The controversy surrounding Chinese influencer Liu Ergou 刘二狗, who has more than 44 million followers, has ignited widespread public anger and renewed scrutiny of livestreaming platforms’ governance. After hosting a poolside livestream widely criticized as sexually suggestive, Liu received only a mild platform penalty in the form of a temporary posting ban, rather than account suspension or removal. The case has drawn attention to underlying issues in the livestreaming industry, a mutually reinforcing cycle of influencer profiteering, platform indulgence, and regulatory weakness driven by the logic of the influencer economy.
According to multiple media reports, Liu Ergou’s team conducted a nearly three-hour livestream on December 5 in which the camera repeatedly focused on women in revealing swimwear, lingering on certain body areas and highlighting ambiguous physical interactions such as pulling, lifting, and throwing participants into a swimming pool. Despite the apparent intent to provoke sexualized attention, the livestream did not trigger real-time moderation mechanisms and was instead promoted to high-traffic recommendation feeds. Only after public criticism intensified more than a week later did the platform respond, restricting Liu from publishing new content while leaving his account searchable, his follower base intact, and past videos untouched. The response was widely criticized as symbolic and protective rather than punitive.
The incident has also drawn attention to the unequal enforcement of platform rules. Comparable content produced by ordinary streamers often results in immediate account suspension or permanent bans. In contrast, Liu Ergou’s commercial value appears to have afforded him leniency. Industry observers note that his livestreams reportedly generate millions of yuan per session in sales and significantly boost platform engagement. Members of his team have publicly suggested that his business operations, including product selection and livestream commerce, would continue uninterrupted, reinforcing perceptions that the penalty had little substantive effect.
Liu Ergou’s poolside livestream is not an isolated case but part of a longer pattern of controversial behavior. He has previously been exposed by domestic media for selling substandard consumer goods, promoting overseas gambling platforms, and imposing excessive financial requirements on livestream competitors. These incidents resulted in limited or no lasting penalties. The poolside broadcast itself functioned as a traffic generator tool ahead of commercial livestreaming, following a well-established formula in which borderline sexual content is used to attract attention before being converted into e-commerce revenue. Liu has previously acknowledged this logic in public remarks, openly linking provocative content with higher traffic and profit.
Such practices appear embedded within the influencer’s broader team operations. In a separate incident in early 2025, a female streamer under Liu’s management was penalized after a “punishment challenge” livestream led to exposure during a broadcast. Despite regulatory intervention by local cyberspace authorities, the streamer reportedly returned to live broadcasting after a brief suspension, further fueling criticism that penalties are too light to prevent repeat violations.
Public data cited by domestic outlets shows that Liu Ergou gained more than one million followers within a single month, illustrating the commercial incentives platforms face when dealing with high-traffic accounts. Algorithmic recommendation systems further intensify the problem by prioritizing content with high viewer retention and interaction, inadvertently amplifying borderline material that provokes curiosity and prolonged viewing.
Platforms frequently defend controversial content by framing swimwear or pool settings as normal contexts, sidestepping the issue of deliberate framing, camera direction, and staged interactions designed to emphasize sexualized elements.
With large numbers of young users active on livestreaming platforms, critics argue that such content risks distorting values by equating visibility, provocation, and profit with success. The media have warned that this trend runs counter to ongoing efforts to promote a “clean and orderly” online environment and undermines campaigns aimed at protecting minors.
Numerous media outlets and online commentators have called for permanent bans for repeat offenders, the establishment of influencer blacklists, coordinated cross-platform penalties, and clearer accountability mechanisms for platforms that fail to enforce their own rules.
