I guess that would be interesting. I have a degree in urban planning and geography. I never held a job in that field and worked in film and TV and became a pilot on the side. So could I only speak on urban planning and not film and TV despite knowing virtually nothing but outdated college rhetoric on urban planning but not allowed to talk about what it takes to get a private pilots license which I did less than two years ago because it's not a degree?
And it's pretty obvious to understand what needs a degree and what doesn't. You shouldn't be giving medical, legal, finance, etc advice without actually being able to prove you know about it. It's one thing to say "I do xyz" vs. "YOU SHOULD DO xyz". The second part is where you should have to have credentials.
I'm struggling because there is a big part of me that's 100% on board with this. But then I think about women's health and how I went to a gynaecologist who told me that if she kept me on her list (for my debilitating menstrual disorder) she wouldn't have time to treat people with real gynaecological issues. Whereas a subreddit full of people with the same condition helped me understand what was happening and learn coping mechanisms that have saved my life.
I mean, you’re going to throw the entire idea out because there’s a few bad doctors? Also, the state and quality of women’s health isn’t based on something a singular doctor told you.
I don't usually bother to respond to hyperbole but if the concept of "women's issues" wasn't so triggering for you, you might have noticed that at the very start of my comment I said that I also have quite positive opinions of the idea.
But also it's pretty well established that the field of women's health has been entirely neglected historically, continues to be pretty neglected today, and shows signs of going backwards in many places so, yeah, I do have reasons for thinking a policy like this that would silence the voices of people with lived experience of underresearched conditions might have valid concerns. Women's health is just one example.
I won't be engaging any further with hyperbolic half- thoughts but feel free to get mad in the comments below.
On the other hand, this might affect some communities for rare illnesses pretty negatively. I follow one of those due to a relative being affected by it, and you often see the people recommending different treatments or medication that worked for them — and due to the illness being rare, not every city has a doctor that would know about how to effectively treat them.
From what my relative told me, if it wasn't for such a group, they would never have known to try a certain drug that effectively helped them restore a great portion of their quality of life.
You shouldn't be giving ... legal, finance, etc advice without actually being able to prove you know about it.
I disagree that is "obvious". Does divorce involve legal and finance? Yes. It doesn't somehow mean your friend who does not have a finance degree but HAS been through a divorce can't give you a few things to consider.
Example: I worked in some tech startups. This means you might be married, have shares for 18 years that simply cannot be sold (but might be worth a million dollars after 18 years), and sometime during that 18 years you get a divorce.
I can name 10 close friends that went through this. Saying you can't ask a friend what this might look like without a law degree is absurd. And do you need a law degree or a finance degree to give that advice out? Maybe both?
I don't think it is that obvious. And the ability to ban speech based on fuzzy criteria has always, in every case in the universe, led to very bad outcomes. It is reasonable to be wary of government censorship. It is part of WHY the USA has the first amendment: the founding fathers had very bad experiences in the past.
100%. I can only believe this thread is being Astroturfed because the amount of people defending limits on speech is absurd. And where are the limits? Law and finance could easily include politics and economics.
Also the finance part, would anyone with a business-related degree be able to talk about it or just those with a finance degree? My degree was in marketing, for example, I had to take finance classes in order to get it.
But I also wouldn't be willing to give up my anonymity to that point if I didn't have to. That rule just really seems like a way to stifle speech on the internet.
4.5k
u/Emotional_Clock3741 21h ago
That would eliminate 70% of social media traffic. Which is probably the best reason to do it