China Bars Influencers From Discussing Professional Topics Without Relevant Degrees (iol.co.za)
- Reference: 0179905554
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/10/29/147251/china-bars-influencers-from-discussing-professional-topics-without-relevant-degrees
- Source link: https://iol.co.za/lifestyle/2025-10-27-china-s-new-law-only-degree-holding-influencers-can-discuss-professional-topics-netizens-divided-on-its-impact/
> China has enacted a new law regulating social media influencers, requiring them to hold verified professional qualifications before posting content on sensitive topics such as medicine, law, education, and finance, [2]IOL reported. The new law went into effect on Saturday.
>
> The regulation was introduced by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) as part of its broader effort to curb misinformation online. Under the new rules, influencers must prove their expertise through recognized degrees, certifications, or licenses before discussing regulated subjects. Major platforms such as Douyin (China's TikTok), Bilibili, and Weibo are now responsible for verifying influencer credentials and ensuring that content includes clear citations, disclaimers, and transparency about sources.
>
> Audiences expect influencers to be both creative and credible. Yet when they blur the line between opinion and expertise, the impact can be severe. A single misleading financial tip could wipe out someone's savings. A viral health trend could cause real harm. That's why many believe it's time for creators to acknowledge the weight of their influence. However, China's new law raises deeper questions: Who defines "expertise"? What happens to independent creators who challenge official narratives but lack formal credentials? And how far can regulation go before it suppresses free thought?
[1] https://slashdot.org/~schwit1
[2] https://iol.co.za/lifestyle/2025-10-27-china-s-new-law-only-degree-holding-influencers-can-discuss-professional-topics-netizens-divided-on-its-impact/
this is also a bit of trolling the usa (Score:1)
since we have the "experts don't exist" party in power and are self immolating ourselves over it
Re: (Score:2)
I would say less the "experts don't exist" but more the "I'm the expert now" party.
With the requisite 2+ hours of "research" on YouTube and Facebook, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
> I would say less the "experts don't exist" but more the "I'm the expert now" party.
> With the requisite 2+ hours of "research" on YouTube and Facebook, of course.
I think you're overestimating that 2+ hours by at least a factor of ten.
This is why I have 8 degrees (Score:2)
And need more wallspace.
Is the penalty worse than a slap on the hand? (Score:1)
The gray zone definition question: Suppose a Biology Teacher makes a medical advice base on biological functions?
This limits stupidity (Score:3)
This doesn't take away freedom of opinion, but it does let the viewer know whether the influencer has any credibility.
Think back to the time when America was "great", which may be the 1950s according to MAGA. If an average person didn't understand some scientific topic, they didn't pretend to. They trusted Jonas Salk and others because they got to see the horrors or polio and the they saw the effect of the vaccines. The children saw some students not come back to school in the fall because they contracted polio over the summer. The parents saw the same thing and understood just how important vaccines were, whether they understood how it worked or not. Now everyone pretends to be an expert, even if they're actually an idiot. Even idiots knew their limits in the "good old days" before social media.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it does take away freedom of opinion. The system that assigns these credentials can always be corrupt, and usually is. Any gatekeepers of knowledge can and usually do become corrupt, either for power or money.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it is more than just being confidently wrong, they're being contrarian and selling supplements or whatever else other grifting they can manage and squealing about free speech or free markets when that they're selling snake oil gets pointed out.
Re: (Score:2)
> Even idiots knew their limits in the "good old days" before social media.
Now idiocy is glorified. Now if someone doesn't like what you said and expresses desire to punch you in the face, we consider them presidential material.
We are in deep decline.
They aren't new questions (Score:3)
> However, China's new law raises deeper questions: Who defines "expertise"? What happens to independent creators who challenge official narratives but lack formal credentials? And how far can regulation go before it suppresses free thought?
I don't see that it's really raising those questions in any new way. We've already been dealing with them for a long time. You can't give medical advice if you don't have a degree in medicine. You can't give legal advice if you don't have a degree in law. You might disagree with the requirements, but that's how it's worked in the offline world for a long time.
Re:They aren't new questions (Score:4, Insightful)
So you can't complain a law is unconstitutional unless you have a JD? So you can't complain that common core is failing students unless you have a masters in education? So you can't complain that $TRUMP is a pump and dump unless you have a finance degree?
Better than the Wild West. (Score:2, Insightful)
The Chinese have problems with fake degree mills just like everybody else, and perhaps worse, but to their credit they're trying to combat it. There's a whole industry for vetting education credentials there.
While I generally don't like silencing people on the general principles that education doesn't guarantee competency, and the lack of formal education doesn't necessarily imply incompetence, the internet has put us in a position where good information has been drowned out.
I think this approach is a good
JFC, When did Slashdot forget Free Speech? (Score:1)
I can't believe so many people here are saying, "Good idea, good idea, we should do that here."
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should read the comments more critically and inform yourself on what sarcasm is.
Good idea. (Score:3, Insightful)
Fantastically good idea. In the USA it would save tens of thousands of lives. Antivaxxers would disappear in nothingness.
Re: Good idea. (Score:4, Insightful)
We should definitely prohibit everyone other than recognized and state licensed experts from expressing an opinion about those fields. It worked so well with leaded gasoline
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It was all corporate experts claiming leaded gasoline was safe.
Re: (Score:2)
Financial, legal, and engineering advice are thee fields I know of in the US where you are legally limited in your right ability to voice your opinion.
Slashdot's all time favourite IANAL is a product of that.
Re: (Score:3)
> Financial, legal, and engineering advice are thee fields I know of in the US where you are legally limited in your right ability to voice your opinion.
> Slashdot's all time favourite IANAL is a product of that.
You're free to give your opinion on all of those in the US, as long as you specify that it is an opinion and not advice.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. I'd say further that opinion vs. advice is critical, and the OP said opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Then they licked the boots.
Re: (Score:2)
While I'm against direct censorship if medical BS, I believe certain disclaimers should be required by law if relevant.
Example:
"The Covid vaccine makes your ears fall off according to Dr. Zim. Disclaimer: Dr. Zim is not a vaccination specialists, and a majority of vaccination specialists many not agree with Dr. Zim's claim. The sponsor of this message has not conducted a formal survey of vaccination specialists."
This allows one to make their claim as long as the claim's relationship to the medical establish
Re: (Score:1)
Addendum
This rule may only apply to posts having at least say 50,000 viewers. The content hosting service would be required to review such. This way "casual" posters don't have to be harassed.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and Dr. Zim has a doctorate in theology.
Youtube is filled with influencers implying they are medical doctors because they allegedly have doctorates in unrelated fields.
Oh, and our President is so smart he has a relative that taught the Unabomber at MIT. Modern society rewards pathological liars, qualifications are meaningless.
Re:Good idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
> Fantastically good idea. In the USA it would save tens of thousands of lives. Antivaxxers would disappear in nothingness.
Bullshit. This is America. The second this regulation is in the books, we'd set up an accrediting program for antivax bullshit so that the spin could continue. We are essentially a scam based society at this point, and if we try to legislate away the scams, we'll instead entrench them in bureaucratic bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Injecting bleach and putting sunshine in my ass is my god given American right!
Dr. Donald's cult (Score:3)
> Injecting bleach and putting sunshine in my ass is my god given American right!
The practical problem is that during a pandemic, the hospitals could end up being flooded by morons when medical resources are already strained. I don't care if morons off themselves in their own backyards, but if they gum up shared resources, it's a problem for non-morons also.
As far as the source of the bleach/light thing, [1]see this hilarious voice-over. [youtube.com]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/RxDKW75ueIU
Re: (Score:2)
It *should* be your right to do with your body as you see fit. It's strange you even question this?
Re:Good idea. (Score:4, Insightful)
> Fantastically good idea. In the USA it would save tens of thousands of lives. Antivaxxers would disappear in nothingness.
You have posted a comment that implicates the 1st Amendment without providing verified professional qualification that permits you to opine on legal topics. Agents with the Ministry of State Security have been dispatched to your home. Please ensure your full cooperation.
Re: (Score:2)
In that case I want everyone in the current administration to take a high school civics test. They can stay employed if they pass.
Re: (Score:1)
> Fantastically good idea. In the USA it would save tens of thousands of lives. Antivaxxers would disappear in nothingness.
Mod parent up.
Not only in the USoA. Worldwide too. I can vouch for this being good in Venezuela (my country) Spain (lived and did my Master's there), and Colombia (lived and worked there)
Re: Good idea. (Score:1)
It is already the law almost everywhere (This post is not official legal advice. Please consult your lawyer.)
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortuantely, no. There are many "doctors" who don't believe in vaccines or were touting quack products to "cure" covid. Look who heads the Florida Department of Health and his stance on vaccines. Essentially, they're not needed.
As well there are people with law degress who don't know the law. One need only look at the Supreme Court Justices who supposedly have law degrees but don't even know what the Constitution is about.
And let's not get into Flat Earthers who have degrees in astronomy.
This would do
Re: (Score:1)
Yep. You're evil.
Re: (Score:3)
Gatekeeping, even by 'professionals' is still gatekeeping. This would also block people who were victims of malfeasance from speaking on these topics. There are no qualifications that are perfect and incorruptible to be trusted with this power. These ideas create a monopoly of thinking and are always more dangerous than they are beneficial. You say tens of thousands? When these systems go wrong it can kill hundreds of thousands. See Lysenkoism.
Re: (Score:2)
You literally could not make that statement under the proposed rules in China, Unless perhaps you hold both a medical degree and an anthropology degree.
Re: (Score:2)
Medicine should require medical credentials to talk about treatments, drugs, supplements, and alternatives. Not Naturalpathy, Not Homepathy, Not traditional Chinese medicine. If you can not explain how the treatment works in non-snake-oil langauge, then STFU.
Everything else is a bit of a question of "will this get the viewer killed" if they follow this moron's opinion taken as fact. When it comes to Law, I love listening to ACTUAL lawyers, both left and right wing, talk about legal precedents, because they