The creator economy in Southeast Asia has entered a mature phase, and with that maturity comes a stringent spotlight on accountability.
Recently, the incident involving Thai YouTuber Jack Papho triggered backlash in both Thailand and Japan after he posted a shirtless video of himself perched on a parked car and dancing in Fujikawaguchiko, a popular Mount Fuji tourist spot. The clip went viral within hours and drew massive criticism and calls from some viewers for visa and passport action.
Critics said the stunt was disrespectful to the location and damaging to Thailand’s reputation abroad.
The National Economic and Social Development Council (NESDC), Thailand's top economic advisory body, has warned that the booming creator economy is driven by clicks rather than credibility and the increasing risk of misinformation rather than consumer harm. In public comments, the council has even pointed to overseas regulatory models, including China’s controls on content that promotes conspicuous consumption, as reference points for how digital influence might be governed. The concern is not misplaced nor theoretical.
The question here is, should creators now be licensed or formally regulated?
Creators today shape opinions on health, finance, travel, and social issues at a scale that rivals traditional media. When misinformation spreads, the impact can be immediate, from financial losses to public-health risks, and it rarely stays within national borders.
Yet Southeast Asia’s creator economy also thrives on openness and experimentation. Heavy-handed regulation risks chilling speech, stifling creativity, and placing governments in the difficult position of acting as content arbiters. The challenge, then, is not whether influence should be governed, but how to do so without turning consumer protection into content control.
Too often, the debate is framed as a false binary: either creators operate freely with minimal guardrails, or governments intervene with licensing regimes, approvals, and enforcement. In practice, this framing obscures a more pragmatic middle ground.
Not all content carries the same risk. A lifestyle vlog or comedy sketch does not pose the same public-interest risks as unqualified advice on medical treatments, financial investments, or child welfare. Treating all creators identically misdirects regulatory attention while failing to address the areas of greatest public concern. A better approach focuses on proportionality: higher-risk claims require higher standards, regardless of who makes them.
Indonesia offers a compelling regional example of how this balance can be achieved. In sectors with genuine consumer risk, particularly beauty, health, and wellness, Indonesia’s Food and Drug Authority, BPOM, has worked with creators through shared accountability rather than censorship.
In one case, BPOM invited a number of beauty content creators to an event at which they signed a declaration of ethical conduct related to beauty content. Among the signatories was Vanya Qinthara (Minyo), Co-Founder of the Creators Association of Southeast Asia (CASA), who also represented IBV, a community of Indonesian beauty content creators. Rather than restricting creative expression, the declaration functioned as a credibility signal, assuring audiences, brands, and platforms that content met agreed standards on claims, transparency, and consumer safety.
What makes this model more scalable is what it avoids. It does not require regulators to vet scripts, nor does it rely on prior restraint. Instead, it sets clear expectations around claims and disclosures for post-publication accountability. Creators retained their voice, while audiences gained greater confidence in the information being shared. Indonesia’s experience demonstrates that self-regulation, when supported by clear standards and credible enforcement, can raise quality without suppressing expression.
Calls to license creators often emerge in response to high-profile controversies, but licensing addresses the wrong problem. It focuses on who a creator is, rather than the potential harm of specific content. Such approaches risk creating barriers to entry, encouraging informal or unregulated activity, and politicising creative expression. They also place a heavy administrative burden on regulators, with limited evidence that public outcomes improve as a result.
A more constructive path lies in professionalisation rather than policing. High-risk content categories, such as health and finance, warrant higher standards and clearer accountability. Industry-led codes of conduct, supported by regional bodies like CASA, can help set those standards in ways that are practical and scalable. Enforcement should focus on demonstrable harm rather than subjective offence, while avoiding prior restraint or content pre-approval. Ethical declarations and credibility signals can reward responsible creators while giving audiences clearer signals of trust.
Southeast Asia has an opportunity to shape a framework that protects consumers without confusing regulation with censorship. The creator economy is now a core part of the region’s communications ecosystem. The question is whether regulation will seek to control it or help it mature responsibly. Choosing proportionality, accountability, and collaboration over blunt control is not a compromise. It’s progress.
Fuad Arrasyid (left) is Vero's Indonesia-based communications and public policy specialist with experience in the creator economy and the launch of the Creators Association of Southeast Asia. Pak Krairiksh (right) is a Thailand-based communications adviser specialising in reputation, public affairs and responsible engagement for Vero.
