China Restricts Influencers from Discussing Sensitive Topics Without Credentials

China has introduced stringent new rules for online creators, prohibiting influencers from commenting on delicate fields such as medicine, finance, law, and education unless they possess recognized academic or professional qualifications. Enforced from October 25, these directives mark a stronger push by Beijing to regulate expertise shared on the internet and determine authorized voices.

The Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) explains the guidelines aim to combat misinformation and bolster public confidence in digital content. Still, the regulation has ignited discussions regarding censorship, transparency, and governmental influence over online discussions.

In accordance with the legislation, platforms like Weibo, Douyin (China’s version of TikTok), and Bilibili must now verify the credentials of users covering specified subjects. Additionally, content creators are required to note if their work is AI-generated and reference appropriate academic or scientific sources when relevant.

Add Cosmo Herald as a Preferred Source

Measures Targeting Misinformation

The CAC announced the policy intends to minimize the circulation of “false or harmful advice” online and guarantee that information comes from qualified professionals. As highlighted by CNBC-TV18, participants must now hold a degree from a recognized university, a valid license, or professional accreditation before sharing insights on healthcare, legal matters, finance, or education.

The legislation also forbids influencers from promoting medical products, dietary supplements, and health-related foods, citing rampant misuse of sponsorships disguised as informative content. Platforms must enforce these restrictions and prevent unqualified users from monetizing or producing such content.

This policy change underscores China’s rising concerns about misleading claims in health and financial sectors, which officials warn may result in harmful consequences. A 2022 Reuters report noted prior crackdowns on unlicensed health advice videos and fraudulent endorsements on Chinese video services.

Wider Context of Increased Online Speech Controls

This credential regulation is part of China’s ongoing campaign to centralize and professionalize online communication. Over recent years, Beijing has introduced content restrictions on livestreams, penalized financial influencers, and imposed strict rules on digital education providers.

According to digital governance scholar Rogier Creemers from Leiden University, these regulations contribute to shaping online dialogue into a “technocratic, traceable, and government-sanctioned” space. Speaking to South China Morning Post, Creemers emphasized that the state is establishing the framework for what knowledge is deemed legitimate in public conversations.

Conversely, regulatory approaches in many Western countries emphasize platform accountability, content removal, and transparency, rather than controlling who is authorized to address specific subjects. For instance, the European Union’s Digital Services Act mandates platforms to tackle unlawful content and disclose algorithms but does not require credentials from individuals sharing information.

Mixed Public Opinions Reflect Divided Sentiments

Responses from Chinese netizens have been polarized. Numerous users on Weibo and Douyin welcomed the regulation, suggesting it will improve the caliber of information online. “It’s encouraging to see knowledgeable people leading discussions,” one supporter commented.

However, some users voiced concerns about the potential suppression of independent voices and inconsistent enforcement practices. “Soon, posting opinions might require licenses,” warned a content creator based in Beijing, reflecting worries that the government could leverage this law to silence politically sensitive viewpoints under the pretext of expertise.

Critics also pointed out the ambiguous criteria for valid qualifications. Without a publicly available list of accepted degrees or certifications, enforcement may depend heavily on internal decisions by platforms and government authorities, increasing risks of arbitrary application.

• Categories:
• News