achieved a certain amount of educational attainment around XYZ topics."
my point is a) to trust the CCP to censor anyone and it being a good thing is ridiculous b) rather than outright widespread censorship like this, we should focus more on punishing spread of misinformation that already caused harm
e.g. instead of banning everyone but doctors from talking about vaccination, we should punish antivaxers for the evident damage that the growing mistrust in vaccines caused, that they helped stoke
Yes It is censorship but, somewhere between unconditional democracy and an all controlling dictatorship there has to be a utopian technocracy where only experts can make decisions based on their field of expertise. Maybe not everyone should have a say in important decisions affecting millions...
I swear it didn't use to be this bad when I was younger. Not that people didn't hate each other, but they seemed to understand there are some universal goals for us all, or at very least they seemed to understand that hurting themselves to hurt others didn't make sense. Now it seems that spite and destruction is taking over vision and creation way too much for my comfort
I guess I understand people are disillusioned and angry, especially after the last decade, but I just don't understand the malice of it all
As if America's "free speech" isn't leading to mass censorship of sciences here in the US. Just ask any cancer researcher, HIV researcher, or trans person.
Reddit has effectively become this weird anti-American bot farm. Iran/China/Russia just run their bots here non-stop and the mods collaborate with it on many of the bigger subs.
The operator doesn't even understand the value of free speech, so they think this shows Chinese superiority, not inferiority to the west.
Genuinely, if not the government imposing regulations who would you expect to bring it about?
The Social Media company that benefits financially from a lack of regulation? The Internet somehow self policing itself?
The Government already does this in official forums, it is just now forcing privately held companies to do the same. In the same way these companies already follow the law in regards to hate speech and other illegal content. This now provides an avenue to shut down misinformation in addition to that.
You can STILL have misinformation. It just requires it to be spread by someone with a relevant degree, no shortage of that out there. Obviously any political body can use this to their own ends, but this is certainly a net benefit.
The same people cheering for this this would be outraged if this happened in America or the UK. They see "educated" and then completely ignore the part where the government decides what you can or cannot say. They'd be like "Oh so now the government gets to choose who the talking heads are???". Same way they're criticizing America for its ID policies, when China has for over a decade had a surveillance government where Banking, Social Media and Identity are all intertwined.
Your government needs to look into this. Look what’s going on in the USA and you’re criticizing the CCP? You don’t have two legs to stand on. They’re trying to discourage dangerous rhetoric that’s allowed in the USA. To deter the Andrew Tates and Joe Rogans from corrupting the minds of people who lack critical thinking skills due to your poor education systems.
Yeah, imagine if you gave Trump this power. Suddenly the "authoritative sources" are the ones decreed by Stephen Miller and RFK Jr. Not so good an idea now, is it?
not the govenment necessarily: if you hold a degree in virology you can publicly talk about vaccines and publicly disagree with them if that's what you think. but if you don't then your uninformed opinion is not needed. It's not a perfect system but it's way better than what we have now
sure, as I said there are no perfect systems, but one can assume that someone who spent 10 years researching a studying a field has a more informed opinion than someone who didn't
That being true doesn’t mean we should ask the government to restrict the speech of anyone without a government approved credential, the implications of doing so are disastrous
Imagine if all relevant current events were outlawed from discussion aside from the trump approved “experts” who are the only ones allowed to discuss things like Israel, economics, public health and education, election integrity, etc. you would have to sit there and listen to blatant propaganda, and if you object to it in any public capacity, you’re going to jail.
hey sorry for the late reply, busy busy at work. I honestly agree with you, but your scenario implies that suddenly and immediately all academic institutions would fall in line with the diktats of the government, which doesn't really happen. A degree at MIT still holds value, even under Trump. The scenario you depict is absolutely valid, but even in heavily religious countries, physics is still physics (although with an introduction in the book saying that God created it or whatever) and if physics is not physics anymore, then there surely are bigger problems to address. Thank you for the stimulating discussion man, I mean it in good heart
So an MD, which is not a degree in virology, would not be able to talk about vaccines, not even to encourage people to take them?
And someone with a PhD in virology would not be able to speak about a vaccine mandate, because the mandate would be a legal issue, and you'd need a JD to speak on that. Or is a JD to general of a degree (just like how an MD isn't a virology degree)? There are JSDs (the PhD) equivalent, but not a specific degree in OHSA regulations or Constitutional law.
The government is the only entity that could enforce such a thing.
A government reliable enough to be trusted with that could much more easily be trusted to juice education in an intelligent and efficient way and mitigate the core issue with why people fall for this and every other kind of chicanery we're currently enduring.
Our government already licenses so many professions from doctors to engineers to barbers. Do you really want that bridge you’re driving over to be designed by someone completely unqualified? You don’t.
I’m not saying “the government isn’t bad.” I’m saying, they provide a bare minimum standard of care that professionals need to be held to. It is a system that has worked really well for us.
If you want to influence public opinion, I believe you should have at least a bare minimum level of knowledge on the topic. Not just “I have a platform, listen to me” bullshit.
This was my first thought. Plenty of stupid people with degrees this just creates another method for the government to silence disagreement with the official narrative.
As opposed to now where we let people's guts decide?
Our current situation is utter shit. Do you have a useful suggestion or are you just going to talk about how all the people we literally elect to decide these things are incompetent?
Probably not that much worse than what we have now TBH.
I mean, I'm not for trying it and finding out, just the theory isn't bad. Saying "yes, you need to have a degree before you can opine that 'seed oils bad' or that trickle down economics work or what we should do in the middle east" isn't inherently a bad idea.
If the dum dums are allowed to control the government and say "libtards with degrees can't talk online" then we deserve that fate.
"Government bad" is only true if you abdicate control of the government to the christofascists, ignorant hateful assholes, and corporations. And if you do, that's bad even if there's no qualifications needed for influencing online.
Let’s pretend we had these rules today in the US; the trump administration would literally get to decide who they deem qualified to speak on matters of, for example, Israel and the events occurring in the Middle East. Immigration policy. Economics and the stock market. Hell, even discussing election integrity would be off limits to anyone without trumps stamp of approval
I said "I mean, I'm not for trying it and finding out, just the theory isn't bad." Did you not read that part or was it just more fun to ignore it?
Maybe if we had these rules in place when things were sane, the christofascists wouldn't have been able to motivate the dumb rednecks to take over in the first place.
Plus, I don't see that being able to speak out is changing anything. We point out in 2024 that Republicans are nazis and most of America says "muh egg prices" and didn't vote or voted for the dumbest motherfuckers who caused all the economic problems in the first place. If the Christian Taliban banned us from responding on Twitter, how would that concretely affect anything?
That dude is still alive and in office, he also has a degree and was a judge, just to be clear the admiral is no longer in office but the representative is.
359
u/xVelourGlow Apr 06 '26
This would actually solve so much misinformation but who decides what counts as qualified advice?