China and Korea Roll Out New Measures to Limit Influence on Controversial Topics
Adshine.pro11/17/20253 viewsWith social media influencers now shaping political conversations at an unprecedented scale, a question inevitably emerges: should these creators be required to demonstrate actual expertise before weighing in on complex public issues?
That’s the debate unfolding in several Asian countries, where both China and South Korea are experimenting with new frameworks aimed at curbing misinformation by preventing unqualified influencers from commenting on topics beyond their expertise.
In China, the Cyberspace Administration has begun enforcing a rule that requires creators who wish to speak on sensitive subjects to first provide proof of relevant professional credentials—whether a license, degree, or certification.
The policy itself is not new. It was originally introduced in the 2022 edition of China’s “Conduct for Online Broadcasters,” which states:
“For live-streaming content that requires a high level of expertise (such as medical and health, finance, law, and education), the streamer should obtain the corresponding professional qualifications and report these qualifications to the live-streaming platform. The live-streaming platform should then review and register the streamer’s qualifications.”
What’s changed is the level of enforcement. China now appears set on applying these rules far more strictly.
The intent is clear: prevent charismatic but uninformed personalities from spreading inaccuracies to massive online audiences. Creators found in violation could face fines of up to $US14,000.
South Korea, meanwhile, is considering its own measures—specifically, restrictions that would bar foreign influencers who post hateful or derogatory content about the country from entering at all.
The idea gained momentum following a series of headline-grabbing cases involving foreign creators who circulated inflammatory or misleading content about Korea.
As The Korea Times reports:
“Recent cases of foreign content creators drawing public backlash include Johnny Somali and Debo-chan. Somali, an American streamer, was indicted last year after posting a video of himself behaving disruptively a convenience store. Debo-chan, a Japan-based Korean YouTuber, is under investigation for a viral video posted earlier this month that falsely claimed ‘dozens of mutilated bodies’ were discovered in Korea.”
Rather than allowing such incidents to escalate and fuel social unrest, both countries are leaning toward stricter enforcement mechanisms—an approach that stands in stark contrast to the direction taken in the U.S., where misinformation has arguably contributed to even greater societal polarization, yet platforms are being pressured to relax, not tighten, their controls.
Earlier this year, Meta dismantled its third-party fact-checking program and announced it would soften restrictions around what users can publish—moves the company says were driven by political pressure from the prior U.S. administration. Trump’s camp has made its stance clear: fewer content controls, more freedom to speak, regardless of factual grounding. Most major platforms have adjusted accordingly. Trump has even elevated popular podcasters who amplified his messaging into significant government roles.
Instead of limiting the influence of these creators, Trump has chosen to legitimize them—a decision that may serve his political interests but deepens the risk that Americans become even more vulnerable to conspiratorial narratives and unvetted claims, often presented as alternatives to “mainstream media.”
For years, Trump has framed mainstream outlets as adversaries, successfully convincing swathes of his base that traditional journalism cannot be trusted and is pushing hidden corporate agendas.
Whether or not that critique is valid in certain cases is beside the point. The greater danger lies in elevating unqualified voices whose large audiences grant unwarranted credibility to misleading or harmful theories. As their platforms grow, these personalities evolve into political actors in their own right—guiding public sentiment all the way up to election day.
Is that healthy for a democracy?
Under the banner of “free speech,” much of this content is dismissed as harmless dialogue—people “just talking,” simply “asking questions.” No accountability is applied, even when the consequences distort public understanding.
A free press is indeed foundational to democratic society. But there is no avoiding the reality that uninformed commentary on highly technical subjects can and does cause tangible harm. And because social media compresses complex issues into viral sound bites and memes, the gap between expert knowledge and public consumption only widens.
Topical podcasters exploit this dynamic, leaning into emotionally charged narratives, amplified by algorithms that reward outrage. It’s the engine of modern online media, but it’s unclear how much societal damage this cycle is inflicting—and whether it is fueling deeper division and discontent.
Western media continues to lean into this chaos-driven creator ecosystem, while several Asian governments actively move to restrain it. The divide highlights fundamentally different philosophies of speech, responsibility, and civic protection.
And regardless of where one stands on the global spectrum of free expression, the contrast is striking—and worth examining more closely as the stakes of online influence continue to escalate.
📢 If you're interested in Facebook Ads Account, don't hesitate to connect with us!
🔹 https://linktr.ee/Adshinepro
💬 We're always ready to assist you!