As details emerge of Facebook’s collaboration with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), it is increasingly clear that the political fallout is extending well beyond the US.
As a democracy at the forefront of geopolitics, the way Taiwan interacts with technology platforms, the importance it attaches to information security and its practice of digital sovereignty are facing unprecedented tests.
Testifying before the US Senate, former Facebook public policy director Sarah Wynn-Williams said that, in its bid to access the Chinese market, Facebook developed censorship tools to control content from Taiwan and Hong Kong, and even collaborated with CCP officials in designing the content filtering processes.
Such revelations are not only a wake-up call for Taiwanese, but also an opportunity to examine the nation’s media environment and national cybersecurity policies.
From Williams’ testimony, it is clear that Facebook’s parent company, Meta, ignored corporate ethics and international responsibility in its pursuit of profits.
The reported mechanism — “triggering a manual review whenever posts from Taiwan or Hong Kong exceed 10,000 views” — shows how the threat of information infiltration has moved beyond traditional media, embedding itself deep at the core of digital platforms and algorithmic controls.
If such a censorship system exists, it represents more than just an act of information war and digital overreach, but is also a threat to freedom of speech in Taiwan. This is exactly why the nation needs to remain vigilant and counter such emerging threats.
When technology giants align with totalitarian regimes, the damage they inflict can rival — or even exceed — that of traditional espionage. Their methods are more covert, their reach more pervasive, and the countries most vulnerable are often small and medium-sized countries, where the information environment has not been fully democratized.
The fact that Meta was willing to establish a point-of-presence server in China, potentially exposing user data, in pursuit of a business partnership, shows that this is not merely a matter of digital ethics, but one of national security.
If Meta is indeed considering deploying a server in China that allegedly connects and transmits data back to the US, the risk remains that Taiwanese users’ information, even if not directly shared with the CCP, could still be obtained by the CCP indirectly.
Given the widespread use of Meta’s platforms in Taiwan — including Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp — the safety of citizens’ digital footprints must be treated with the utmost seriousness.
Can Taiwan’s authorities adequately review the data flow and processing mechanisms of multinational tech platforms? Are its legal safeguards sufficient to protect user privacy in a cross-border data environment? The answers to these questions would shape the resilience of Taiwan’s democracy in the digital age.
Facebook’s decision to restrict dissident accounts points to a disturbing possibility: that social media platforms might become tools of oppression.
Taiwan has long embraced an open and inclusive approach to digital platforms, viewing them as vehicles for transparency and civic participation.
However, when a platform is revealed to be censoring speech and concealing information under pressure from authoritarian regimes, its credibility and contribution to democracy would be greatly reduced.
In light of these revelations, Taiwan should consider whether to establish a homegrown digital platform and introduce legislation requiring social media companies to publicly disclose their censorship mechanisms and content removal processes.
As European countries and the US move toward regulating large tech companies, Taiwan should not remain on the sidelines. The principle of a “free market” should not serve as a pretext for inaction, especially when critical spaces for public speech risk being turned into bargaining chips by foreign forces.
For Taiwan, the controversy presents an opportunity to reinforce its commitment to digital democracy.
In addition to working with international partners to strengthen oversight standards for digital platforms, the government should also promote public understanding of the inherently non-neutral nature of these platforms through education and media literacy initiatives.
A digital society can only embody democratic values when its citizens possess the discernment and awareness needed to navigate it safely.
In the face of globally influential companies such as Meta, Taiwan should not just be a passive recipient, but strive to play a more active role in shaping digital human rights, data governance and platform supervision.
Ultimately, the defense of information sovereignty is the last line of defense for the fortress of democracy.
Chen Yu Shan is a master’s student at National Taipei University of Education.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS