China's Xiaohongshu App Under Investigation for Failing to Curb Celebrity Gossip and Clickbait

Users on the platform reacted almost immediately, with the majority of comments taking a critical tone. Many pointed to what they described as an over‑reliance on click‑bait and sensational headlines, dubbing Xiaohongshu “a paradise for poser influencers” (装逼的天堂). The “grass‑planting” culture—locally termed 种草, in which users post glossy product recommendations—has come under fire for stoking anxiety, as a wave of posts boasting ultra‑luxury lifestyles give the impression that “everyone is living a good life, with everyone owning 718/911s” (人均718/911). Critics also lament the platform’s drift toward celebrity gossip and trivial matters, arguing that this focus not only dilutes the original purpose of the app but may have even triggered the latest regulatory scrutiny.

The current investigation sits against a backdrop of a long‑standing pattern of compliance issues. In July 2022, a 143‑page internal “content‑review knowledge base” leaked, exposing the mechanics of Xiaohongshu’s censorship system. Earlier, in July 2023, the platform was reported to be operating a “account‑nurturing” scheme that required users to browse specific posts for roughly twenty minutes a day over a week‑long period—a practice that many observers linked to artificial inflation of engagement metrics. More recently, a January 2025 surge of U.S. users—spurred by threats to the TikTok app—propelled Xiaohongshu to the top of the American app‑store charts, intensifying scrutiny of its cross‑border operations.

According to a timeline compiled from recent reports, the sequence of events leading to September’s crackdown unfolded as follows:

• July 26 2023: Media outlets disclosed the platform’s “account‑nurturing” schedule, noting the required 20‑minute daily browsing routine.

• July 2022: The massive 143‑page censorship manual was leaked, detailing internal monitoring of political content, including 271 flagged comments about President Xi Jinping between February and May 2020.

• January 15 2025: A wave of American users flocked to Xiaohongshu after fears that TikTok might be removed from U.S. app stores, driving the app to the top of the U.S. rankings.

• May 22 2025: Analysts observed that the bulk of note‑approval decisions were now driven by machine algorithms, with only a slim fraction receiving human review.

• September 11 2025 (23 hours before the announcement): Users began sharing details of the platform’s interview process, describing a two‑stage assessment that includes a scripted essay, SQL queries, and “hand‑written code” challenges.

• September 11 2025 (4 hours before the announcement): The Cyberspace Administration issued a statement emphasizing that any penalties were meant to safeguard a “clean and orderly” online environment.

• September 11 2025 (3 hours before the announcement): State news agency Xinhua reported the official investigation, citing repeated failures to manage content responsibly, especially on the hot‑search list.

• September 11 2025 (1 hour before the announcement): The “Cyberspace China” WeChat official account confirmed the probe, labeling Xiaohongshu’s activities as damaging to the network ecosystem.

• September 11 2025 (49 minutes before the announcement): Business‑registry data from Qichacha revealed that Xiaohongshu had already faced more than twenty administrative sanctions for false advertising, unauthorised content publication, and the seizure of illegal proceeds.

The regulator’s focus on the platform’s trending topics is significant. Authorities argued that by allowing celebrity gossip and trivial updates to dominate the hot‑search rankings, Xiaohongshu was “disrupting the network ecology” and failing to protect users from low‑quality, sensationalist content. The crackdown is part of a broader governmental push to impose stricter oversight on internet platforms, ensuring they uphold higher standards of information management, curb misinformation, and protect consumer rights.

Industry observers see the investigation as a bellwether for the entire Chinese digital ecosystem. Content‑moderation practices, which have already become increasingly automated, will now likely be subjected to tighter human oversight. Platforms that specialise in lifestyle, beauty, travel, or health content can expect more rigorous checks to prevent the spread of fabricated reviews, misleading “grass‑note” recommendations, and unverified claims. The ripple effect may also force brands and multi‑channel network (MCN) agencies that have heavily relied on Xiaohongshu’s “plant‑the‑grass” marketing model to reassess their strategies, placing greater emphasis on authenticity and regulatory compliance.

For advertisers, the heightened scrutiny raises the stakes of ensuring that promotional material does not run afoul of anti‑false‑advertising rules. Past violations have already led to mass bans of non‑compliant accounts and brands, and the latest penalties suggest that the regulator is prepared to act swiftly against any perceived breach. Consequently, companies may diversify away from a single‑platform approach, spreading their campaigns across a broader array of Chinese social media channels that have yet to encounter similar punitive measures.

From a user‑trust perspective, the series of investigations could erode confidence in Xiaohongshu if the platform fails to demonstrate tangible improvements. A perception that the app prioritises sensationalism over genuine, helpful content may drive users toward alternatives perceived as more reliable or less prone to state‑driven censorship. This shift would have notable implications for user engagement metrics, which in turn affect the platform’s attractiveness to advertisers and investors.

Beyond the commercial realm, the episode underscores the Chinese government’s resolve to wield internet governance as a tool for social and political stability. By tightening control over content that fuels celebrity hype and trivial discourse, regulators aim to steer public attention toward topics deemed more constructive, while simultaneously reinforcing the state’s narrative on data sovereignty and information security. In the current geopolitical climate—marked by concerns over foreign interference, as highlighted by reports of misinformation campaigns targeting Australian political parties on Chinese platforms earlier this year—such regulatory actions are also a statement of defensive digital policy.

In sum, the September 2025 investigation into Xiaohongshu reflects a confluence of user dissatisfaction, longstanding compliance gaps, and an escalating regulatory agenda that seeks to cleanse the online environment of sensationalist and potentially harmful material. As the platform scrambles to overhaul its content‑review mechanisms and re‑align its commercial practices with state expectations, the broader Chinese internet sector is likely to feel the reverberations, with stricter oversight, more cautious brand strategies, and a renewed focus on the authenticity of the content that fuels both consumer choices and digital culture.