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
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS