Some commentators are ambivalent about yet another CCP crackdown on speech, one that requires that “influencers”—people who talk on the Internet who have an audience—must have relevant credentials before they can expatiate on such subjects as finance, law, and medicine.
Example: Sneha Samanta, who is influencing readers at peripatetic length on the subject of “ ‘No degree, no discussion’: China’s new firewall is coming for content creators; why it could be a good thing” (Times of India, October 29, 2025).
After discussing an example of somebody who gave misinformative advice to somebody, the latter of which took the advice unthinkingly and regretted it, Samanta says:
In October 2025, the Cyberspace Administration of China rolled out new regulatory rules that could very well mark a paradigm shift in how influencer culture functions—at least in China. Under the rule, if you, as an influencer, want to speak about certain “serious” topics—such as finance, health, medicine, law, or education—you must now provide proof of relevant professional credentials….
Platforms, too, are required to verify these credentials, to mark when the content uses AI‐generated elements or is derived from studies, and to explicitly label when advice is given. Influencers who fail to comply with these regulations may see suspension of accounts or even financial penalties.
Good or bad?
On one hand, it promises a cleaner, more expert-led online space. But, on the other, it flags an alarming escalation of control, potential gate-keeping, and suppression of alternative voices.
So, the bigger questions are looming right under the surface: is this a genuine push for quality, or a new tool of state-sponsored control?
Arguably:
From the government’s vantage point, this makes sense. Because digital misinformation can spread quickly, non-experts offering financial advice, health advice, and legal commentary may pose a great risk to individuals and to social stability. So requiring credentials is arguably a way to raise the quality of public discourse.
But:
….these regulations also fit into a pattern of tighter state control over online narratives. Why and how? Because this rule gives platforms explicit responsibility to verify, label, and enforce, while reducing the space for informal voices. And that, most definitely, raises questions of freedom, creativity, and who gets to be heard.
Also:
“Credentials” include not only academic degrees but also licenses or certifications. However, there’s not much clarity on the definition of “licenses or certifications,” which, of course, gives the authorities broad discretion.
And:
The rule kicks in when the influencer treats the topic as “professional advice” rather than “casual commentary.” Who decides the fine line that becomes the line demarcation between “professional advice” and “casual commentary”? So, it may sound reassuring, but in practice, the line will be blurry.
On the other hand:
With the help of these regulations, some dangerous trends (health fads, quick-money schemes) may be curtailed, which not only benefits consumers in the long run but also builds trust in the digital content ecosystem. Under this new rule, social media platforms are now required to verify credentials and label content. That alone may force infrastructure improvements (credential checks, disclaimers, clearer sourcing) and perhaps reduce “wild west” content where anyone can claim authority out of thin air.
And yet:
The first and foremost blow—potentially—is this: censorship of content. In China, international platforms like Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), and YouTube are already blocked by the “Great Firewall”…. The Chinese government maintains tight control over internet content—even the content on domestic platforms. Local platforms are already responsible for verifying user identities and must comply with strict regulations on content.
On top of that, the new rule allows authorities to decide who gets to speak and who doesn’t—thus shaping public discourse. If only credentialled voices get to speak on sensitive topics, dissenting, non-traditional, and anti-establishment voices may be entirely excluded. Besides, expertise doesn’t always equal experience.
So…
On the surface, these new rules sure look like an upgrade. But when that gate of “credential”/”expertise” is raised: who gets excluded, who remains, and what voices get lost?
We don’t know yet.
But in time, that answer will shape not only China’s digital landscape—but potentially the global creator culture.
Here is a person who was born yesterday just trying to figure things out. There are pluses and minuses, and so forth. People won’t be allowed to talk who would have been allowed to talk before the new law was imposed. On the other hand, sometimes they would have said wrong things.
Misinformed
The alleged goal of the Chinese Communist Party’s new requirement is to combat “misinformation.”
We can all be very misinformed about very many things. And we can spread misinformation about many things, telling each other that up is down, left is right, the Chinese Communist Party is honest and benevolent, despotic stomping of innocent people might have good effects as well as bad, principles are a kind of disposable tissue paper, etc. But we all have as much right to misinform each other as to inform each other as long as the misinformation is not a means of defrauding or committing other crime. Part and parcel of the right to speak truth is the right to speak untruth; it’s the same right. In any case, the CCP is not at all opposed to misinformation. The Party is opposed to disagreement with its propaganda, which consists of 98 percent lies and misinformation and only 2 percent cat-is-on-the-mat type statements.
The ambivalent ones say that hey yeah, it sure would be nice to reduce the amount of misinformation out there; on the plus side, then, this new form of censorship being imposed by the totalitarian Chinese state might achieve the effect of reducing influencer-uttered misinformation!
Okay. But you might also achieve the same effect by locking up all the influencers and throwing away the key and making sure the wardens don’t let them get anywhere near a microphone and a computer. The ambivalent ones would probably agree that this would be unambiguously bad—we wouldn’t even have to wait and see—because such treatment would violate the rights of the influencers even if it would eliminate all the misinformation that they might have spread online. (While also eliminating all the good information that they might have spread online.)
To gag influencers because they lack credentials related to a particular subject is also a plain violation of their rights. If the influencers disobey and speak anyway, they risk penalties, even though it is no crime at all to either speak truth or speak nonsense—the latter of which even persons with numerous degrees Krazy-Glued to their name are eminently capable. Nobody needs credentials to research and think and communicate the results.
Good and bad
The ambivalent ones may admit that the Chinese Communist Party has got its own propagandistic and totalitarian agenda, an agenda to which this latest form of censorship being imposed on the people of the PRC may be related. Bad things might happen as a result of this new form of censorship that have nothing to do with merely preventing misinformation. For sure.
Thus, say the ambivalent ones, you have your good possibilities and also your bad possibilities here. And all we can do is wait and see how it all works out. The seventy-five years so far of CCP rule just isn’t enough of a sample, and we have no idea yet whether freedom is better than tyranny.
