Not confusing. He's saying that watching Judge Judy for a week doesn't make you a lawyer. And when hiring, be careful because lots of people who claim to be experts are far from it.
That’s valid, but he’s implying that Judge Judy should be taken off air because some people watch it and then pretend to be lawyers. Squelching information seems like a terrible way to eliminate a few impostors downstream.
Yes, but that's a bad example because pretending to be a lawyer is hard. A better example would be gurus spreading nutrition recommendations that are not wrong per-se, but extremely simplified. Nutrition is a complex topic and individual differences make it hard to generalize. Let's say the information are so simplified that they are likely to hurt people who blindly follow them without doing further research. So, should this information be taken off air or not? I would say yes, and perhaps you would say no. In either case, I don't think the answer is quite as clear-cut.
