According to reports on January 20, an online user known as “Bai Shanshan” issued a public apology late on January 19, admitting that her earlier posts tagging actor Leo Wu and using provocative wording such as “Leo Wu, what do you owe me?” were made solely to attract traffic. The apology brought temporary closure to a controversy that had escalated rapidly across social media, while also prompting broader discussion about rumor-making and accountability in the attention economy.
In her apology statement, Bai Shanshan described the incident as an out-of-control “joke.” She claimed that the remarks initially stemmed from private teasing with a friend who shared the same name, but after her main account was suspended, she deliberately tagged a well-known public figure to regain visibility. Despite repeatedly expressing regret and promising to apologize across platforms, the explanation failed to fully appease public opinion.
By the time the apology was posted, the unfounded claims had already circulated online for more than twenty hours. Leo Wu’s studio responded early in the incident, issuing a formal clarification that categorically denied the allegations and stated that legal evidence had been collected. Leo Wu himself later addressed the matter, confirming that he did not know the blogger in question. His studio reiterated its intention to pursue legal action and outlined the legal implications of defamation and reputation infringement.
Platform intervention soon followed. On the same day, Weibo’s official account “Weibo Knight” released the results of its investigation, confirming that the account had not been hacked and that the violations were substantiated. As a result, the account was permanently banned, and relevant information was reported to public security authorities. This announcement effectively confirmed that the incident was a deliberate attempt to generate attention through false associations.
In a subsequent response on January 20, Leo Wu’s team chose not to focus on whether the apology was accepted. Instead, the statement addressed a wider issue: how baseless fragments of information can quickly snowball into widespread rumors online. While public figures may have resources to clarify and defend themselves, ordinary individuals facing similar accusations often lack such means. The message reframed the controversy as a warning about the fragility of reputation in the digital age.
Ultimately, the incident serves as a case study of the risks embedded in “traffic-first” thinking. In an environment where attention is currency, some creators cross ethical and legal boundaries to chase exposure, only to face serious consequences when platforms, legal mechanisms, and public scrutiny converge. As oversight tightens and audiences grow more discerning, the cost of rumor-driven traffic is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.
