An argument about an inadequate supply of free rice at a stir-fry restaurant prompted some National Taipei University of Technology students to give the restaurant a string of negative one-star online reviews. The restaurant owner then tried to enlist public opinion against the students’ online “trial” by complaining to the news media.
To begin with, both sides thought they could stand on the high ground and watch the other side get swept away, but unexpectedly news media and the Internet interacted in a way that overwhelmed them both. Both sides were battered and wanted to stop the fight, but the spectators insisted that the show must go on.
One factor that has received little attention is the issue of Internet literacy.
In the “post-truth era,” everyone thinks they are seeing the truth, but the truth they find is the “truth as interpreted or judged by each individual” and “the truth as seen by social groups.”
To attract more clicks and views, some online media exaggerate their headlines and content to make them as “shocking” as possible. Internet readers and viewers who spot news stories of this kind would often start “throwing stones,” slinging all sorts of negative comments and messages at the accused party. However, such stories might only be partly true or present only part of the facts, which can easily cause Internet users to misjudge the situation and unjustly attack the people involved.
In November last year, there was an incident in which a fried chicken restaurant owner “yelled” at a teenager with Down syndrome. When the story was first reported, it drew a lot of negative comments online, with most saying the restaurant owner “had no conscience” and “bullied the Down syndrome kid.”
The teenager’s mother later handed out a leaflet in the local community, after which the restaurant owner cut his wrist due to all the stress and was taken to hospital.
This prompted a tide of negative messages attacking the mother, saying things like: “Will you only be happy when you drive this person to death?”
These examples show that “Internet justice” tends to sympathize with the underdog. In the rice incident, as soon as the restaurant owner announced that he was suspending business indefinitely, the tide of negative comments turned against the students, saying things like: “Are you happy to have forced the owner to shut down his business and put his staff out of a job?” Some media outlets even behaved like spectators, spicing up the story with headlines like “Stir-fry boss throws in the towel.”
“Internet justice” has several characteristics. First, it is easily incited. Second, it easily pulls a crowd. Third, it can easily switch positions. These features show how shallow and volatile “Internet justice” can be. It can quickly build up pressure and become a powerful weapon to attack opponents, but if it is overmanipulated or people see through its intentions, it could spin out of control and backfire on whoever is manipulating it.
To avoid acting like a herd, Internet users should have basic Internet literacy. When you first see a “shocking” online news story or message, resist the temptation to immediately comment based on your gut feeling.
Start by asking yourself three questions. First, is it fake news? Second, is it only partly true, or only one side of the story? Third, are there any alternative opinions? There will still be time to comment after clearing up these questions. In conclusion, apart from media literacy, Internet literacy should be another important policy objective for governments to educate the public.
Hsu Chih-ming is an assistant professor at Shih Hsin University’s Department of Journalism.
Translated by Julian Clegg
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),
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
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In the opening remarks of her meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) framed her visit as a historic occasion. In his own remarks, Xi had also emphasized the history of the relationship between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Where they differed was that Cheng’s account, while flawed by its omissions, at least partially corresponded to reality. The meeting was certainly historic, albeit not in the way that Cheng and Xi were signaling, and not from the perspective