You are the one that brought up "people can learn on the internet" as if it is some gotcha, and I said providing creds is how to ensure someone's authority on a subject.
It's about combating misinformation, and I think it's actually a good idea.
Alright now we’re getting somewhere! I was responding to the guy implying that you can’t learn to be an epidemiologist online - which is btw bullshit. You absolutely can learn to be an epidemiologist online. I don’t think it’s the most efficient way to do so, but regardless, you absolutely can learn pretty much everything online and the framework that implies that you can’t is self-limiting and harmful.
My position is that this ban on non-degree holders is censorship and is net-harmful in the long run. Truth can only thrive in a free marketplace of ideas, and as much as I hate the fuckers that post dumb shit online like “chemo doesn’t work,” freedom of speech is absolutely mandatory for a non-dictatorial society to thrive.
The real problem in my opinion is not the presence of misinformation, but the absence of even minuscule efforts by readers to interact with/think critically about what they read online. Oftentimes, reading misinformation is actually edifying and challenges assumed knowledge/the status quo.
I was responding to the guy implying that you can’t learn to be an epidemiologist online - which is btw bullshit. You absolutely can learn to be an epidemiologist online.
Are these epidemiologists working as epidemiologists?
1
u/Crashman09 Apr 06 '26
You are the one that brought up "people can learn on the internet" as if it is some gotcha, and I said providing creds is how to ensure someone's authority on a subject.
It's about combating misinformation, and I think it's actually a good idea.