An American angle on identity. Go to the bottom of this post to see what that’s about.

Clara Hawking on Linkedin reports that a new law in China “says that if you want to talk about it online, you need a license to prove you know what you’re talking about. As of October 25, China now requires influencers to hold official qualifications before posting about ‘sensitive’ topics such as education, medicine, law, or finance. No degree, no discussion.”

Toward confirmation, a comment below points here, which I can’t read because it wants me to turn off the ad blocker I don’t have. (I only block tracking, which for website ad systems means the same thing.) Another comment points to a Times of India piece that loaded for me then disappeared.

So I did more digging. Here what I’ve got so far:

This report says, “Raigirdas Boruta, a China expert in the Indo-Pacific program at the Geopolitics and Security Studies Center, tells Cybernews that he is unaware of recent Chinese laws or regulations requiring influencers to hold degrees in specific fields. However, the Cyberspace Administration of China has recently launched an initiative to fight influencers’ attempts to commit donation fraud.”

China’s State Council Gazette in November 2022 wrote a page of detail under a headline reading (via a Google Chrome translation) [State Administration of Radio and Television, Ministry of Culture and Tourism Notice on Issuing the “Code of Conduct for Online Broadcasters”](State Administration of Radio and Television, Ministry of Culture and Tourism Notice on Issuing the “Code of Conduct for Online Broadcasters”) that there is a lot of stuff that anchors and reporters should not do, but I don’t see anything there about credentials.

This government piece from June 2022 lists thirty-one opinion-chilling guidelines, such as “16. To hype up or deliberately create public opinion “hotspots” on social hotspots and sensitive issues; and 17. Spreading rumors, scandals, and misdeeds; disseminating low-brow content; and promoting content that violates socialist core values ​​and public order and good morals.” But nothing (that I could find) about credentials.

The Office of the Central Cyberspace Affairs Commission of the Cyberspace Administration of China, also in November 2022, seems to say (through Google Chrome translatiion) that something like what’s alleged is required for comments. But do comments=opinions? Not clear.

DigiChina at Stanford says here in 2017 that there is a national real-name requirement for information-dissemination services. And this government piece from May of 2025 seems to emphasize the same thing about “real” identities.

A 2022 page titled Regulations on the Management of Internet User Account Information in the [State Council Gazette](Regulations on the Management of Internet User Account Information) says this under Article 11: “For internet users applying to register accounts that provide internet news information services, online publishing services, or other internet information services that require administrative licenses according to law, or applying to register accounts that produce information content in the fields of economy, education, medical and health care, and justice, internet information service providers shall require them to provide relevant materials such as service qualifications, professional qualifications, and professional backgrounds, verify them, and add a special mark to the account information.” I suppose that’s about credentials, but only for professionals providing professionals doing professional stuff. Not ordinary users issuing opinions online.

Bottom lines, until I hear otherwise:

I find nothing about an October 2025 law in China suggesting “no degree, no discussion.”The closest things I’ve found (see above) are 2022 rules for commenters and broadcast reporters, and various real-name requirements that started in 2017.

Meanwnhile, for some clarifying thought about validating one’s identity by one’s own sovereign self (which is more real than any “ID” the government—or any other administrative body—issues, we have Recursive Signatory (American Rights) and Ghost of Satoshi: Recursive Signatory, Expressing John Hancock, American Rights, both by Devon Loffreto, who gave us the concept of self-sovereign identity way back in 2010. I can’t find a link to his original utterances, but Sovereign Source Authority, from 2012, is relevant to the subject at hand. Translated to the Popeye, I yam what I yam.