Should Social Media Influencers Be Required to Have Informed Opinions?
As social media influencers continue to play a significant role in shaping public discourse, the question of whether they should be required to have informed opinions on certain matters has become a topic of debate. With the rise of online influencers, many of whom have amassed large followings and significant influence, the need for accountability and expertise has never been more pressing. In some Asian countries, such as China and South Korea, new approaches are being trialed to curb the spread of misinformation by restricting certain online influencers from commenting on topics they are not qualified to discuss.
In China, the Cyberspace Administration has introduced a new law that requires creators to provide evidence of professional licenses, degrees, or certificates to back up their stances on sensitive topics. This law, which has been part of China’s “Conduct for Online Broadcasters” documentation since 2022, aims to stamp out ill-informed but influential people from spreading false information. Creators who violate the law risk fines of up to $14,000. The rules state 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.”
South Korea’s Approach to Regulating Online Influencers
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. This proposal comes after several highly publicized cases of foreign influencers posting derogatory content about South Korea. For instance, an American streamer was indicted last year for posting a video of himself behaving disruptively in a convenience store, while a Japan-based Korean YouTuber is under investigation for a viral video that falsely claimed “dozens of mutilated bodies” were discovered in Korea.
These instances have sparked concerns about the potential harm caused by online influencers speaking on topics they don’t understand. Rather than enabling such instances to become more significant and risk social instability, both China and South Korea are looking to implement broader enforcement of these rules. This approach is interesting when considered in contrast to the United States, which has arguably suffered more political and social instability due to the spread of misinformation, yet is looking to give online influencers even more presence and credibility.
The US Approach to Online Influencers
In the US, Meta has 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. This move has been seen as a response to political pressure to censor more content under the previous administration. The Trump team has made it clear that it wants less content control, and all major platforms have moved to align with this. Trump has also elevated several influential podcasters who helped amplify his messaging to senior government roles.
This approach has raised concerns about the potential harm caused by platforming ill-informed non-experts, who often spread false and harmful theories. By giving credence to these theories, the risk of causing more problems increases. As their audience reach expands, these creators become political influencers in their own right, guiding opinions that inform the vote. The question remains: is this a good thing?
The seriousness of these discussions can be waved away as “just talking” or “just asking questions” without any accountability for spreading lies and misleading the public. However, there’s clearly a level of harm being caused by these creators speaking on topics they don’t understand. The knowledge gap remains a key impediment on many topics, and topical podcasters capitalize on this, using algorithmic amplification of outrage to tackle controversial issues and expand their coverage and listenership.
This approach is the key to modern media, sparking emotional responses with comments, but the harm it may cause is indeterminate. It 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. This speaks to the difference in media approaches, and free speech is a critical element of all democracies.
