The Central Committee's official newspaper, People's Daily, published a commentary stating that a clean and upright online environment does not allow disgraced internet celebrities to make a comeback through changing names, appearances, or other means of 'changing identity.' However, the comeback of disgraced internet celebrities is by no means to be 'completely banned' indiscriminately—some minor infractions may allow for a reasonable return to the public eye, but acts such as tax evasion, involvement in pornography or gambling, and other illegal behaviors should result in permanent bans.
On Sunday (November 30), People's Daily published online a commentary entitled “How Can Disgraced Internet Celebrities Be Allowed to 'Change Identity' and Stage a Comeback,” calling out by name the internet celebrity “Bai Gongzi,” who was previously banned for frequently flaunting wealth and then fined 13.3 million yuan for evading 7.49 million yuan (RMB, 4.367 million Ringgit) in taxes. He staged a comeback on social media under the account “Wang Zibo,” live streaming more than 19 times in November and amassing 230,000 followers. Although the platform clearly stated that previously banned streamers are not allowed to broadcast under new accounts, this behavior still occurred.
The article pointed out that through displays of luxury cars, expensive goods, traveling in first-class cabins around the world, and similar extravagant scenes, these internet celebrities create a 'super rich' persona and flaunt their wealth, which does not conform to public order and good morals and crosses moral boundaries; while tax evasion clearly breaks the legal bottom line.
The article pointed out that through displays of luxury cars, expensive goods, traveling in first-class cabins around the world, and similar extravagant scenes, these internet celebrities create a 'super rich' persona and flaunt their wealth, which does not conform to public order and good morals and crosses moral boundaries; while tax evasion clearly breaks the legal bottom line.
The “Code of Conduct for Internet Hosts” clearly stipulates that internet hosts must pay taxes according to the law; for hosts who have committed serious offenses, repeatedly offended, and refuse to change after multiple warnings, their accounts should be banned.
The article sharply asks: Is it really possible to evade bans and start afresh simply by changing names, appearance, or IP address? “Netizens will not agree, and a clean online environment will not agree either.”
The article makes it clear that public figures with a large following have a responsibility to spread positive energy and demonstrate truth, kindness, and beauty, as their words and actions affect social values. If lawbreakers are allowed to stage an easy comeback, letting the logic of 'making money by building personas or profiting from violations' prevail, it will send the wrong message, severely pollute the online ecosystem, and set a bad example for the entire society, especially young people.
The article further points out that the comeback antics of banned internet celebrities such as “Bai Gongzi” and “Northeast Yu Jie,” who sold counterfeit goods, to some extent expose loopholes in current governance.
The article makes it clear that public figures with a large following have a responsibility to spread positive energy and demonstrate truth, kindness, and beauty, as their words and actions affect social values. If lawbreakers are allowed to stage an easy comeback, letting the logic of 'making money by building personas or profiting from violations' prevail, it will send the wrong message, severely pollute the online ecosystem, and set a bad example for the entire society, especially young people.
The article further points out that the comeback antics of banned internet celebrities such as “Bai Gongzi” and “Northeast Yu Jie,” who sold counterfeit goods, to some extent expose loopholes in current governance.
Although platforms have made it clear that 'banned streamers are prohibited from broadcasting with new accounts,' driven by anxiety for traffic and commercial interests, platforms are more likely to 'turn a blind eye.' The article uses “Wang Zibo” as an example, noting that he gained 230,000 followers and conducted 19 high-profile live streams, with regulation only being triggered after public questioning, demonstrating platforms' lack of pre-identification and proactive inspection mechanisms.
Additionally, standards differ across platforms, and the blacklist system struggles to form a closed loop, providing loopholes for cross-platform comebacks and identity changes, and resulting in some disgraced internet celebrities being able to 'play hide and seek' across platforms.
However, the article also states that the comeback of disgraced internet celebrities is by no means to be completely banned. There is an urgent need for detailed and clear regulatory guidelines as to which offenses may allow for a comeback after rectification and which must be permanently banned. For example, tax evasion, involvement in pornography or gambling, and selling counterfeit goods should be considered illegal acts leading to permanent bans. For some minor infractions, a reasonable comeback mechanism can be explored.
At the same time, the article suggests pushing for a nationwide interconnection and rigid enforcement of the blacklist system to squeeze the space for identity changes or platform switching, rendering disgraced internet celebrities’ attempts at a comeback nowhere to hide.
In October, Chinese authorities launched a new round of 'Clean and Bright' actions for the internet, after which several high-profile internet celebrities were banned or restricted from being followed. After a period of dormancy, some have been unblocked one after another, staging comebacks with changed positions or personas, while others have had their accounts wiped from the internet, unable to make a comeback so far.