Early last month, YouTuber Chen Yen-chang (陳延昶) posted a message on the Taiwan New Constitution Foundation’s Facebook page, saying: “Dear all, I support Taiwanese independence. Taiwan already is an independent country. I am a Taiwanese. I am not Chinese.”
He later said that his Facebook access had been restricted for 30 days.
The revelation prompted numerous complaints from commenters describing how they had been blocked or had their accounts deleted with no reason provided.
I wrote an article asking whether Chen — who runs the Mr 486 (486先生) online shopping YouTube channel — was sanctioned because of a Facebook error, exploring the possibility that the platform’s content moderation system was underfunded and lacked transparency, and explaining how the error rate might be as high as 10 percent.
Taiwan AI Labs founder Ethan Tu (杜奕瑾) shared my article and commented: “Welcome to Project Lutein,” referring to Taiwan AI Labs’ open-source analysis of social media neutrality.
He was also given 30 days of restricted access to Facebook.
Even though I was not banned from the platform, I was unable to sign in to Facebook for several hours.
Moreover, posts by others on the issue were mysteriously removed.
The transparency of Facebook’s moderation process is an important factor. If a person has their Facebook account locked, their access is temporarily suspended or they are barred from posting, at least they are informed that they have been censored — whether they agree with the decision or not.
However, if the reach of their posts is limited, or if content is deleted, then it is difficult to determine whether the lack of engagement from others on the platform is because the content was uninteresting or because it fell victim to Facebook’s algorithms.
Facebook’s community guidelines governing appropriate content are vague. Although they outline prohibitions on violence, criminal activity, online security, objectionable content, fake news and intellectual property rights — a list that seems comprehensive — it is impossible to maintain any degree of consistency when the standards are applied due to language constraints and the location of content moderators. This leads to subjective moderation standards that depend on region and language.
Facebook’s Chinese-language content moderators are mostly Chinese nationals, so it is difficult to prevent their influence on political content, and their tendency to seek control over the speech of Taiwanese and to infiltrate their lives.
Statistics released in late January showed that there were 18 million Facebook users in Taiwan, with 15 million in the six special municipalities — 2.8 million in Taipei, 3.6 million in New Taipei City, 2.2 million in Taoyuan, 2.6 million in Taichung, 2.2 million in Kaohsiung and 1.6 million Tainan — showing how influential Facebook is in the densely populated areas where political and economic power accumulates.
With its prodigious number of users, people think twice about abandoning the platform, as all of their friends are on it. They fear losing relevance if they walk away from it. This is especially true for political figures, who cannot breathe without the oxygen that attention and popularity provides. Important information is often disseminated via Facebook.
The platform has become the main channel through which public information is distributed, meaning that in some ways, Facebook has taken the government’s place.
However, Facebook is essentially banned in China.
The local digital advertising market last year was worth NT$48.26 billion (US$1.73 billion), with social media platforms accounting for NT$18.2 billion. Given Facebook’s user base and market share in Taiwan, the nation is one of its most loyal user bases.
If Taiwanese were to demand that its content moderation system be made transparent and its platform be customized to fit the environment here, surely Facebook would be forced to provide an official response.
Chiang Ya-chi is an associate professor at National Taipei University of Technology’s Graduate Institute of Intellectual Property.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Speaking at the Asia-Pacific Forward Forum in Taipei, former Singaporean minister for foreign affairs George Yeo (楊榮文) proposed a “Chinese commonwealth” as a potential framework for political integration between Taiwan and China. Yeo said the “status quo” in the Taiwan Strait is unsustainable and that Taiwan should not be “a piece on the chessboard” in a geopolitical game between China and the US. Yeo’s remark is nothing but an ill-intentioned political maneuver that is made by all pro-China politicians in Singapore. Since when does a Southeast Asian nation have the right to stick its nose in where it is not wanted
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has released a plan to economically integrate China’s Fujian Province with Taiwan’s Kinmen County, outlining a cross-strait development project based on six major themes and 21 measures. This official document by the CCP is directed toward Taiwan’s three outlying island counties: Penghu County, Lienchiang County (Matsu) and Kinmen County. The plan sets out to construct a cohabiting sphere between Kinmen and the nearby Chinese city of Xiamen, as well as between Matsu and Fuzhou. It also aims to bring together Minnanese cultural areas including Taiwan’s Penghu and China’s cities of Quanzhou and Zhangzhou for further integrated
During a recent visit to Taiwan, I encountered repeated questions about “America skepticism” among the body politic. The basic premise of the “America skepticism” theory is that Taiwan people should view the United States as an unreliable, self-interested actor who is using Taiwan for its own purposes. According to this theory, America will abandon Taiwan when its interests are advanced by doing so. At one level, such skepticism is a sign of a healthy, well-functioning democratic society that protects the right for vigorous political debate. Indeed, around the world, the people of Taiwan are far from alone in debating America’s reliability
As China’s economy was meant to drive global economic growth this year, its dramatic slowdown is sounding alarm bells across the world, with economists and experts criticizing Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for his unwillingness or inability to respond to the nation’s myriad mounting crises. The Wall Street Journal reported that investors have been calling on Beijing to take bolder steps to boost output — especially by promoting consumer spending — but Xi has deep-rooted philosophical objections to Western-style consumption-driven growth, seeing it as wasteful and at odds with his goal of making China a world-leading industrial and technological powerhouse, and
RSS