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
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is leading a delegation to China through Sunday. She is expected to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing tomorrow. That date coincides with the anniversary of the signing of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which marked a cornerstone of Taiwan-US relations. Staging their meeting on this date makes it clear that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intends to challenge the US and demonstrate its “authority” over Taiwan. Since the US severed official diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979, it has relied on the TRA as a legal basis for all
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
RSS