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
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Eating at a breakfast shop the other day, I turned to an old man sitting at the table next to mine. “Hey, did you hear that the Legislative Yuan passed a bill to give everyone NT$10,000 [US$340]?” I said, pointing to a newspaper headline. The old man cursed, then said: “Yeah, the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] canceled the NT$100 billion subsidy for Taiwan Power Co and announced they would give everyone NT$10,000 instead. “Nice. Now they are saying that if electricity prices go up, we can just use that cash to pay for it,” he said. “I have no time for drivel like
Young supporters of former Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) were detained for posting the names and photographs of judges and prosecutors believed to be overseeing the Core Pacific City redevelopment corruption case. The supporters should be held responsible for their actions. As for Ko’s successor, TPP Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), he should reflect on whether his own comments are provocative and whether his statements might be misunderstood. Huang needs to apologize to the public and the judiciary. In the article, “Why does sorry seem to be the hardest word?” the late political commentator Nan Fang Shuo (南方朔) wrote
Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) reportedly told the EU’s top diplomat that China does not want Russia to lose in Ukraine, because the US could shift its focus to countering Beijing. Wang made the comment while meeting with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas on July 2 at the 13th China-EU High-Level Strategic Dialogue in Brussels, the South China Morning Post and CNN reported. Although contrary to China’s claim of neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, such a frank remark suggests Beijing might prefer a protracted war to keep the US from focusing on
RSS