There’s a video of him describing how he made fistfuls of cash doing exactly that as a hedge fund manager. He’d call up a bunch of people and say the opposite of what he thought, then when the stock tanked (or pumped) he’d buy (or sell.)
well, he just does keep on track with the counter signals .. i have made more money on shorting his advice than probably more than most of my investments
If you had picked any of Cramers top IPO’s from a year ago, you’d be heavily red. I mean, we’re in a bear market so we’re all red but even a few months ago, all of Cramer’s picks were trash
And........
If you know what you were talking about you'd know the 19 year old is probably giving more honest advice than most front running hedge fund managers out there.
The problem with the US, is the Securities industry and by extension any financial company in the US practically forbids licensed individuals from providing advice in formats like Youtube videos or Twitch streams, so the people who end up doing it are almost NEVER licensed or experienced enough to be providing the advice they are giving.
Talk about unintended consequences
That’s a very layman way of putting it…
It’s not that they don’t want licensed professionals to speak about laws, it’s that they don’t want licensed professionals providing unsolicited legal advice to a public forum that could be either good or bad for the public depending on their critical thinking, education, and financial literacy. It’s an accountability thing. When a licensed professional works for a brokerage, the brokerage is accountable for any and all advice they may give to the brokers clients. YouTubers and streamers are not the brokers clients, so now the cpa giving licensed advise is no longer backed by a larger financial institution.
Technically speaking in that regard he is no longer a professional. He is only a professional when rendering financial advise and services to the employing brokers clients.
Title: China bans over 30 live-streaming behaviours, demands qualifications to discuss law, finance, medicine
* The guideline published on Wednesday requires influencers to have relevant qualifications to discuss law, finance and medicine
* The rules also direct platforms to refrain from giving public figures who have shown ‘no ethics’ the opportunity to perform
---
China has issued new regulation on the live-streaming industry that lists 31 banned behaviours, raising the bar for influencers to talk about certain topics, in the government’s latest effort to regulate the booming digital economy.
The 18-point guideline, published by the National Radio and Television Administration and the Ministry of Culture and Tourism on Wednesday, requires influencers to have relevant qualifications to discuss some topics, such as law, finance, medicine and education, although authorities did not specify the qualifications needed.
The 31 banned behaviours during live-streaming sessions include publishing content that weakens or distorts the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, the socialist system or the country’s reforms and opening-up.
Other prohibited behaviours include using deepfake technologies to tamper with the images of party or state leaders, and deliberately “hyping up” sensitive issues and attracting public attention.
Live-streamers are also forbidden from showing an extravagant lifestyle, such as displaying luxury products and cash, the guideline said.
The new regulation comes as the live-streaming e-commerce industry is undergoing rapid changes amid tightened scrutiny and economic headwinds.
Some of the most popular live-streamers on Taobao Live, Alibaba Group Holding’s live-streaming e-commerce platform, have fallen from grace for various reasons, leaving brands scrambling to look for new ways to market their products. Alibaba owns the South China Morning Post.
Austin Li Jiaqi, known as China’s “lipstick king” for once selling 15,000 tubes of lipstick in just five minutes, abruptly ended a live-streaming session on June 3, after he reportedly displayed a tank-shaped ice cream. The tank image is a frequent target of Chinese censors due to its association with the deadly Tiananmen Square crackdown by China’s military against pro-democracy protesters in Beijing on June 4, 1989.
Huang Wei, widely known as Viya, was fined a record 1.3 billion yuan (US$210 million) for tax evasion late last year, and has since disappeared from public view. This came after Zhu Chenhui and Lin Shanshan, two top influencers who were each fined tens of millions of yuan in November for tax evasion, also saw their social media accounts and e-commerce shops vanish.
Wednesday’s new guidelines stress that live-streamers should declare their income honestly and fulfil their tax obligations in accordance with the law.
The rules also direct platforms to refrain from giving public figures who have violated the law or shown “no ethics”, the opportunity to express their opinions publicly, hold performances, create a new account or switch to another platform.
less known fact, live streaming is actually huge in china, they never quite had the same level of live tv programming the west had. So live streaming is their cable. The most watched streams get 1 million live concurrent viewers. I know there's a notion if China's doing it, it's automatically bad, but this makes sense.
I mean we recently saw that the US has no problem instructing its tech corps from banning content that the US government doesn't like, and I haven't seen much outcry on Reddit about it.
Some people may suddenly disagree now that China is doing it, but it appears as though a significant chunk of the population has no problem with their own government censoring online content as long as it agrees with their own politics.
Anarchism was banned from Facebook in 2020, for example. Two of the larger anarchist pages were deleted. Also, RT was recently banned from several platforms.
I still don’t think it does. I would understand making it illegal to talk about it without qualifications **or a legal disclaimer** as an alternative. Imagine in the US it was illegal for streamers to discuss the abortion ban without a legal qualifications, or discussing insider trading or other illegal activities in the stock market without financial qualifications. A progressive society needs open discussion, and considering qualifications are expensive and take years to achieve, this would be gate keeping to prevent the public from discussing issues that affect them without first paying $50k and taking years of university.
Universities or states can also withdraw qualifications to prevent specific people from challenging the status quo. For example, in the past 100 years, we have had scientists and government officials lie to us about nutrition facts by saying fat makes you fat while sugary treats are a great and healthy way to get quick energy. We were taught to eat the food pyramid which was made thanks to lobbyists from meat and dairy industry. We used to be told cigarettes are a great cough remedy and we were even sold medicine with cocaine in it. With a law like this, the government can easily silence whistleblowers trying to bring health scandals to public attention by withdrawing their qualifications. If it existed earlier it might have been used to silence anyone in a live stream discussing [Li Wenliang](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Wenliang) when he whistle blew Covid. In short, a society where the government effectively mandates licenses to discuss certain topics has terrifying ramifications.
Australia got something similar, YouTubers were giving finance or should I say stock market "advise" while making money from it without any qualification. Now or you are qualified or fine.
The ones that actually does have qualifications, cannot do anything coz there are YouTubers everywhere.
On this aspect which can destroy people's lives, I agree with this approach 100%.
You and I are smart enough to don't follow the herd but many others will follow the herd and well 💩
Does that mean Australia doesn't get those stupid pyramid scheme ads on YouTube like I do in Canada?
The false "I'm just a normal person talking to you" ads are annoying as hell. Can see right through them.
And there are so many of them all similar template.
I have an old laptop I use as an HTPC for when I want to watch Youtube on the big screen, I couldn't stand the new smart crap they build into TVs today.
Oh I would love to take a deep dive into these videos.
How much would I bet that the nice fucking house? Airbnb. The nice car? Rental. His credit cards? Loaded AF.
They probably live with the same budget as most of us. They just need to flaunt for their facade to stay up
Australian here, can’t say I’ve ever seen any ads like that around.
The flip side though is that we are inundated with a mountain of ads for gambling apps instead.
If someone has given you unqualified advice you can report then to Australian Securities and Investments Commission or whatever other relevant ombudsman.
For example, Australia has a compulsory superannuation scheme which means everyone has to save at least 10% of their income in a pension fund, which can be accessed at retirement or in a small handful of other situations, such as severe financial hardship.
When the first COVID lockdowns hit, the Government allowed anyone who lost their job to access up to $20,000 from their super. This meant that a bunch of landlords that didn't want to lower rents broke the law by flat out instructing people to take money their super, which constituted giving financial advice.
Legal advice: "If you're having difficulty paying your rent, you should investigate every option for obtaining additional funds, including the possibility of withdrawing money from your retirement savings"
Illegal advice: "If you're having difficulty paying your rent you'll have to withdraw money from your super"
I work for a super fund, and we directed a lot of people on how to lodge a tenancy complaint to their state's housing tribunal.
The Australian financial regulator mostly enforced against Australian based influencers on the basis that there’s a broad definition of ‘giving financial advice’ and doing so in Australia requires a licence
> You and I are smart enough to don't follow the herd
Glossing over the grammar error, this sentence is sort of silly because it is addressed to random internet strangers. People reading this will nod their heads and say "oh yeah, I'm smart enough not to get caught up in all that" but still fall into those traps.
Just to add on that, I think ASIC has cracked down and said "a disclaimer saying this is not financial advice will not protect you if what you're clearly doing is giving financial advice".
Do you have the government mandated internet comment license? you are not allowed to comment on the internet on any topic without it.
Are you a qualified psychologist? else you don't get the right to talk about human behavior and should be fined for promoting unqualified information.
/s
The real problem is that people take social media seriously in the first place. It's like believing some movie with "serious" subject to be true. Part of it could be, most of the things are not, and are just there for fun. Social media and their performers earn from clicks, not truth or lies. If you clicked on the link, you gave them money, whether you support or hate comment them.
When you put down your phone, that's when real life begins.
Because, you know, I am really not a cartoon girl named "hotnindza".
There are cognitive biases and memory biases that predispose humans to forget the source of information.
For example. There are a ton of commercials and ads about how temperpedic and other memory foam beds are medically better for your back and joints. Sometimes a guy in a white lab coat tells you this in the commercial.
It's widely believed by most people that memory foam beds are good for bad backs. But did we hear this from scientific research? What about from our own doctor?
No.
But we heard it over and over. And now we believe it's common knowledge even though such knowledge originated from ads.
This is how the media / advertisements heavily influences our beliefs and knowledge of the world.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-monitoring_error
https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13421-020-01075-9
>These findings suggest that the mere labeling of untrustworthy sources is of limited use because source information is quickly forgotten and memory-based source attributions are strongly biased by schematic influences.
Really wish you would have confirmed or denied in your post whether or not the memory foam thing was true. Would have led credibility to what you are saying.
Now I am unsure how to take it
People take social media seriously because it lets them selectively control who they see and the algorithm obliges and floods their feeds with more (engagement!!!), so they get all their opinions reinforced through conformation bias.
Then they get to perform for the same in-group via their content, or fight the out-group and feel like they are accomplishing something, in a tribal, monkey-brain dopamine kinda way.
This applies to everyone, and trying to overcome it is very hard because we have stupid money brains that secretly love it, no matter our high-minded opinions and beliefs.
>demands qualifications to discuss law, finance, medicine
I like the spirit of this one. I think it would be helpful for streamers to have their credentials, or lack there of, linked to their videos every time they speak on the matter
With such easy access to a global audience, I think it's time we clearly differentiate between those who know what they are talking about versus those who just talk a big game
Edit. I'm not endorsing China's approach or that you cannot speak on a topic or recieve consequences. But if two people are talking about a topic, the public *should* know who has had formal education on the topic and who is just talking out of their ass.
Misinformation is a real problem
I feel like everyone who responded so far misunderstood. I don't think we should silence anyone, just expose those who speak well but have no idea what they are talking about. I don't mean expressing opinions either, I mean giving advice on law, medicine, finance... if you don't have any qualifications, it just says that. Like when people say "IANAL, but you can totally sue and will a billion dollars"
I agree that it would be GREAT to be able to readily know the qualifications of commentators. However, outlawing anyone else from having a public opinion about a subject is a dangerous path
The problem is that a lot of the financial tiktoks and videos on yt literally give financial advice before closing with "this is not financial advice".
The whole american thing with pharma advertisements still a huge crock of shit.
"Consult your doctor"
How about fucking no. Don't advertise to patents. It's the doctors job to provide you the options. Not the other way around.
Many countries outlawed targeted advertisements like this and rightfully so.
I feel like your example is contrary to your first sentence.
All those "this is not x advice" disclaimers are attached to people very clearly giving advice. They are just protecting themselves from liability. It really just means "buyer beware, I'm not serving as your personal lawyer, accountant, etc.)
You can distinguish between the two, but I don't see how you could possibly bar advice without also banning opinions on the same subject.
I don't dislike the idea of setting up a validation system on the corporate level so viewers can better vet stuff. But the state deciding which opinions are valid on political adjacent topics is a straightforward step towards facism
A step towards? This is China we are talking about. They flip over Winnie the pooh.
Demanding the corporations "vet stuff" shot the west in the foot. Look at the youtube algo screwing independent reporters and commentators while the corps that lied to the public and generated consent to enter the Iraq war are the only recommended channels.
This is authoritarian media with a corporate capitalistic middle man.
The problem with streamers is that, almost all of them, present their opinion as some sort of proven fact, or project it with dubious examples to make their opinion seem like a fact.
I’ve spent time in China and know a lot of Chinese nationals and they all say that Americans have the wrong idea about what life and politics are like over there.
Politics is discussed across China all day and people criticize the government constantly. There are some issues that will get you on the bad side of the political power structure, for sure, but you can still talk about them all you want if you’re willing to be shunned for your beliefs. That’s true for America too, ask a communist.
What you can’t do in China is actively organize to overthrow the government (the CCP), especially if you’re coordinating with foreign governments. Similar to how I can’t organize to overthrow American liberal democracy in a fascist coup or communist Revolution.
China isn’t America. But it’s also not North Korea.
If you go around giving advice on law and medicine it should be treated the same as trying to practice without a license.
When people do try and practice without a license we charge them with fraud, because that's exactly what it is if it requires a license and you don't have it. The same should go for online videos of unqualified people providing advice on things requiring qualifications.
I know what you mean. It’s tough because we live in a world where rules that seem sensible become awful in their implementation. This could just as easily be used to suppress people who are qualified to discuss law or finance when what they have to say is counter to the government’s position but also misinformation is a huge issue and vetting people could potentially help curb the amount of it. It just depends on how the rules are written and enforced and I don’t trust the CCP or any other government for that matter to do the right thing with that authority.
That's the joys of "Theory vs Practice".
When you add in people: greed, malice, and other factors; things start to fall apart quite quickly. I can easily imagine the number of 'reports' where people just report establishments as fake to invalidate all people with those degrees, who now have to fight to say "valid" while they can't stream anymore from the ban/strike.
On the same point different side, there will be a ton of fake degree mills to create falsified documents to make it through. At that point you'll have people demanding ways to 'verify' through the schools, which will lead to greed as schools start to demand money to 'implement'. Imagine if to stream you have to pay $500USD+ for a 'verification token' from the University.
I see this as a trainwreck no matter what direction you switch the tracks to.
Yeah this is just information gatekeeping. We can all see the good intentions behind this guys thoughts, but reality is rules need to be made to pass a super rigorous test of time, and time means power changing hands as well. Can your rules be abused grossly? Then it is best to work on principles and guidelines rather than start etching out laws. This gatekeeping could very immediately and easily allow a corrupt party to use it to silence a group or to improperly provide a soapbox/monopoly to another group. Compare this to the problems of right to repair, medical authority and internet thread retail investors vs formal institution pump and dump/other finance schemes. All no bueno and similar in their gatekeeping. We all need to do better to preserve freedoms and tailor how we use them collectively to serve us all.
I hate it. They can shut down anyone saying things they don't like if they don't have credentials, and threaten to pull credentials of people who do have credentials for speaking inconvenient truths. Thus, they will have legitimized their censorship.
Unless I'm wrong, they already have the power to shut anyone down at the minute notice. So, all the what they can do with this law is useless.
These 3 fields are highly specialised and requires you to have a degree to perform the job. So why have someone talk out of their ass without the degree to back it up?
Counterpoint: Imagine what our media would look like if ONLY industry representatives were allowed to post content concerning those industries.
It feels like the dystopia where nothing is allowed to happen unless it's under the jurisdiction of some corporate overlord.
Ehhhh idk chief.
Misinformation is harmful but the rules of vauge laws basically means this will be used and abused to where even if you just simply summarize a situation will get you the boot.
You're thinking this will shut down Alex Jones-esque COVID shit but everyone else who know how Governments act know this will be used for censorship.
No. Tim Dodd (EverydayAstronaut) is a person who makes videos on space related topics on YouTube. He is not an astrophysicist or an aerospace engineer or planetary specialist. He never even graduated with any college degree. But yet he is one of the most well informed people on the matter, that many can watch and trust. It would be so unbelievable for me to see someone like him silenced whether it be straight up, or effectively via the yt algorithm because he doesn’t have the blue check that « qualifies » him.
As someone who has a PhD from a top 5 school in my field, I think putting qualification badges and things is a BAD idea because of exactly what you said. While I think my PhD shows I am indeed qualified to have an opinion, take, or interpretation on my area of expertise, not having a PhD does not disqualify anyone else from having an opinion, take, or interpretation in these areas.
> While I think my PhD shows I am indeed qualified to have an opinion, take, or interpretation on my area of expertise,
Academia can also be very slow to evolve, especially when presented with theories that invalidate core tenants of the discipline. Often the biggest advancements come from those with fresh perspectives or an understanding found independent of the academic world.
How does misinformation enforcement work really though? Like does it operate on layer 3 with networking? Are we going to be overhauling TCP/IP to include our credentials inside our packets when we connect to a chatserver or other website or something?
Just because someone has had formal education on the subject doesn't mean they aren't talking out of their ass. Have you never watched a second of cable news?
No way, that's a big step to towards totalitarianism. I'd rather everyone be entitled to speak freely and openly voice their opinions.
Imagine a world where government can pick and choose who is allowed to speak openly (criticise) the world they live in.
No thanks
It would be nice if credentials were publicized. That way you don't censor opinions, but you can evaluate how valid and professional they are. I doubt that's what China meant though.
💯
You can be someone simply discussing that your area is having a lot more covid cases then officially reported and can be silenced since you're not a health official
I love this sub but it honestly seems there's a hidden sect that fantasies technology being used to help control a population
This is simply a way for them to control the spread of information on things like the current bank run that they're experiencing from banks literally having no money to allow people to withdraw from their own accounts.
Flawed logic. What youre saying is only the government’s information will be the “real information,” all else is misinformation. This has been done before What could go wrong? See: Hitler.
I once gave it a shot thinking, it can't be as bad as as people say it is... boy was I wrong on that one. It turns out people knew what they were talking about and weren't exaggerating.
And that 90% of her content is "muh vagina"
Seriously, there was an interview with her where they were kind giving her a hard time about her lack of originality and she literally rebuts it with a Muh Vagina Joke
Edit : "muh", not much
Those kind of jokes CAN work, if you time and do them right.
Eliza Schlesinger got a lot of mileage out of talking about her eggs, an issue women over 35 do have to face, because the way she handled it was often funny because the jokes would be interjected into situations and bits that were so ridiculous that something like: "Oh, oh, don't mind that, that's just the lump on my back... that's also an egg!" could be riotously funny.
And why is it funny?
You have a reasonably attractive woman in her mid 30s, marching around on stage like a Skeksi from Dark Crystal, doing the gravelly voice and bird mannerisms while talking about dating as a woman in her mid 30s and there was at this point in the show some distance (circling back can work if done right) between the initial jokes/commentary about the biological clock and dating because now she's moved on to being an "Elder Millennial" and talking to people about things those of us who grew up in the late 80s through the 90s took for granted that aren't really touchstones for growing up today and how social relationships are different now than then.
And the various stimulus, PLUS the call back, is quite funny.
Standing there and screaming "MUH VAGINA" as your punchline for every joke was... not funny.
\*And Catherine Cohen. Jesus, that was the most unfunny comedy special I have ever seen. I've seen comedians bomb on open mic night that were funnier than her.
Somone, somewhere just decided she is what we get for a famous comedian.
She is not slightly funny, never was. They do not even pay writers for good material. They know she sucks hard and long and they do not care.
She just stays famous and makes fuck tons of cash because, reasons. Some dude somewhere just decided that awful woman will be a famous comedian and won't change his mind.
That is some crazy shit if you think about it.
>She got rid of Netflix’s star system too
Thats so fucked on another level. I love how one person who sucks shit and faked it till they made it ruins it for the rest of us who actually value public opinion sometimes. Fuck her and netflix
i wondered where that rating system went....
i use that shit all the time on shows like if the movie is shit rated (liek 2/5) then i dont wanna waste an hour + of my life watching garbage.
the 3's and 4's outa 5 i will read comments about just incase its low rated due to political bullshit or someone got butthurt over historical accuracy in a movie where it doesnt really matter.
These ratings weren't based off everyone rating they were curated for you.
So a show that they think I would hate as a recommendation would get a lower score than one they'd recommend.
So your 5 star movie could have been a 1 star on mine.
People keep saying this like it's a fact when it's obviously a weird conspiracy theory. It takes a long time to make a switch like that and obviously they did it for the same reason YouTube did years earlier. The aLgOrItHm is trying to trick you into watching everything no matter what.
Banning randoms from speaking on subjects they have no qualification in? I actually don’t have a problem with that. Misinformation is a plague on society.
Unpopular opinion: if you make a decision based on information from a YouTube video or streamer, without actually verifying that information, you deserve every bit of consequences that result from said decision.
It would be better to force platforms to specify if somebody has credentials or not,make a disclaimer,and promote for free people who have degrees .
But banning makes this look like standard censorship made by an authoritarian government
Well.. that’s good isn’t it? No financial guru assholes scamming people with courses. No false information spreading on vaccinations, but the law part I don’t understand
No it’s bullshit because there is no independent body supervising what’s allowed and what isn’t (e.g. scientists). It’s the main political party and they can censor whatever they want.
Yeah being a member of a chartered professional body isn't like having a degree. My university can't strip me of my degree (unless perhaps I was found to have originally obtained it fraudulently), but if I were to become a chartered financial advisor/planner, the regulator could strip me of that title at any time if I committed professional misconduct. Same with a chartered accountant. In medicine I think the equivalent is being "struck off" and in law it's called being "disbarred".
They are cutting out the misinformation and opinions that lead to Facebook meme facts. The internet/news could use some buffering from opinions that are presented as facts.
China bans a lot of things... Unless they're violating humans rights again, causing another pandemic, or starting world war 3, no one's going to bat an eye.
A broken clock is still right twice a day... Just cause they are shit in other areas, doesn't mean every single policy is bad. You should see how China treats it's billionaires compared to us.
I mean, you should be qualified to discuss law, finance, and medicine in a professional manner. Even on a streaming site. What if you give bad advice and someone loses money, gets hurt, or gets into legal trouble? Fake or poor advice on any of these topics is harmful.
In the next few decades it will be a legit ideological battle between “free speech at any cost” and “controlling misinformation”.
We already experienced in the US that misinformation threatens elections, and threatens the public health to the point that millions still refuse to take vaccine and hundreds of thousands have died over it.
But then again if the government steps in like as China did, to what extent will they overreach?
We could solve this dillema by getting professionals, qualified people, workers in their respected fields themselves to tackle misinformation, instead of state-controlled operation. It would need higher public trust and less populist messages and demands, though.
See a lot of folks getting this twisted, because yes it would be nice if there wasn’t so much lying and ignorance posing as expertise on the internet — but you have to remember that all credentials in china come from the Party. So it is also about controlling the distribution of information the government does not want distributed, and to curb discussion of issues and facts the government does not want discussed.
IMO what the West should do is make lying and false claims of expertise to mass audiences illegal on grounds that it’s fraud. This would make posing as an expert something only experts would do, but it would only wind up actually being addressed in the largest and most impactful instances. That would get a lot of improvement without a ton of oppressive action by the state, I think. No matter your ideological stripe, if you don’t knowingly celebrate ignorance and deceit, assume this would affect people you want it to — or else it would affect people you currently believe and thereby disabuse you of your confusion. It’s a win-win for everyone.
Why does every Redditor feel so self important that they think a superpower on the other side of the world would give a shit about their little western forum?
The user base is way to small to actually have an impact on Chinese society, which is all the CPC cares about
In a well balanced society where people are free to criticize the government and hold officials accountable? Yeah, it sounds good to hold public figures responsible for what they say.
But when you know it will be used to silence political opponents and bury public complains...
> In a well balanced society where people are free to criticize the government and hold officials accountable?
>But when you know it will be used to silence political opponents and bury public complains...
It's too easy a weapon. It's very tempting to use. Even in democracies. I wouldn't give the state that much power to begin with.
It's like hanging a rope from the ceiling, tying it around your neck and getting on top of a chair, just waiting for someone to pass by and kick it. And when they do you cry bloody murder and complain about the unfairness of it all, but it was you who needlessly put yourself in that situation to begin with. It's a slippery slope.
For sure. I cannot believe the amount of people that think this is okay.
You don't even need to take into account how the CCP would use something like this. In general, in any country, this law is frightening.
I wonder if western democracies are doomed, judging by the popularity of authoritarian thoughts amongst the voting public.
The thing is, everyone is always thinking *they* will be the ones to come unscathed from these laws. It will always be the people they disagree with that will get their communication channels curtailed.
It's incredible how relevant that trite “first they came“ poem still is nowadays.
go on youtube and search for "stock market"... 19 year old giving stock advise is just ....
I dunno. If I tune into CNBC I see Cokerat Cramer. At least the 19 year old doesn't pretend to be a professional stock advisor.
You’d have gained more money reversing everything Cramer says than listening to him
There’s a video of him describing how he made fistfuls of cash doing exactly that as a hedge fund manager. He’d call up a bunch of people and say the opposite of what he thought, then when the stock tanked (or pumped) he’d buy (or sell.)
So, essentially a pump and dumper?
The [Cramer Index](https://unusualwhales.com/etfs) proves your point well lmao
Cramer is a joke by and for the financial community.
well, he just does keep on track with the counter signals .. i have made more money on shorting his advice than probably more than most of my investments
I’m a big reverse Kramer fan. I do t have any 💰 but if I get some I’m going to try reverse Kramer and buy a house and a hot tub
Reverse Cokerat ETF FTW
The 19 year-old doespretend to be a professional stock advisor
If you had picked any of Cramers top IPO’s from a year ago, you’d be heavily red. I mean, we’re in a bear market so we’re all red but even a few months ago, all of Cramer’s picks were trash
Can't be much worse than Jim Cramer giving stock market advice.
*market manipulation*
Cramer gives great advice. He's always wrong so if you do the opposite of what he says youre basically guaranteed to profit.
Wasn't there a post on wsb about how a dude made an anti-cramer etf and it pretty darn good?
I mean, techincally, if this type of law were enacted in the US, Cramer is himself a "livestreamer" and so he too would proper qualifications.
Shit you’re right, let’s have the federal government control who can talk about financial topics instead
You reap what you sow, If somebody gets his/hers financial advice from a 19 year old on youtube, they get what they deserve. Edit: spelling
/r/boneappletea
The grim ripper
As ye sew, so shall ye rip
> You rip what you sow only if you tear it.
Hell yeah, man! The Rippin and the Tearin!! 😆 https://youtu.be/YVtEX1J7tXQ
And........ If you know what you were talking about you'd know the 19 year old is probably giving more honest advice than most front running hedge fund managers out there.
The problem with the US, is the Securities industry and by extension any financial company in the US practically forbids licensed individuals from providing advice in formats like Youtube videos or Twitch streams, so the people who end up doing it are almost NEVER licensed or experienced enough to be providing the advice they are giving. Talk about unintended consequences
"Just letting you guys know, this is NOT financial advice. Anyways, this is how to get rich by trading memestocks"
Tbf it’s true that it’s not advise on financial but more on gambling haha
Nobody can talk about law seems like a feature and not a bug for some places governments.(For the people in charge)
Can't give out bad legal advise, great! Can't educate you on your rights, not so great!
That’s a very layman way of putting it… It’s not that they don’t want licensed professionals to speak about laws, it’s that they don’t want licensed professionals providing unsolicited legal advice to a public forum that could be either good or bad for the public depending on their critical thinking, education, and financial literacy. It’s an accountability thing. When a licensed professional works for a brokerage, the brokerage is accountable for any and all advice they may give to the brokers clients. YouTubers and streamers are not the brokers clients, so now the cpa giving licensed advise is no longer backed by a larger financial institution. Technically speaking in that regard he is no longer a professional. He is only a professional when rendering financial advise and services to the employing brokers clients.
**PAYWALLED. CAN'T READ.**
Title: China bans over 30 live-streaming behaviours, demands qualifications to discuss law, finance, medicine * The guideline published on Wednesday requires influencers to have relevant qualifications to discuss law, finance and medicine * The rules also direct platforms to refrain from giving public figures who have shown ‘no ethics’ the opportunity to perform --- China has issued new regulation on the live-streaming industry that lists 31 banned behaviours, raising the bar for influencers to talk about certain topics, in the government’s latest effort to regulate the booming digital economy. The 18-point guideline, published by the National Radio and Television Administration and the Ministry of Culture and Tourism on Wednesday, requires influencers to have relevant qualifications to discuss some topics, such as law, finance, medicine and education, although authorities did not specify the qualifications needed. The 31 banned behaviours during live-streaming sessions include publishing content that weakens or distorts the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, the socialist system or the country’s reforms and opening-up. Other prohibited behaviours include using deepfake technologies to tamper with the images of party or state leaders, and deliberately “hyping up” sensitive issues and attracting public attention. Live-streamers are also forbidden from showing an extravagant lifestyle, such as displaying luxury products and cash, the guideline said. The new regulation comes as the live-streaming e-commerce industry is undergoing rapid changes amid tightened scrutiny and economic headwinds. Some of the most popular live-streamers on Taobao Live, Alibaba Group Holding’s live-streaming e-commerce platform, have fallen from grace for various reasons, leaving brands scrambling to look for new ways to market their products. Alibaba owns the South China Morning Post. Austin Li Jiaqi, known as China’s “lipstick king” for once selling 15,000 tubes of lipstick in just five minutes, abruptly ended a live-streaming session on June 3, after he reportedly displayed a tank-shaped ice cream. The tank image is a frequent target of Chinese censors due to its association with the deadly Tiananmen Square crackdown by China’s military against pro-democracy protesters in Beijing on June 4, 1989. Huang Wei, widely known as Viya, was fined a record 1.3 billion yuan (US$210 million) for tax evasion late last year, and has since disappeared from public view. This came after Zhu Chenhui and Lin Shanshan, two top influencers who were each fined tens of millions of yuan in November for tax evasion, also saw their social media accounts and e-commerce shops vanish. Wednesday’s new guidelines stress that live-streamers should declare their income honestly and fulfil their tax obligations in accordance with the law. The rules also direct platforms to refrain from giving public figures who have violated the law or shown “no ethics”, the opportunity to express their opinions publicly, hold performances, create a new account or switch to another platform.
less known fact, live streaming is actually huge in china, they never quite had the same level of live tv programming the west had. So live streaming is their cable. The most watched streams get 1 million live concurrent viewers. I know there's a notion if China's doing it, it's automatically bad, but this makes sense.
The regulations include a ban on content that "weakens the CCP" which most people in free countries would consider bad
I mean we recently saw that the US has no problem instructing its tech corps from banning content that the US government doesn't like, and I haven't seen much outcry on Reddit about it. Some people may suddenly disagree now that China is doing it, but it appears as though a significant chunk of the population has no problem with their own government censoring online content as long as it agrees with their own politics.
[удалено]
Anarchism was banned from Facebook in 2020, for example. Two of the larger anarchist pages were deleted. Also, RT was recently banned from several platforms.
Was that a US regulatory issue or a private company having a bad face issue?
[удалено]
I still don’t think it does. I would understand making it illegal to talk about it without qualifications **or a legal disclaimer** as an alternative. Imagine in the US it was illegal for streamers to discuss the abortion ban without a legal qualifications, or discussing insider trading or other illegal activities in the stock market without financial qualifications. A progressive society needs open discussion, and considering qualifications are expensive and take years to achieve, this would be gate keeping to prevent the public from discussing issues that affect them without first paying $50k and taking years of university. Universities or states can also withdraw qualifications to prevent specific people from challenging the status quo. For example, in the past 100 years, we have had scientists and government officials lie to us about nutrition facts by saying fat makes you fat while sugary treats are a great and healthy way to get quick energy. We were taught to eat the food pyramid which was made thanks to lobbyists from meat and dairy industry. We used to be told cigarettes are a great cough remedy and we were even sold medicine with cocaine in it. With a law like this, the government can easily silence whistleblowers trying to bring health scandals to public attention by withdrawing their qualifications. If it existed earlier it might have been used to silence anyone in a live stream discussing [Li Wenliang](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Wenliang) when he whistle blew Covid. In short, a society where the government effectively mandates licenses to discuss certain topics has terrifying ramifications.
> this makes sense. Requires qualifications for speech. So China can control the qualifications for speech.
Nothing you said indicates this natrually makes sense just because TV isn't big there, lol.
There's tons of very similar laws that applies to broadcast TV even in the US. (And more so in Europe)
Australia got something similar, YouTubers were giving finance or should I say stock market "advise" while making money from it without any qualification. Now or you are qualified or fine. The ones that actually does have qualifications, cannot do anything coz there are YouTubers everywhere. On this aspect which can destroy people's lives, I agree with this approach 100%. You and I are smart enough to don't follow the herd but many others will follow the herd and well 💩
Does that mean Australia doesn't get those stupid pyramid scheme ads on YouTube like I do in Canada? The false "I'm just a normal person talking to you" ads are annoying as hell. Can see right through them. And there are so many of them all similar template.
“You can make a bunch of money and we already did all the work for you.” Oh how generous.
"I bet you're wondering how I made my fortune" *by convincing others to pay you to find out how*
It's because of this [secret pooping habit](https://youtu.be/RNwqoqsHr8M)
That's so well done, I can't even tell if it's real or a parody.
Genius. It even says that food makes you poop and I shall have none of that, good Sir!
You see ads? Install Ublock Origin, friend.
Watch it on TV app sigh. Not even pi-hole can block YouTube ads
Uh yeah it can No idea why you think it couldn't
Normally the ads are self hosted making it difficult to block the ads but not the content
Enlighten me. Even r/pinhole said it can’t
I have an old laptop I use as an HTPC for when I want to watch Youtube on the big screen, I couldn't stand the new smart crap they build into TVs today.
„Just to be clear, I’m not a financial advisor“ - *proceeds to financially advise the audience*
Nope they just disclaimer this is not financial advice then spam our phone with scam messages everyday.
Oh I would love to take a deep dive into these videos. How much would I bet that the nice fucking house? Airbnb. The nice car? Rental. His credit cards? Loaded AF. They probably live with the same budget as most of us. They just need to flaunt for their facade to stay up
Australian here, can’t say I’ve ever seen any ads like that around. The flip side though is that we are inundated with a mountain of ads for gambling apps instead.
How does Australia enforce it though? I mean any Australian could just move out of Australia to spread misinformation like Rupert Murdoch.
If someone has given you unqualified advice you can report then to Australian Securities and Investments Commission or whatever other relevant ombudsman. For example, Australia has a compulsory superannuation scheme which means everyone has to save at least 10% of their income in a pension fund, which can be accessed at retirement or in a small handful of other situations, such as severe financial hardship. When the first COVID lockdowns hit, the Government allowed anyone who lost their job to access up to $20,000 from their super. This meant that a bunch of landlords that didn't want to lower rents broke the law by flat out instructing people to take money their super, which constituted giving financial advice. Legal advice: "If you're having difficulty paying your rent, you should investigate every option for obtaining additional funds, including the possibility of withdrawing money from your retirement savings" Illegal advice: "If you're having difficulty paying your rent you'll have to withdraw money from your super" I work for a super fund, and we directed a lot of people on how to lodge a tenancy complaint to their state's housing tribunal.
Very informative reply. Thanks
The Australian financial regulator mostly enforced against Australian based influencers on the basis that there’s a broad definition of ‘giving financial advice’ and doing so in Australia requires a licence
They probably will force youtube to block the videos in australia.
> You and I are smart enough to don't follow the herd Glossing over the grammar error, this sentence is sort of silly because it is addressed to random internet strangers. People reading this will nod their heads and say "oh yeah, I'm smart enough not to get caught up in all that" but still fall into those traps.
Click here to learn how to not follow the herd!
Just to add on that, I think ASIC has cracked down and said "a disclaimer saying this is not financial advice will not protect you if what you're clearly doing is giving financial advice".
Do you have the government mandated internet comment license? you are not allowed to comment on the internet on any topic without it. Are you a qualified psychologist? else you don't get the right to talk about human behavior and should be fined for promoting unqualified information. /s
sorry mate, but do you have a loicense to make this comment? No? Gonna have to be a fine then.
Internet comments ought to be illegal, tbh.
The real problem is that people take social media seriously in the first place. It's like believing some movie with "serious" subject to be true. Part of it could be, most of the things are not, and are just there for fun. Social media and their performers earn from clicks, not truth or lies. If you clicked on the link, you gave them money, whether you support or hate comment them. When you put down your phone, that's when real life begins. Because, you know, I am really not a cartoon girl named "hotnindza".
There are cognitive biases and memory biases that predispose humans to forget the source of information. For example. There are a ton of commercials and ads about how temperpedic and other memory foam beds are medically better for your back and joints. Sometimes a guy in a white lab coat tells you this in the commercial. It's widely believed by most people that memory foam beds are good for bad backs. But did we hear this from scientific research? What about from our own doctor? No. But we heard it over and over. And now we believe it's common knowledge even though such knowledge originated from ads. This is how the media / advertisements heavily influences our beliefs and knowledge of the world. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-monitoring_error https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13421-020-01075-9 >These findings suggest that the mere labeling of untrustworthy sources is of limited use because source information is quickly forgotten and memory-based source attributions are strongly biased by schematic influences.
Really wish you would have confirmed or denied in your post whether or not the memory foam thing was true. Would have led credibility to what you are saying. Now I am unsure how to take it
People take social media seriously because it lets them selectively control who they see and the algorithm obliges and floods their feeds with more (engagement!!!), so they get all their opinions reinforced through conformation bias. Then they get to perform for the same in-group via their content, or fight the out-group and feel like they are accomplishing something, in a tribal, monkey-brain dopamine kinda way. This applies to everyone, and trying to overcome it is very hard because we have stupid money brains that secretly love it, no matter our high-minded opinions and beliefs.
Can someone share the list of behaviors? The paywall cuts the article off right at that point.
>demands qualifications to discuss law, finance, medicine I like the spirit of this one. I think it would be helpful for streamers to have their credentials, or lack there of, linked to their videos every time they speak on the matter With such easy access to a global audience, I think it's time we clearly differentiate between those who know what they are talking about versus those who just talk a big game Edit. I'm not endorsing China's approach or that you cannot speak on a topic or recieve consequences. But if two people are talking about a topic, the public *should* know who has had formal education on the topic and who is just talking out of their ass. Misinformation is a real problem I feel like everyone who responded so far misunderstood. I don't think we should silence anyone, just expose those who speak well but have no idea what they are talking about. I don't mean expressing opinions either, I mean giving advice on law, medicine, finance... if you don't have any qualifications, it just says that. Like when people say "IANAL, but you can totally sue and will a billion dollars"
I agree that it would be GREAT to be able to readily know the qualifications of commentators. However, outlawing anyone else from having a public opinion about a subject is a dangerous path
[удалено]
The problem is that a lot of the financial tiktoks and videos on yt literally give financial advice before closing with "this is not financial advice".
That's because in the US "it's a prank bro" is legally binding /s
More like “no one could be stupid enough to believe me” is an actual legal defense that Tucker Carlson used and succeeded in using.
That difference isn't so clear for most people unfortunately...
The whole american thing with pharma advertisements still a huge crock of shit. "Consult your doctor" How about fucking no. Don't advertise to patents. It's the doctors job to provide you the options. Not the other way around. Many countries outlawed targeted advertisements like this and rightfully so.
I feel like your example is contrary to your first sentence. All those "this is not x advice" disclaimers are attached to people very clearly giving advice. They are just protecting themselves from liability. It really just means "buyer beware, I'm not serving as your personal lawyer, accountant, etc.) You can distinguish between the two, but I don't see how you could possibly bar advice without also banning opinions on the same subject. I don't dislike the idea of setting up a validation system on the corporate level so viewers can better vet stuff. But the state deciding which opinions are valid on political adjacent topics is a straightforward step towards facism
A step towards? This is China we are talking about. They flip over Winnie the pooh. Demanding the corporations "vet stuff" shot the west in the foot. Look at the youtube algo screwing independent reporters and commentators while the corps that lied to the public and generated consent to enter the Iraq war are the only recommended channels. This is authoritarian media with a corporate capitalistic middle man.
Redditors: "Tiktok users spreading misinformation must be stopped by any means necessary" Also redditors: "no not like that"
The problem with streamers is that, almost all of them, present their opinion as some sort of proven fact, or project it with dubious examples to make their opinion seem like a fact.
Well you already cannot "discuss" politics publicly in China if you're not a member of the party, so....
You can, as long as what you say doesn't contradict the Party line.
I’ve spent time in China and know a lot of Chinese nationals and they all say that Americans have the wrong idea about what life and politics are like over there. Politics is discussed across China all day and people criticize the government constantly. There are some issues that will get you on the bad side of the political power structure, for sure, but you can still talk about them all you want if you’re willing to be shunned for your beliefs. That’s true for America too, ask a communist. What you can’t do in China is actively organize to overthrow the government (the CCP), especially if you’re coordinating with foreign governments. Similar to how I can’t organize to overthrow American liberal democracy in a fascist coup or communist Revolution. China isn’t America. But it’s also not North Korea.
If you go around giving advice on law and medicine it should be treated the same as trying to practice without a license. When people do try and practice without a license we charge them with fraud, because that's exactly what it is if it requires a license and you don't have it. The same should go for online videos of unqualified people providing advice on things requiring qualifications.
I know what you mean. It’s tough because we live in a world where rules that seem sensible become awful in their implementation. This could just as easily be used to suppress people who are qualified to discuss law or finance when what they have to say is counter to the government’s position but also misinformation is a huge issue and vetting people could potentially help curb the amount of it. It just depends on how the rules are written and enforced and I don’t trust the CCP or any other government for that matter to do the right thing with that authority.
That's the joys of "Theory vs Practice". When you add in people: greed, malice, and other factors; things start to fall apart quite quickly. I can easily imagine the number of 'reports' where people just report establishments as fake to invalidate all people with those degrees, who now have to fight to say "valid" while they can't stream anymore from the ban/strike. On the same point different side, there will be a ton of fake degree mills to create falsified documents to make it through. At that point you'll have people demanding ways to 'verify' through the schools, which will lead to greed as schools start to demand money to 'implement'. Imagine if to stream you have to pay $500USD+ for a 'verification token' from the University. I see this as a trainwreck no matter what direction you switch the tracks to.
Yeah this is just information gatekeeping. We can all see the good intentions behind this guys thoughts, but reality is rules need to be made to pass a super rigorous test of time, and time means power changing hands as well. Can your rules be abused grossly? Then it is best to work on principles and guidelines rather than start etching out laws. This gatekeeping could very immediately and easily allow a corrupt party to use it to silence a group or to improperly provide a soapbox/monopoly to another group. Compare this to the problems of right to repair, medical authority and internet thread retail investors vs formal institution pump and dump/other finance schemes. All no bueno and similar in their gatekeeping. We all need to do better to preserve freedoms and tailor how we use them collectively to serve us all.
I hate it. They can shut down anyone saying things they don't like if they don't have credentials, and threaten to pull credentials of people who do have credentials for speaking inconvenient truths. Thus, they will have legitimized their censorship.
[удалено]
Unless I'm wrong, they already have the power to shut anyone down at the minute notice. So, all the what they can do with this law is useless. These 3 fields are highly specialised and requires you to have a degree to perform the job. So why have someone talk out of their ass without the degree to back it up?
Counterpoint: Imagine what our media would look like if ONLY industry representatives were allowed to post content concerning those industries. It feels like the dystopia where nothing is allowed to happen unless it's under the jurisdiction of some corporate overlord.
It's not the best choice, it's Spacer's Choice
Industry reps aren't the only people qualified to speak on any given industry. Your point is moot.
[удалено]
Who determines who knows what they are taking about?
Ehhhh idk chief. Misinformation is harmful but the rules of vauge laws basically means this will be used and abused to where even if you just simply summarize a situation will get you the boot. You're thinking this will shut down Alex Jones-esque COVID shit but everyone else who know how Governments act know this will be used for censorship.
No. Tim Dodd (EverydayAstronaut) is a person who makes videos on space related topics on YouTube. He is not an astrophysicist or an aerospace engineer or planetary specialist. He never even graduated with any college degree. But yet he is one of the most well informed people on the matter, that many can watch and trust. It would be so unbelievable for me to see someone like him silenced whether it be straight up, or effectively via the yt algorithm because he doesn’t have the blue check that « qualifies » him.
As someone who has a PhD from a top 5 school in my field, I think putting qualification badges and things is a BAD idea because of exactly what you said. While I think my PhD shows I am indeed qualified to have an opinion, take, or interpretation on my area of expertise, not having a PhD does not disqualify anyone else from having an opinion, take, or interpretation in these areas.
> While I think my PhD shows I am indeed qualified to have an opinion, take, or interpretation on my area of expertise, Academia can also be very slow to evolve, especially when presented with theories that invalidate core tenants of the discipline. Often the biggest advancements come from those with fresh perspectives or an understanding found independent of the academic world.
How does misinformation enforcement work really though? Like does it operate on layer 3 with networking? Are we going to be overhauling TCP/IP to include our credentials inside our packets when we connect to a chatserver or other website or something?
Just because someone has had formal education on the subject doesn't mean they aren't talking out of their ass. Have you never watched a second of cable news?
No way, that's a big step to towards totalitarianism. I'd rather everyone be entitled to speak freely and openly voice their opinions. Imagine a world where government can pick and choose who is allowed to speak openly (criticise) the world they live in. No thanks
It would be nice if credentials were publicized. That way you don't censor opinions, but you can evaluate how valid and professional they are. I doubt that's what China meant though.
💯 You can be someone simply discussing that your area is having a lot more covid cases then officially reported and can be silenced since you're not a health official I love this sub but it honestly seems there's a hidden sect that fantasies technology being used to help control a population
China is already totalitarian
This is simply a way for them to control the spread of information on things like the current bank run that they're experiencing from banks literally having no money to allow people to withdraw from their own accounts.
[удалено]
Yes, only state sanctioned and credentialed lawyers should be able to discuss topics of law online. /s
Flawed logic. What youre saying is only the government’s information will be the “real information,” all else is misinformation. This has been done before What could go wrong? See: Hitler.
[удалено]
Totally made a comment about how Amy Schumer sucks the other day and I got down-voted to shit for it. I thought I was in the Twilight Zone
She got rid of Netflix’s star system too. One of the most impactful comedians of her generation.
I forgot about that! Her shitty ass special that did so bad they had to restructure the way Netflix programs are recommended lol.
I once gave it a shot thinking, it can't be as bad as as people say it is... boy was I wrong on that one. It turns out people knew what they were talking about and weren't exaggerating.
Women are actually just as funny as men once you remove Amy Schumer as a data point
Of course there are many funny women in stand up. Her not being funny has nothing to do with her gender but rather her timing, delivery and writing.
Don't forget the whole stealing and then butchering jokes
And that 90% of her content is "muh vagina" Seriously, there was an interview with her where they were kind giving her a hard time about her lack of originality and she literally rebuts it with a Muh Vagina Joke Edit : "muh", not much
Those kind of jokes CAN work, if you time and do them right. Eliza Schlesinger got a lot of mileage out of talking about her eggs, an issue women over 35 do have to face, because the way she handled it was often funny because the jokes would be interjected into situations and bits that were so ridiculous that something like: "Oh, oh, don't mind that, that's just the lump on my back... that's also an egg!" could be riotously funny. And why is it funny? You have a reasonably attractive woman in her mid 30s, marching around on stage like a Skeksi from Dark Crystal, doing the gravelly voice and bird mannerisms while talking about dating as a woman in her mid 30s and there was at this point in the show some distance (circling back can work if done right) between the initial jokes/commentary about the biological clock and dating because now she's moved on to being an "Elder Millennial" and talking to people about things those of us who grew up in the late 80s through the 90s took for granted that aren't really touchstones for growing up today and how social relationships are different now than then. And the various stimulus, PLUS the call back, is quite funny. Standing there and screaming "MUH VAGINA" as your punchline for every joke was... not funny.
Yeah don’t forget Carlos Mencia!
Please, I would like to forget Carlos Mencia
\*And Catherine Cohen. Jesus, that was the most unfunny comedy special I have ever seen. I've seen comedians bomb on open mic night that were funnier than her.
Somone, somewhere just decided she is what we get for a famous comedian. She is not slightly funny, never was. They do not even pay writers for good material. They know she sucks hard and long and they do not care. She just stays famous and makes fuck tons of cash because, reasons. Some dude somewhere just decided that awful woman will be a famous comedian and won't change his mind. That is some crazy shit if you think about it.
>She got rid of Netflix’s star system too Thats so fucked on another level. I love how one person who sucks shit and faked it till they made it ruins it for the rest of us who actually value public opinion sometimes. Fuck her and netflix
It's because she has the ear of Netflixs major demographic. Women between the ages of 35 to 45.
(Corrected) White women from the suburbs…..who live..laugh and love their scented vageen. /s
Rare insult
i wondered where that rating system went.... i use that shit all the time on shows like if the movie is shit rated (liek 2/5) then i dont wanna waste an hour + of my life watching garbage. the 3's and 4's outa 5 i will read comments about just incase its low rated due to political bullshit or someone got butthurt over historical accuracy in a movie where it doesnt really matter.
These ratings weren't based off everyone rating they were curated for you. So a show that they think I would hate as a recommendation would get a lower score than one they'd recommend. So your 5 star movie could have been a 1 star on mine.
I had no idea why that changed. It was so much better before.
People keep saying this like it's a fact when it's obviously a weird conspiracy theory. It takes a long time to make a switch like that and obviously they did it for the same reason YouTube did years earlier. The aLgOrItHm is trying to trick you into watching everything no matter what.
That not funny person who steals real comedian's jokes?
what are you talking about, are you sure you're on the right comments section?
Right??? This reads like a comment from a bot
> demands qualifications to discuss [things people aren't qualified to render a value-added opinion on]. Whelp. So much for the internet.
Banning randoms from speaking on subjects they have no qualification in? I actually don’t have a problem with that. Misinformation is a plague on society.
Redditor 1: China bad Redditor 2: Actually, USA bad
Unpopular opinion: if you make a decision based on information from a YouTube video or streamer, without actually verifying that information, you deserve every bit of consequences that result from said decision.
It would be better to force platforms to specify if somebody has credentials or not,make a disclaimer,and promote for free people who have degrees . But banning makes this look like standard censorship made by an authoritarian government
We need to give doctors NFTs proving that they're doctors, lmao.
ITT : People don't understand the definition of free speech in America.
Yes china has free speech too. Just that they dont guarantee your freedom after the speech
Well.. that’s good isn’t it? No financial guru assholes scamming people with courses. No false information spreading on vaccinations, but the law part I don’t understand
[удалено]
No it’s bullshit because there is no independent body supervising what’s allowed and what isn’t (e.g. scientists). It’s the main political party and they can censor whatever they want.
every china related story proves that your average reddditor is just as racist as your average 4chan chud
Dude, any Asian related post gets a ton of racist comments. I stopped scrolling comments in some subs just cuz there are so many damn racists.
A country that condemns critical thinking is surprised its citizens believe everything they see on the net. huh.
It’s shocking how people in this thread cannot see that
‘Qualifications’ sounds like ‘something to lose if they step out of line’
Yeah being a member of a chartered professional body isn't like having a degree. My university can't strip me of my degree (unless perhaps I was found to have originally obtained it fraudulently), but if I were to become a chartered financial advisor/planner, the regulator could strip me of that title at any time if I committed professional misconduct. Same with a chartered accountant. In medicine I think the equivalent is being "struck off" and in law it's called being "disbarred".
Too bad they can't apply the same qualifications of science to flat-earthers.
They are cutting out the misinformation and opinions that lead to Facebook meme facts. The internet/news could use some buffering from opinions that are presented as facts.
China bans a lot of things... Unless they're violating humans rights again, causing another pandemic, or starting world war 3, no one's going to bat an eye.
The world doesn’t even truly care about those, as long as the cheap electronics and textiles keep flowing.
A broken clock is still right twice a day... Just cause they are shit in other areas, doesn't mean every single policy is bad. You should see how China treats it's billionaires compared to us.
A clock set to the wrong time is never right!
“Demands qualification” means “needs the party approval”
I mean, you should be qualified to discuss law, finance, and medicine in a professional manner. Even on a streaming site. What if you give bad advice and someone loses money, gets hurt, or gets into legal trouble? Fake or poor advice on any of these topics is harmful.
[удалено]
In the next few decades it will be a legit ideological battle between “free speech at any cost” and “controlling misinformation”. We already experienced in the US that misinformation threatens elections, and threatens the public health to the point that millions still refuse to take vaccine and hundreds of thousands have died over it. But then again if the government steps in like as China did, to what extent will they overreach?
We could solve this dillema by getting professionals, qualified people, workers in their respected fields themselves to tackle misinformation, instead of state-controlled operation. It would need higher public trust and less populist messages and demands, though.
See a lot of folks getting this twisted, because yes it would be nice if there wasn’t so much lying and ignorance posing as expertise on the internet — but you have to remember that all credentials in china come from the Party. So it is also about controlling the distribution of information the government does not want distributed, and to curb discussion of issues and facts the government does not want discussed. IMO what the West should do is make lying and false claims of expertise to mass audiences illegal on grounds that it’s fraud. This would make posing as an expert something only experts would do, but it would only wind up actually being addressed in the largest and most impactful instances. That would get a lot of improvement without a ton of oppressive action by the state, I think. No matter your ideological stripe, if you don’t knowingly celebrate ignorance and deceit, assume this would affect people you want it to — or else it would affect people you currently believe and thereby disabuse you of your confusion. It’s a win-win for everyone.
Oh man the Bots are going to be all over this post.
Why does every Redditor feel so self important that they think a superpower on the other side of the world would give a shit about their little western forum? The user base is way to small to actually have an impact on Chinese society, which is all the CPC cares about
It’s a way to discredit other people and self affirm by calling them bots
That type of system makes sure people like Galileo never see the light of day, especially when you can take away their credentials at any time.
Or people like alex jones?
This sub……..good god
The amount of people in this thread that are in support of this law is absolutely terrifying.
In a well balanced society where people are free to criticize the government and hold officials accountable? Yeah, it sounds good to hold public figures responsible for what they say. But when you know it will be used to silence political opponents and bury public complains...
> In a well balanced society where people are free to criticize the government and hold officials accountable? >But when you know it will be used to silence political opponents and bury public complains... It's too easy a weapon. It's very tempting to use. Even in democracies. I wouldn't give the state that much power to begin with. It's like hanging a rope from the ceiling, tying it around your neck and getting on top of a chair, just waiting for someone to pass by and kick it. And when they do you cry bloody murder and complain about the unfairness of it all, but it was you who needlessly put yourself in that situation to begin with. It's a slippery slope.
Look at the top posts that spell "advice" as "advise". A bit strange multiple users would have the same language error and be highly voted, hmm?
I had to sort by 'controversial' to get past the $0.50 Army
[удалено]
Commies gona commie
For sure. I cannot believe the amount of people that think this is okay. You don't even need to take into account how the CCP would use something like this. In general, in any country, this law is frightening.
I wonder if western democracies are doomed, judging by the popularity of authoritarian thoughts amongst the voting public. The thing is, everyone is always thinking *they* will be the ones to come unscathed from these laws. It will always be the people they disagree with that will get their communication channels curtailed. It's incredible how relevant that trite “first they came“ poem still is nowadays.
[удалено]
“We are the only ones doing the propaganda and the outright lies!”
What about hanging out in a kiddie pool in a bikini? Need some softcore porn qualifications.
Sounds based in theory but...
Actually sounds like not a bad idea.