China is aggressively cracking down on unqualified individuals offering professional advice – financial, medical, legal, or educational – on social media platforms. The Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) issued new regulations Saturday requiring influencers to demonstrate verifiable credentials before sharing such content. This move aims to curb rampant misinformation and protect the public from potentially harmful or fraudulent guidance.
New Rules for Major Platforms
The regulations apply to major Chinese platforms like Bilibili, Doyin (TikTok’s Chinese equivalent), and Weibo. Creators must now back up claims with documented studies, and explicitly disclose if artificial intelligence was used to generate their content.
This isn’t just about credentials; the CAC is also banning disguised advertising for supplements and medical services, which often masquerade as educational material to push sales. This follows a broader two-month campaign to purge “pessimistic, hostile, or violent” content from the Chinese internet.
Why This Matters: A Global Trend
China’s move reflects a growing global concern over the spread of unregulated advice online. While criticized for its strict control, China isn’t alone. Spain implemented a similar “influencer law” in 2024, mandating transparency for high-earning influencers regarding brand partnerships and restricting content targeting minors with harmful products.
This trend is driven by the sheer volume of unverified information circulating on social media.
The Scale of the Problem
A UNESCO study reveals that less than 37% of influencers verify the accuracy of content before posting. This is particularly alarming given that a recent Pew Research Center report shows one in five young Americans now gets their news from TikTok. The potential for misinformation to shape public opinion and individual decisions is immense.
The rise of unqualified “experts” on social media is a direct consequence of platforms prioritizing engagement over accuracy. China’s approach, though heavy-handed, is an attempt to reassert control over this rapidly evolving information landscape.
The broader question remains: how will other nations balance free speech with the need to protect citizens from misleading or harmful online advice?
