With social media influencers playing a bigger role in political discourse, and wielding more influence than ever, should there also be some requirement for these creators to have informed opinions, and a level of qualification to speak on certain matters?
That’s what some Asian countries are currently debating, with both China and South Korea trialing new approaches to curb misinformation, by restricting certain online influencers from commenting on topics that they are not qualified to promote.
In China, the nation’s Cyberspace Administration recently introduced a new law that requires creators who are looking to discuss certain sensitive topics to first provide evidence that they have a professional license, degree, or certificate to back up their stances.
Though the actual law in this case has been a part of China’s “Conduct for Online Broadcasters” documentation since 2022, with the rules noting that:
“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.”
It seems that China is now looking to enforce this more stringently.
The objective is to stamp out ill-informed but influential people from spreading false information, with creators risking fines of up to $US14k for violations of the law.
In South Korea, the government is considering new regulations that would restrict foreigners who make hateful or derogatory comments about the country from entering the nation.
The proposal comes after several highly publicized cases of foreign influencers posting derogatory content about the nation.
As reported by The Korea Times:
“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 enable such instances to become more significant, and risk social instability as a result, both nations are looking to implement broader enforcement of these rules, which is interesting when considered in contrast to the U.S., which has arguably suffered more political and social instability due to the same, yet is also looking to give online influencers even more presence and credibility.
Earlier in the year, Meta, for example, shut down its third-party fact-checking program, and announced that it would be loosening its rules around the content that people can post in its apps, after years of, it says, political pressure to censor more content under the previous U.S. administration. The Trump team has made it clear that it wants less content controls, and all the major platforms have moved to align with this, while Trump has also elevated several influential podcasters who helped to amplify his messaging to senior government roles.
So rather than restrict these creators from spreading false information, Trump has chosen to boost their credibility, which is self-serving, but also puts Americans more at risk of falling victim to conspiracy theories and propaganda, in counter to “mainstream” media coverage.
Mainstream media has long been Trump’s enemy, and he’s succeeded in convincing his many supporters that the media, in many cases, is lying to them, in order to support their own corporate agendas.
Which may or may not be true, on a case-by-case basis. But the risk, then, is that by platforming ill-informed non-experts, you also give credence to their often false, often harmful theories, which is likely to cause more problems. And as their audience reach expands, they become political influencers in their own right, and come polling day, it’s these creators that are often guiding opinions that inform the vote.
Is that a good thing?
In the “free speech” sense, the seriousness of these discussions can be waved away as “just talking,” “just asking questions,” without any accountability for spreading lies, and misleading the public.
And a free press is a fundamental of democratic society, but at the same time, there’s clearly a level of harm being caused by these creators speaking on topics that they don’t understand, and cannot possibly have an educated opinion due to the complexity of such topics.
But in a social media world, where everything is broken down into meme form, that knowledge gap remains a key impediment on many, many topics. And topical podcasters capitalize on this, using the algorithmic amplification of outrage to tackle whatever the most controversial issues of the day are, in order to provoke more discussion, and expand their coverage and listenership.
This is the key approach to modern media, sparking emotional response with your comments, but how harmful that might be is indeterminate, and could well be what’s prompting more social division and angst.
Yet, Western media is encouraging this, while their Asian counterparts are looking to curb it. That speaks to difference in media approaches, and again, free speech is a critical element of all democracies.
But it is interesting to consider this contrast, when you look at the current state.
