4 ms·
Yes, but accountability for spreading false information is a thing as well. What if someone says to take some drug 'because it's safe' - when it's not? I say
by jollybean 4y ago
Yes, but accountability for spreading false information is a thing as well.
What if someone says to take some drug 'because it's safe' - when it's not?
I say let the lawsuits begin.
Or better yet, have some kind of basic regs.
Whenever anyone talks about 'health' or 'finance' in the commons, they had better be very clearly indicating that 'they don't know what the F they are talking about' and that people ought to 'talk to a doctor/accredited financial advisor' first and that 'following this advice could lead to illness/bankruptcy' etc..
I would love to see theses turds have to follow the same regs drug companies do: "This diarrhea medicine may cause X, Y, Z and A, B, C etc."
- yucky 4y ago>What if someone says to take some drug 'because it's safe' - when it's not? Well it depends on who it is (which goes back to personal responsibility). If I'm taking drugs that my barber recommended I deserve the same fate as if I buy the stocks or crypto he recommended.
- jollybean 4y agoYes, but some people present themselves as being credible. Authors, bloggers, etc. make it their professional interest to give such advice. The guy saying 'sell your home to buy BTC' is one such person. We need credible groups and institutions.
- yucky 4y agoHow does that work though? Does the government need to regulate what we can talk about? Who determines who is "Credible"? >The guy saying 'sell your home to buy BTC' is one such person. Almost nobody did that though. Which means 99.99999999% of people saw that to be bad advice and acted accordingly. For the handful who decided it was a great idea, that's on them. We don't need to regulate the speech of everyone to protect the biggest idiots from themselves.