Why the "fans bought red news/ media articles" claim makes zero sense (A quick breakdown from a PR & Advertising perspective)

I keep seeing claims floating around that fan admins or third parties "bought paid articles/ red news" from Chinese media outlets to control public opinion. Since these articles actually carry disclaimers (indicating they are Soft PR / Sponsored Content), I want to break down why this rumor makes zero sense from a PR and legal compliance standpoint, not just in China, but anywhere in the world.

1. A Disclaimer Proves It Came From the Company, Not Fans

When an article has a disclaimer (e.g., "Sponsored Content," "Partner Insight," or commercial publishing tags), it means a formal commercial PR contract was signed.

Corporate Authorization Required: Media houses and PR agencies in China (like GGW, Sina, etc.) require verified corporate credentials, tax IDs, and official signatures to run Soft PR on behalf of a brand.

No third-party impersonation: An agency cannot take money from an anonymous fan group or fan-admin to run a sponsored piece representing Infold/Papergames. Doing so without the company's explicit approval is illegal commercial impersonation and fraud.

2. The Legal Risks for Media Outlets (China & Globally)

Under Chinese advertising regulations (enforced by the CAC) and global media standards:

Corporate Defamation & Misrepresentation: If a media outlet releases sponsored statements during an ongoing crisis using a brand's name without the brand's legal authorization, the company can immediately sue both the outlet and the buyer.

Strict Financial Compliance: Paid media requires official invoices (fapiao in China) issued to registered corporate entities. Fan groups cannot clear these corporate compliance hurdles.

3. What "Soft PR" Actually Means in This Situation

If those articles are indeed Soft PR with disclaimers, there are only two real possibilities:

Official PR Execution: The official PR team at Papergames hired a agency to distribute soft coverage to manage the public relations crisis (which is standard corporate behavior).

Misinterpreting Standard Media Disclaimers: The "disclaimer" is simply a standard platform tag for syndicated content, and the outlet was just covering the drama for organic clicks.

TL;DR
The presence of a disclaimer literally proves that any paid/sponsored content went through official commercial channels. No media outlet in China would risk severe regulatory fines or lawsuits to secretly take fan money for a corporate PR campaign.

Let's stop spreading rumors that fan admins are "buying national media", if it’s Soft PR, it came directly from the company’s PR budget, plain and simple!