Good news — or perhaps not. About a week ago, headlines multiplied about an alleged new policy in China that would require influencers to hold university degrees or professional certifications to discuss topics such as finance, health, or law. The story sounds convincing, but it loses credibility when we look for the source. There is no confirmed legal text, no official statement — only a series of reports quoting one another. The episode itself serves as a condensed manual of what we now understand as disinformation: a “plausible” story, amplified across multiple platforms, that takes on a life of its own until no one can tell anymore whether it is true, almost true, merely believable, or the complete opposite.
The issue is serious. Disinformation destroys public trust, distorts political decisions, and undermines collective health. One only needs to recall the power that some influencers had during the pandemic to spread absurd theories or dangerous treatments. It is fair to demand accountability from those who speak to millions, as influence carries responsibility. But turning that demand into a requirement for “academic credentials” is another mistake — a dangerous and lazy one. Information is not validated by diplomas alone. There are journalists without university degrees who do exemplary, rigorous work, and there are PhDs who spread falsehoods with conviction. Technical knowledge is indispensable, but it cannot be the only criterion.
I understand the temptation to create rules that force content creators to prove their competence. After all, it seems like a simple fix for a complex problem. But who defines what “competence” is? And who decides what counts as a “sensitive topic”? In trying to fight disinformation through administrative criteria, we risk institutionalizing silence — replacing doubt with fear and curiosity with self-censorship. Regulation without nuance can end up punishing legitimate voices while allowing real misinformation to adapt and survive in new forms.
We all need a new kind of education for the digital century — not just technical, but critical. It is urgent to teach people how to recognize signs of manipulation, to distinguish sources from echoes, and to verify before sharing. Media literacy must be understood as a form of collective defense: without citizens capable of identifying disinformation, no society is safe from it. This is not merely a question of education policy, but one of civic survival in an era when attention is currency and truth is negotiable.
I do not defend digital impunity. It is urgent to hold accountable those who profit from deceit and to create transparent mechanisms for verifying false content. But the fight against disinformation requires intelligence, ethics, and cultural awareness — not certificates. Perhaps the greatest challenge is this: to relearn how to doubt what we read, what we share, and even what we think we know.
*Editor-in-Chief of Plataforma
