Every day when we open social media, we are flooded with posts and images that are emotionally provocative, misleading and divisive. Among them are carefully crafted cognitive weapons curated for the purpose of manipulation and backed by long-standing infiltration networks from hostile foreign forces — especially the Chinese Communist party (CCP). The CCP has been systematically deploying artificial intelligence-generated content and fake accounts, as well as using information overload strategies to engage in a smoke-free cyberwar against Taiwan.
We must adopt a public health stance — treat disinformation like a virus and implement epidemic prevention strategies. Of course, though we cannot totally eliminate a virus outbreak, we could aim to reduce its transmission rate (R value) by cutting off its transference chains and building herd immunity.
The CCP’s cognitive warfare against Taiwan has three main characteristics: First, there is the mass generation of content, such as when the same message is repeatedly launched with different images, wordings and narratives. Second, repeated account duplication — once a propaganda account is exposed, another immediately takes its place. Third, cumulative strategies that merge disinformation with narrative manipulation, emotional provocation and coordinated performances by political figures, which, in turn, result in systemic offensive attacks.
These modes of dissemination mirror the organized and collective behavior of a biological virus, and are often sponsored by the CCP through allocated funding, linguistic model weaponization (an overloading of key words, phrasing and narratives that propagate the CCP’s political agenda), as well as state-affiliated content moderators.
In epidemiology, there is a key indicator termed the R value — representing how many people one infected individual can pass the virus to on average. If R > 1, the virus spreads exponentially; if R < 1, the outbreak will gradually fade, naturally dying off.
The spread of disinformation follows this pattern. Once you comment, share, or even like a post in the name of satire or criticism, algorithms automatically misinterpret the propaganda as valuable content and continue to promote it to other users. This inadvertently raises its R value, enabling it to spread faster through social networks.
The effective response is not to offer counterarguments against it, but to reduce its transmissibility: Block it, refuse engagement, and encourage others to block and report it as well. Additionally, spreading accurate information and linguistic antibodies — this is the true strategy for a cognitive epidemic prevention.
When hostile forces flood cyberspace with fake accounts, auto-generated content, and deliberately blur the line between reality and falsehood to cripple our empirical judgement, democratic societies must develop a form of digital immunity. This includes the strengthening of language and media literacy in education from a young age to cultivate cognitive antibodies; demanding transparency regarding social media algorithms and a mechanism to label content sources, thus curbing the unintentional spread of false information; forming communities that independently block, report and counter online disinformation campaigns; and urging politicians and influencers to exact self-restraint by refusing to become pawns to the CCP’s cyberwarfare.
We cannot completely eliminate disinformation, but we can prevent systemic paralysis. This requires a structured, scientific epidemic-control mindset, as well as collective action. Every time we report, block, or refrain from sharing, we become an antibody. Furthermore, every time we share correct information or infographics that neutralizes hostility, it is analogous to a vaccination — generating further immunity.
Yu Ming is a registered architect.
Translated by Lenna Veronica Suminski
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS