• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

News China has brought in an interesting anti-disinformation law

mikeymikec

mikeymikec

Lifer
iol.co.za

China's new law: only degree-holding influencers can discuss professional topics - netizens divided on its impact

As the influencer landscape evolves, the urgent call for accountability grows louder, prompting us all to reconsider the impact of our digital engagements.
iol.co.za iol.co.za

article said:
Effective October 25, China's new influencer law has sparked widespread debate across social media platforms.
At its core, this law mandates that anyone creating content on sensitive topics like medicine, law, education or finance must hold formal qualifications in those fields.
It’s a bold step by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) to combat misinformation, but it has also sparked heated discussions worldwide about censorship, freedom of expression and the responsibility influencers carry in shaping public opinion.
Click to expand...
Few people would disagree that something is needed to combat disinformation, so I can hardly vehemently disagree with their motivations for bringing in this law.
 
mikeymikec said:
iol.co.za

China's new law: only degree-holding influencers can discuss professional topics - netizens divided on its impact

As the influencer landscape evolves, the urgent call for accountability grows louder, prompting us all to reconsider the impact of our digital engagements.
iol.co.za iol.co.za


Few people would disagree that something is needed to combat disinformation, so I can hardly vehemently disagree with their motivations for bringing in this law.
Click to expand...
How could you make another more acceptable solution to the Chinese -- or general -- misinformation problem? Suppose they require that someone who opines must either disclaim professional expertise or affirm it?
 
Thought is language based so thought and language divide. Words define one thing from another including good things, good thinking from bad things, bad thinking.

Because we learn to think by the acquisition of vocabulary at an early age words pick up emotional associations the learning of which are not consciously remembered but continue trigger those emotions unconsciously. In this was our belief system can be emotionally directed by the desire for pleasure or the fear of pain. Influencers influence just that, they manipulate the thinking of others either some goal in mind.

The aim can be selfish or altruistic as well as hidden even to the influencer him or her self.

It seems to me that trying to legislate influencers is a fool’s errand. Are we not all just the product of our own culture?

It seems to me then that the only safety from false advertising if you will, or falling for ego driven scams, as a person who was long ago victimized by that very thing is to seek after objective truth with whatever sincerity or inner honesty might have been somehow preserved.

The problem I eye I that it is easy to imagine you have already done this because the ego motivates the effort. The ego loves to flatter itself by being right. He ego will find a way to tell you it has changed, that wht you believe is what is right.

Here and there people experience what might be called ego death that breaks attachment to sacred things. I have my reasons for being influenced to believe it’s true. To know nothing, to have let go of everything, is to know everything. To not think but to live is to be. That a good thing, no? Compassion and love, maybe they are real.
 
Our freedom of speech will not continue much longer, no matter how hard we try. Nazis do not abide opposition. And the fact they rose to power in the first place...
America has clearly failed this test.

I hope China finds a more stable, peaceful, and prosperous future. I doubt they'll get there, but good luck fellow adventurer.
 
Moonbeam said:
Thought is language based so thought and language divide. Words define one thing from another including good things, good thinking from bad things, bad thinking.

Because we learn to think by the acquisition of vocabulary at an early age words pick up emotional associations the learning of which are not consciously remembered but continue trigger those emotions unconsciously. In this was our belief system can be emotionally directed by the desire for pleasure or the fear of pain. Influencers influence just that, they manipulate the thinking of others either some goal in mind.

The aim can be selfish or altruistic as well as hidden even to the influencer him or her self.

It seems to me that trying to legislate influencers is a fool’s errand. Are we not all just the product of our own culture?

It seems to me then that the only safety from false advertising if you will, or falling for ego driven scams, as a person who was long ago victimized by that very thing is to seek after objective truth with whatever sincerity or inner honesty might have been somehow preserved.

The problem I eye I that it is easy to imagine you have already done this because the ego motivates the effort. The ego loves to flatter itself by being right. He ego will find a way to tell you it has changed, that wht you believe is what is right.

Here and there people experience what might be called ego death that breaks attachment to sacred things. I have my reasons for being influenced to believe it’s true. To know nothing, to have let go of everything, is to know everything. To not think but to live is to be. That a good thing, no? Compassion and love, maybe they are real.
Click to expand...
This is entirely based on the misconception stated in the first sentence "thought is language based". This is demonstrably false. People deaf from birth don't have language or an inner voice. They don't think in language.
 
Greenman said:
This is entirely based on the misconception stated in the first sentence "thought is language based". This is demonstrably false. People deaf from birth don't have language or an inner voice. They don't think in language.
Click to expand...

Language acquisition by deaf children - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

You remind me of thoughts I have had about Hellen Keller, who missed out on a critical time in childhood when the use of putdowns to lock her feelings of self worth proved useless in conditioning her beliefs. She was born to d deeply Confederate and slave holding family.

Here is a bit of her history:

In 1909, Keller became a member of the Socialist Party of America (SPA); she actively campaigned and wrote in support of the working class from 1909 to 1921. Many of her speeches and writings were about women's right to vote and the effects of war; in addition, she supported causes that opposed military intervention.[51] She had speech therapy to have her voice understood better by the public. When the Rockefeller-owned press refused to print her articles, she protested until her work was finally published.[38]

Keller supported the SPA candidate Eugene V. Debs in each of his campaigns for the presidency. Before reading Progress and Poverty by Henry George, she was already a socialist who believed that Georgism was a good step in the right direction.[52] She later wrote of finding "in Henry George's philosophy a rare beauty and power of inspiration, and a splendid faith in the essential nobility of human nature".[53] Keller stated that newspaper columnists who had praised her courage and intelligence before she expressed her socialist views now called attention to her disabilities. The editor of the Brooklyn Eagle wrote that her "mistakes sprung out of the manifest limitations of her development". Keller responded to that editor, referring to having met him before he knew of her political views:

At that time the compliments he paid me were so generous that I blush to remember them. But now that I have come out for socialism he reminds me and the public that I am blind and deaf and especially liable to error. I must have shrunk in intelligence during the years since I met him. ... Oh, ridiculous Brooklyn Eagle! Socially blind and deaf, it defends an intolerable system, a system that is the cause of much of the physical blindness and deafness which we are trying to prevent.[5
Click to expand...
Hopefully you know that it is faith in the essential nobility of human nature that causes me to see you differently than many here seem to.

The human brain is wired for language. Signing is based on an inborn grammar. Language does not require sound.

In a world of competition for scraps people use words to hold others back. You can be manipulated by threat of being found worthless only if that feeling was internalized. Once internalized and repressed going back becomes a journey through hell, all imagined self worth needing to be stripped away.

Probably a lot easier for the nobodies of the world, the meek as it were. They have so much less distance to travel.
 
Moonbeam said:

Language acquisition by deaf children - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

You remind me of thoughts I have had about Hellen Keller, who missed out on a critical time in childhood when the use of putdowns to lock her feelings of self worth proved useless in conditioning her beliefs. She was born to d deeply Confederate and slave holding family.

Here is a bit of her history:

In 1909, Keller became a member of the Socialist Party of America (SPA); she actively campaigned and wrote in support of the working class from 1909 to 1921. Many of her speeches and writings were about women's right to vote and the effects of war; in addition, she supported causes that opposed military intervention.[51] She had speech therapy to have her voice understood better by the public. When the Rockefeller-owned press refused to print her articles, she protested until her work was finally published.[38]

Keller supported the SPA candidate Eugene V. Debs in each of his campaigns for the presidency. Before reading Progress and Poverty by Henry George, she was already a socialist who believed that Georgism was a good step in the right direction.[52] She later wrote of finding "in Henry George's philosophy a rare beauty and power of inspiration, and a splendid faith in the essential nobility of human nature".[53] Keller stated that newspaper columnists who had praised her courage and intelligence before she expressed her socialist views now called attention to her disabilities. The editor of the Brooklyn Eagle wrote that her "mistakes sprung out of the manifest limitations of her development". Keller responded to that editor, referring to having met him before he knew of her political views:


Hopefully you know that it is faith in the essential nobility of human nature that causes me to see you differently than many here seem to.

The human brain is wired for language. Signing is based on an inborn grammar. Language does not require sound.

In a world of competition for scraps people use words to hold others back. You can be manipulated by threat of being found worthless only if that feeling was internalized. Once internalized and repressed going back becomes a journey through hell, all imagined self worth needing to be stripped away.

Probably a lot easier for the nobodies of the world, the meek as it were. They have so much less distance to travel.
Click to expand...
Wish I didn't click the GTFOH link, but Get the Fuck out of here.

(not Moonie, I think)
 
China can do whatever it wants and what it thinks is best for China because that’s how their government is setup.

We on the other hand are tied to the constitution and certain rights. Any solution that impinges on those rights must be carefully weighed and strike a balance between minimal negative impact on those rights and addressing the issue that stemming from those rights.

Right now the issue is misinformation. I’m ok restricting the free speech rights when it comes to businesses but wealthy individuals are just as capable, if not more, of spreading misinformation as well. The former seems trivial to address with the only concern being who determines what’s acceptable or not and how to insure that entity isn’t corruptible and is transparent and fair. The latter is definitely way trickier and I think any solution would require such a high bar of proof to show willful intent to spread misinformation that any such limitations would make such enforcement almost non existent.

Thanks to Trump, any solution would also need to be hardened against such a corrupt individual or party as Trump and the republicans.

I’m all ears If someone has ideas with the assumption that any solution would be passed as a constitutional amendment if need be.
 
Yeah I've known plenty of degree toting morons and very sharp and empathetic high school grads.

And plenty of smart degree holders and idiotic high school grads.

I appreciate that China is trying to do *something* but this ain't it chief.
 
I find it such an interesting thing that the people who are most concerned about the harm, divisiveness and damage that disinformation brings aren't Republicans.
 
The vetting of ideas by professional associations is a vestige of civilization. So the AMA passes judgment on what their members put forth as reliable medical information or advice.

This entire country has evolved around the basic concept, even as hucksters sold snake-oil to the consuming population.

Now suddenly we have Dr. Fauci called to task, RFK, Jr. has thrown out board members or appointees with longstanding professional recognition. They've done as much to the climate change effort, and it was once fashionable for a Rightie to bring up the anecdotal case of one scientist producing falsehood in his climate-change publication. It seems the population in general -- more likely folks without college or very much of it -- don't see the difference between something anecdotal and a sample or population of coinciding opinion on something. So, as many other cases can be shown in example, they throw out the baby with the bathwater. And society recedes to the shadows closer to the Dark Ages.

I can understand why China has produced this law, and I believe it derives from their perception of American Group-Think. But the law has a chilling effect on people entitled nevertheless to express their opinion.

Imagine politics wherein the opposing sides both follow the same logical and scientific tests toward finding the Truth. Think of the cost of the way they struggle against each other at the present time, or how at least one side is willing to equivocate whenever it supports the causes and beliefs of its constituency. We would like to hope that the electorate are well-informed, but we know they aren't, and we know they are exploited by opportunists who don't care if their policies are based on the Truth or some Falsehood.
 
BonzaiDuck said:
I can understand why China has produced this law, and I believe it derives from their perception of American Group-Think. But the law has a chilling effect on people entitled nevertheless to express their opinion.
Click to expand...

I wonder if there are any workarounds with this law to basically say, "in my unqualified opinion... <insert opinion here>"
 
Greenman said:
This is entirely based on the misconception stated in the first sentence "thought is language based". This is demonstrably false. People deaf from birth don't have language or an inner voice. They don't think in language.
Click to expand...
I would say Moonbeam and Greenman are both essentially correct because this isn’t a settled debate with universal agreement, it is an active field of study with many different theories. I’m in agreement with Greenman’s position that thought and language are separate things, though obviously interactive and interrelated. I’d guess this will ultimately hinge on Moonbeam’s definition of ‘thought’.

Language and thought - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
ivwshane said:
China can do whatever it wants and what it thinks is best for China because that’s how their government is setup.

We on the other hand are tied to the constitution and certain rights. Any solution that impinges on those rights must be carefully weighed and strike a balance between minimal negative impact on those rights and addressing the issue that stemming from those rights.

Right now the issue is misinformation. I’m ok restricting the free speech rights when it comes to businesses but wealthy individuals are just as capable, if not more, of spreading misinformation as well. The former seems trivial to address with the only concern being who determines what’s acceptable or not and how to insure that entity isn’t corruptible and is transparent and fair. The latter is definitely way trickier and I think any solution would require such a high bar of proof to show willful intent to spread misinformation that any such limitations would make such enforcement almost non existent.

Thanks to Trump, any solution would also need to be hardened against such a corrupt individual or party as Trump and the republicans.

I’m all ears If someone has ideas with the assumption that any solution would be passed as a constitutional amendment if need be.
Click to expand...
I think what we need is more of a "bottom up" solution to misinformation rather than a "top down" solution. It is all about consistent education and training starting in kindergarten at the latest. Very basic psychology can be taught. "How do certain sounds and noises make you feel? How do certain graphics capture your attention more than others? What do leading questions look like? How do marketing companies, 'news' orgs, and politicians use this knowledge to manipulate you? Do you like being manipulated?"

No amendments needed. No laws other than working it into the core requirements for education at the federal level.
 
dank69 said:
I think what we need is more of a "bottom up" solution to misinformation rather than a "top down" solution. It is all about consistent education and training starting in kindergarten at the latest. Very basic psychology can be taught. "How do certain sounds and noises make you feel? How do certain graphics capture your attention more than others? What do leading questions look like? How do marketing companies, 'news' orgs, and politicians use this knowledge to manipulate you? Do you like being manipulated?"

No amendments needed. No laws other than working it into the core requirements for education at the federal level.
Click to expand...
I completely agree about not cheaping out on mandatory education, but any changes made to a nation's curriculum are logically going to take ~15 years at least to reach voting age, and as Pratchett once said, a lie has run halfway around the world before the truth has got its boots on. Also, I say "at least" because not everyone starts voting straight away and also the curriculum and implementation will probably need some refinement to reach its full potential. Funding issues aside of course.
 
mikeymikec said:
I completely agree about not cheaping out on mandatory education, but any changes made to a nation's curriculum are logically going to take ~15 years at least to reach voting age, and as Pratchett once said, a lie has run halfway around the world before the truth has got its boots on. Also, I say "at least" because not everyone starts voting straight away and also the curriculum and implementation will probably need some refinement to reach its full potential. Funding issues aside of course.
Click to expand...
If we start fixing education now we can start seeing results in 2041. If we go for laws or amendments we can start seeing results after the Second American Revolutionary War.
 
I definitely agree with better education but that begs the question; should our education standards (or more accurately, our minimum standards) be set by the state or the federal government? Considering the current state of our education system I’m leaning heavily towards federalizing education. It would be a better and fairer way to distribute funds and insure equality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top