this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2026
54 points (93.5% liked)

Technology

83896 readers
6729 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Paywall removed: https://archive.ph/gkRC9

top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] OctopusNemeses@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Anyone remember Dr. John Campbell on Youtube. He got popular by posting videos during COVID. Then veered off into full blown anti-vax conspiracies.

He's a "doctor" because he has a PhD in making Youtube videos. No, seriously. His doctorate thesis is based on using Youtube as a teaching method. He's not a real medical doctor.

His bullshit antics prompted actual doctors and scientistics to regularly post their own videos response.

[–] Eggyhead@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

5 year plan. It’ll happen under a democrat president and the right will be screaming bloody murder that their right to ~~misinform~~ free speech is being encroached, and build a their political platform on it.

[–] Babalugats@feddit.uk 2 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Would it apply to politics? That's just an opinion mostly. I don't think that right or left could be considered 'experts ' by any means, and both would be culpable for spreading misinformation. I guess one of the ways that they could get them would be when they say blatant untruths or have no evidence to back up stories that they promote.

[–] Eggyhead@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

Would it apply to politics?

That’s a really important question to ask, because anything can be made into politics.

[–] brsrklf@jlai.lu 2 points 6 days ago

Not sure exactly what actions they'd be willing to take, but fake experts on "non-political" subjects are definitely used to push political agendas.

For example, climate change deniers.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

How is this going to work with djt toadies in top government positions? Like advice not to vaccinate kids with the current secretary of health? Is this just another vehicle for persecuting rubes?

[–] bcgm3@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

Is this just another vehicle for persecuting rubes?

If by "rubes" you mean any individuals that this administration views as political enemies, then yeah, I think you nailed it.

[–] dan@upvote.au 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Just like with electric cars, the US takes forever to do anything, while China just gets things done with a better approach:

Late last year, the Cyberspace Administration of China issued a sweeping regulation: any content creator discussing medicine, health, law, finance, or education must prove verified professional credentials before posting or going live. In essence: no degree, no license, no post.

[...]

In all, China’s approach is preemptive: One has to prove their credentials before they post. The FTC’s approach is reactive, allowing American creators to post health tips or investment opinions without a diploma. The FTC only steps in after the harm is documented—but for both, if the creator lies, they pay up

[–] EvergreenGuru@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The US has freedom of speech, so having the government vet every poster is kind of a problem. Also, both the US and China give licenses to woo-woo doctors like traditional medicine doctors and chiropractors. It adds a hurdle, but isn’t going to stop people from becoming supplement salesmen.

[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

Giving legal/medical advice is technically practicing.

Offering an opinion... is another matter.

[–] dan@upvote.au 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The US has freedom of speech, so having the government vet every poster is kind of a problem

That's true, but it could be the platforms doing the vetting rather than the government.

Is it any different to requiring an ID in order to use a service, like what Discord is doing (as required for legal compliance)?

I guess I'm just annoyed at how much bad health advice is on social media.

[–] pycorax@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

That's true, but it could be the platforms doing the vetting rather than the government.

I'm frankly not sure if that's any better. It's not in the interest of the platforms to do a proper job of it especially if said platforms allow payments through them and get a cut of the sales. So it ends up being the government to enforce it and that opens up another can of worms.