With social media influencers playing a larger role in political discourse and exerting more influence than ever, should there also be a 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 trying new approaches to curb disinformation, banning certain online influencers from commenting on topics they can’t promote.
In China, the country’s Cyberspace Administration recently introduced a new law therefore, creators who want to discuss certain sensitive topics are required to first prove that they have done so a professional license, degree or certificate to support their views.
Although the actual law in this case is part of China’s “Conduct for Online Broadcasters” documentation since 2022where the rules state that:
“For live streaming content that requires a high level of expertise (such as medical and healthcare, finance, law and education), the streamer must obtain the corresponding professional qualifications and report these qualifications to the live streaming platform. The livestream platform must then assess and record the streamer’s qualifications.”
It seems that China now wants to enforce this more strictly.
The aim is to stop uninformed but influential people from spreading false information, with creators facing fines of up to $14,000 for violations of the law.
In South Korea that is the government take new regulations into account that would limit it Foreigners who make hateful or derogatory comments about the country are not allowed to enter the country.
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 sparking public backlash include Johnny Somali and Debo-chan. Somali, an American streamer, was charged last year after posting a video of himself behaving disruptively in a supermarket. Debo-chan, a Japan-based Korean YouTuber, is under investigation for a viral video posted earlier this month that falsely claimed that “dozens of mutilated bodies” had been discovered in Korea.”
Rather than allow such cases to become more important and risk social instability as a result, both countries want to implement broader enforcement of these rules, which is interesting when compared to the US, which has arguably suffered more political and social instability as a result, but also wants to give online influencers even more presence and credibility.
Earlier this year, for example, Meta shut down its third-party fact-checking program and announced it would relax rules around the content people can post on its apps, after years of, it says, political pressure to censor more content under the previous US administration. The Trump team has made it clear that it wants less control over content, and all major platforms have taken steps to align with this, while Trump has also elevated several influential podcasters who have helped amplify his message to senior government roles.
So instead of stopping these creators from spreading false information, Trump has chosen to increase their credibility, which is self-serving, but also puts Americans at greater risk of falling victim to conspiracy theories and propaganda, as opposed to “mainstream” media reporting.
The mainstream media has long been Trump’s enemy, and he has managed to convince his many supporters that in many cases the media is lying to them to support their own corporate agendas.
Which may or may not be true from case to case. But the risk is that by platforming misinformed non-experts, you also give credence to their often false, often harmful theories, which is likely to cause even more problems. And as their audience reach expands, they become political influencers in their own right, and on election day it is these creators who often shape the opinions that shape the vote.
Is that a good thing?
In the sense of ‘free speech’, the seriousness of these discussions can be dismissed as ‘just talking’, ‘just asking questions’, without any responsibility for spreading lies and misleading the public.
And a free press is a fundamental part of democratic society, but at the same time there is clearly some level of harm being done by these creators speaking about topics they do not understand, and cannot possibly have an informed opinion due to the complexity of such topics.
But in a world of social media, where everything is broken down into meme form, that knowledge gap remains a major barrier to many topics. And current podcasters are capitalizing on this, using the algorithmic amplification of outrage to tackle the most controversial issues of the day, sparking more discussion and expanding their reporting and listenership.
This is the main approach of modern media, provoking emotional reactions with your comments, but how damaging this can be is not known, and could well be the cause of more social division and fear.
Yet the Western media encourages this, while their Asian counterparts want to curb it. This indicates a difference in media approach, and again: freedom of expression is a crucial element of all democracies.
But it is interesting to consider this contrast when looking at the current state.
#China #Korea #limit #influence #makers #sensitive #top #PCs