[kelnos]

The problem is that capitalism drives people to push lies as fact, and manipulate people into believing those lies. "Well maybe people just shouldn't be so gullible" clearly isn't a solution, or the problem would be solved already.

I don't think that's an excuse to start banning books (and other media), but products like this -- especially anything that advocates a particular approach to health, nutrition, or medicine -- should be vetted by actual experts (more than one), and stores should be required to post disclaimers when the product doesn't pass muster.

Yes, there's the potential for abuse and shady dealings there, but I'd like to believe that the end result would still be better than what we have now.

Now, some people are just raised to believe in complete nonsense, so you're not going to save everyone by trying to educate them. But I think it'd help many people not get drawn in by (potentially dangerous) pseudoscience.

[smellyshaft1]

Uh, capitalism does that?

Capitalism is responsible for a lot of evils in the world but it is not the root cause of people lying.

>especially anything that advocates a particular approach to health, nutrition, or medicine -- should be vetted by actual experts (more than one), and stores should be required to post disclaimers when the product doesn't pass muster.

No thanks to the nanny warning. I've reading plenty of books on alternative medicine and without exception they all have a warning along these lines:

"The medical information contained within is provided as an information resource only, and is not to be used or relied on for any diagnostic or treatment purposes. This information does not create any patient-physician relationship, and should not be used as a substitute for professional diagnosis and treatment. Please consult your health care provider before making any health care decisions or for guidance about a specific medical condition."

An additional sign is not necessary IMO. We're grown adults.

[smaudet]

"No thanks to the nanny warning."

This isn't directed at you then - if you actually have experience and done some real research (not read some news articles), great. Make informed decisions.

"We're grown adults."

A non sequitor. Grown adults are often unknowledgeable, incorrect, strapped for time, etc.

I've frequently seen nonsense pushed as fact, and known that I don't actually know everything. I welcome better (human agency, crowd-source mix) vetting in general.

I'm not so arrogant that I think I can always "do my own research" and get it right.

[baggy_trough]

I think your proposed cure is far worse than the disease. It would have a profound chilling effect on free speech.

[smaudet]

Eh?

"and stores should be required to post disclaimers when the product doesn't pass muster."

What about this is restrictive of free speech? If anything, YOU want to restrict the speech of the store to not allow them to say things they sell might be nonsense.

I think for medical things, oversight and general blurbs are fine. Its also fine if the store in question wants to post a blurb where they disagree with the "vetted" version. But this tramples on nobodies free speech, only on your personal sensibilities.

[baggy_trough]

It creates a huge transaction cost on content "that advocates a particular approach to health, nutrition, or medicine". First, some unspecified actor will need to make sure that such content is vetted by experts, however that status is to be determined. Secondly, stores will need to make sure that each item containing such content provides a suitable disclaimer. Thirdly, some bureaucracy will be tasked with enforcing these rules.

It would simply be much easier to not produce any content "that advocates a particular approach to health, nutrition, or medicine."

[Xorakios]

Agreed.