It's really annoying when articles do not link to the actual subject matter, in this case the law itself.
I know it'll be in Chinese, but discussing a third-hand account without any reference to the regulations in question is crazy. Morocco World News isn't the original reporter here, and actually all the articles about it appear to be third-rate outlets doing rehashings of a single article as far as I can tell including (I think a heavily AI-written) Times of India opinion column. I suspect even the first article (IOL.za, I think) is off the back of an Instagram post. None link any source text, and I find no primary reference.
> Information is published using phrases such as "it has been rumoured online," "according to netizens," or "sourced from the internet," obscuring the source of information, or published without any basis in fact. Incorrect sources are cited, or multiple accounts use each other's citations, making it impossible for the public to trace the true source.
Just anecdotal but I observed a few dozen PhD's try to set up an OpenStack cluster. The end result was a bloated unstable unsupportable mess that had to be entirely scrapped and started over by a new team one year later. I have witnessed the same hot mess by people forking Ansible and Chef for no good reason beyond because they can and it would look good on their CV and could give them some perceived job security.
I would rather gauge a persons authority on a topic based on their professional experience and their actual revenue generating results vs. some thesis. Make such laws outside of totalitarian countries and people will just buy degrees or just lie. I've observed that as well. Plenty fake it until they make it knowing few will verify their degree. It just so happened that my last employers verified degrees, high school diplomas and much more. Plenty of companies do not verify anything.
If you want a fun and quick exercise, search your favorite AI for CEO's and famous intellectuals that were high-school dropouts.
Successful CEOs don't need to be influencers. Influencers are people wanting to make money influencing. They should be professionals to be allowed to monetize.
This actually seems positive, if it wasn't for the huge limit on freedom of expression.
The main effect of something like this is to limit divergence from accepted wisdom.
As far as I know, these people are not contributing in any significant way to innovation, so this law is not hindering the progress of science/tech/whatever (compared to if that law applied to people posting on arxiv for example).
Their main contribution seems to be the spreading of bullshit, and degree-holders are less likely to do this (be it thanks to competence or desire to conform to their field's conventions). The law also addresses bullshit explicitly (ads and AI content).
But it's a limit on human rights, so overall worrysome.
The effect they seek could be achieved through some kind of independently granted certification displayed on videos. So degrees are optional, but not having that seal of approval and talking about technical topics would increase viewers' scepticism.
Professional degree holders have been wrong about many, many matters in human history. Hell, we even have a recent example in China where the experts and professionals (including WHO) confidently stated that human to human transmission did not occur for Covid-19.
It's really annoying when articles do not link to the actual subject matter, in this case the law itself.
I know it'll be in Chinese, but discussing a third-hand account without any reference to the regulations in question is crazy. Morocco World News isn't the original reporter here, and actually all the articles about it appear to be third-rate outlets doing rehashings of a single article as far as I can tell including (I think a heavily AI-written) Times of India opinion column. I suspect even the first article (IOL.za, I think) is off the back of an Instagram post. None link any source text, and I find no primary reference.
The only reference I can find to anything like this on the CAC website is point 2 of a notice (which is not a law) from 2023: https://www.cac.gov.cn/2023-07/10/c_1690638496047430.htm
The date of 25th October 2025 seems to have appeared from nowhere.
Actually, on further investigation, I did find one germane passage to this situation from https://www.cac.gov.cn/2025-07/29/c_1755503642582366.htm
> 以“网传”“网友表示”“来源于互联网”等方式发布信息，模糊标注信息来源，发布无实际依据内容。标注错误信息来源，或矩阵账号互相引用标注，导致公众无法追溯真实来源。
> Information is published using phrases such as "it has been rumoured online," "according to netizens," or "sourced from the internet," obscuring the source of information, or published without any basis in fact. Incorrect sources are cited, or multiple accounts use each other's citations, making it impossible for the public to trace the true source.
Just anecdotal but I observed a few dozen PhD's try to set up an OpenStack cluster. The end result was a bloated unstable unsupportable mess that had to be entirely scrapped and started over by a new team one year later. I have witnessed the same hot mess by people forking Ansible and Chef for no good reason beyond because they can and it would look good on their CV and could give them some perceived job security.
I would rather gauge a persons authority on a topic based on their professional experience and their actual revenue generating results vs. some thesis. Make such laws outside of totalitarian countries and people will just buy degrees or just lie. I've observed that as well. Plenty fake it until they make it knowing few will verify their degree. It just so happened that my last employers verified degrees, high school diplomas and much more. Plenty of companies do not verify anything.
If you want a fun and quick exercise, search your favorite AI for CEO's and famous intellectuals that were high-school dropouts.
Successful CEOs don't need to be influencers. Influencers are people wanting to make money influencing. They should be professionals to be allowed to monetize.
Balanced article.
This actually seems positive, if it wasn't for the huge limit on freedom of expression.
The main effect of something like this is to limit divergence from accepted wisdom.
As far as I know, these people are not contributing in any significant way to innovation, so this law is not hindering the progress of science/tech/whatever (compared to if that law applied to people posting on arxiv for example).
Their main contribution seems to be the spreading of bullshit, and degree-holders are less likely to do this (be it thanks to competence or desire to conform to their field's conventions). The law also addresses bullshit explicitly (ads and AI content).
But it's a limit on human rights, so overall worrysome.
The effect they seek could be achieved through some kind of independently granted certification displayed on videos. So degrees are optional, but not having that seal of approval and talking about technical topics would increase viewers' scepticism.
I’m surprised this law is needed in China.
There are already massive consequences for anyone regardless of degree if you discuss any topic the wrong way according to the CCP.
Cementing the status of school institutions like this, I don't vibe with it.
Professional degree holders have been wrong about many, many matters in human history. Hell, we even have a recent example in China where the experts and professionals (including WHO) confidently stated that human to human transmission did not occur for Covid-19.
Unprofessional non degree holders have been wrong about much, much more.
I yearn for laws like this in the US.
Starting by only calling oneself Engineer, when actually holding one such degree.
To be enforced by Trump’s cronies?