蘇永康因2002年涉毒事件曾經廣受關注，儘管之後他逐漸復出，並在中國內地多個城市舉辦過演出，但「污點藝人」的標籤始終如影隨形。當這場溫州演唱會的消息曝光後，立即引發大批網友的不滿與投訴。他們認為，涉毒藝人作為公眾人物，應該承擔更嚴格的道德與社會責任，不應再以公開演出的方式出現在舞台上，否則會對社會產生不良示範。

在事件的發酵過程中，浙江省文旅廳曾出面回應，稱該演唱會在審批流程上完全合規，並無問題。然而，僅僅數日後，大麥網便突然下架了相關售票頁面，隨後主辦方宣布已經申請取消演出並啟動退票程序。對於這一急轉直下的變化，溫州市文旅局也最終確認演唱會取消，但並未透露具體原因，僅以官方公告的方式予以回應。

此舉進一步引發輿論熱議，「#抵制蘇永康演唱會#」一度登上熱門話題。大多數網友強烈反對涉毒藝人復出，認為舞台應該留給真正能傳遞正能量的表演者，並呼籲有關部門在把關演出審批時，不僅要遵循行政流程，更要考量藝人的社會影響力與道德責任。一些聲音則指出，雖然蘇永康近年已經在內地多個城市舉辦演唱會，但這次事件顯示公眾對「涉毒藝人」的容忍度仍然極低，尤其是在社交媒體放大輿情的背景下，任何一場演出都可能成為爭議的導火索。

根據中國演出行業協會的相關管理辦法，涉毒藝人若要重新復出，需經過嚴格的評估與審核，才能獲得重新登台的機會。然而，具體的評估標準與復出條件並未公開透明，這也使得社會各界對此問題爭論不休。對於支持者而言，他們或許會認為人應該有改過自新的機會，但對更多反對者來說，涉毒藝人的形象與過去的錯誤難以抹去，復出不僅會影響社會風氣，甚至可能誤導年輕群體。

總體而言，蘇永康溫州演唱會的突然取消，不僅是一場商業活動的終止，更折射出中國社會在處理「涉毒藝人復出」問題上的高度敏感與爭議性。這場風波提醒娛樂產業：在明星效應與商業利益之外，社會責任與公共道德始終是無法迴避的核心問題。

On September 16, 2025, Damai suddenly removed the page for singer William So’s concert, which had been scheduled for October 6 in Wenzhou, and the listing showed “no related performance.” Shortly afterward, officials confirmed that the event had been officially canceled. What seemed like a routine commercial performance quickly escalated into a major public controversy, touching on the long-debated issue of whether entertainers with a drug history should be allowed to return to the stage.

William So first drew widespread attention in 2002 due to a drug-related incident. Although he gradually resumed his career in later years and has already held concerts in several cities across mainland China, the stigma of being a “disgraced artist” has never completely faded. Once news of the Wenzhou show emerged, it immediately triggered heavy backlash and complaints online. Many netizens argued that artists involved in drugs, as public figures, should be held to stricter moral and social standards, and should not reappear in public performances where they could set a negative example.

During the controversy, Zhejiang’s Department of Culture and Tourism initially stated that the concert had gone through all approval procedures properly and was fully compliant. Yet just days later, Damai abruptly delisted the concert, and the organizers announced that they had applied to cancel the event and had begun issuing refunds. The Wenzhou Cultural and Tourism Bureau confirmed the cancellation but did not disclose the specific reasons, releasing only a formal statement.

The sudden reversal fueled even greater debate. The hashtag “#BoycottWilliamSoConcert” began trending, with the majority of online voices opposing the idea of allowing a drug-related celebrity to resume public performances. Critics emphasized that the stage should be reserved for performers who can project positive values, while authorities should consider not only administrative approvals but also the broader social impact of granting an artist exposure. Some observers pointed out that although William So had already performed in other mainland cities in recent years, this case revealed that public tolerance for entertainers with such pasts remains very low, especially in an era where social media can quickly amplify controversies.