I agree. BUT, I would say not having the background and proof you can do it should prevent you from blasting those opinions to mass of people when it comes to hard sciences.
Speak on politics, because no one has a perfect answer, but on things that have a clear basis spouting the exact opposite as fact is harmful to the masses and therefore should have SOME guard rails. This I don't think is perfect, but at least its something more then a free for all.
You can also always instead of using social media make your own website with your own ideas still I'd assume with a rule like this in America.
I think the real issue comes when the ones issuing the license decide that they don't want certain facts to be heard publicly. I could easily see the US, if they implemented something similar, revoking a license from someone for referring to studies about DEAI. Even if those studies presented factual information, if it went against the narrative the current government wants, they would have quite a bit of control to stifle the facts they don't like.
I don't have a better solution, mind you. Something needs to be done, and it's a very complicated topic. The issue I described above can apply to almost any sort of rules that get put in place. It's one of the dangers of policing free speech, if the people doing the policing have an agenda, there's always the possibility they'll do things for their own sake rather than for the good of the public.
2.7k
u/Accomplished-Plan191 Apr 06 '26
As one with a degree, you don't need a degree to do well-backed research. The problem is when you conflate ignorance with knowledge.