Influencers have become key players in political and cultural discourse, but should anyone with an audience be able to weigh in on complex, sensitive topics?
China and South Korea are starting to say no, revealing a growing global divide in how governments view creator power.
China: Influence Requires Credentials
China’s Cyberspace Administration has begun enforcing a rule that’s technically been on the books since 2022: creators who want to talk about specialized topics, health, finance, law, education, must show formal professional qualifications before they go live.
The guideline is simple: If you want to speak like an expert, you need to be one.
Platforms are required to verify these credentials, and creators who violate the rule can face fines up to $14,000.
The intent is to limit the spread of misinformation from charismatic, unqualified voices whose commentary can influence millions. After years of viral “experts” giving medical advice, economic predictions, or legal interpretations without any grounding, China is treating creator commentary as a form of public broadcasting, and regulating it accordingly.
South Korea: Influence Has Borders
South Korea is considering a different kind of restriction: banning foreign influencers who spread hateful, derogatory, or false commentary about the country from entering the nation.
The proposal follows high-profile cases of foreign streamers provoking Koreans for views or spreading outright falsehoods. Authorities argue that content designed to inflame local sentiment can cross the line from entertainment into social destabilization.
In short: if your content harms the country, you may not be welcome in it.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Moves in the Opposite Direction
While China and South Korea tighten rules, the U.S. is loosening them.
Meta recently shut down its third-party fact-checking program. Major platforms are rolling back political speech restrictions. And influential podcasters known for spreading misinformation are being elevated to national prominence, including by political leaders themselves.
Rather than curb unqualified commentary, the U.S. is granting these creators more reach and legitimacy.
It’s a stark contrast: Asia sees risk in unregulated influence. America sees censorship in controlling it.
The Core Question: Should Influence Require Expertise?
Free speech advocates argue that regulating creators is dangerous. But social platforms don’t operate like public squares, they operate like amplifiers. Algorithms reward outrage, oversimplification, and confidence, not accuracy.
That leaves a knowledge gap where complicated issues are reduced to memes, while qualified experts struggle to compete with entertainers who package certainty for clicks.
China and South Korea see that gap as a societal risk. The U.S. sees it as part of the messy reality of open discourse.
Neither approach is perfect. But what’s clear is this: Influencers are no longer “just creators.” They are cultural, political, and informational power centers, and governments are finally treating them as such.