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
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
Ahead of US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) meeting today on the sidelines of the APEC summit in South Korea, an op-ed published in Time magazine last week maliciously called President William Lai (賴清德) a “reckless leader,” stirring skepticism in Taiwan about the US and fueling unease over the Trump-Xi talks. In line with his frequent criticism of the democratically elected ruling Democratic Progressive Party — which has stood up to China’s hostile military maneuvers and rejected Beijing’s “one country, two systems” framework — Lyle Goldstein, Asia engagement director at the US think tank Defense Priorities, called
A large majority of Taiwanese favor strengthening national defense and oppose unification with China, according to the results of a survey by the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC). In the poll, 81.8 percent of respondents disagreed with Beijing’s claim that “there is only one China and Taiwan is part of China,” MAC Deputy Minister Liang Wen-chieh (梁文傑) told a news conference on Thursday last week, adding that about 75 percent supported the creation of a “T-Dome” air defense system. President William Lai (賴清德) referred to such a system in his Double Ten National Day address, saying it would integrate air defenses into a
The central bank has launched a redesign of the New Taiwan dollar banknotes, prompting questions from Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — “Are we not promoting digital payments? Why spend NT$5 billion on a redesign?” Many assume that cash will disappear in the digital age, but they forget that it represents the ultimate trust in the system. Banknotes do not become obsolete, they do not crash, they cannot be frozen and they leave no record of transactions. They remain the cleanest means of exchange in a free society. In a fully digitized world, every purchase, donation and action leaves behind data.