The government on Thursday last week finally imposed a one-year ban on the Chinese social media app Xiaohongshu (小紅書, also known as RedNote in English), with the justification being that the platform has no legal presence in Taiwan. When scammers exploit it, the government has no way to contact the company that owns the China-based app to address such issues — because it does not recognize Taiwan’s sovereignty in the first place.
During China’s Cultural Revolution, the term xiaohongshu — which directly translates to “little red book” in English — referred to a compilation of quotations from Mao Zedong (毛澤東). The pocket-sized book got its name because it was wrapped in a red plastic cover. Everyone owned a copy at the time, and each of the Chinese Red Guards carried one at all times — using it to cheer Mao or brandishing it as a weapon when fighting their enemies. Thus, when I saw that China had named a social media platform “Xiaohongshu,” I immediately understood the kind of message they were trying to sell.
During the years I spent in Hong Kong, my work centered on criticizing the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and Mao. I did not want young people to be deceived by the CCP the way I once was — only to look back and realize that decades had already gone by. Later, the situation was different. Former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) crafted the ruse of “reform and opening up,” and at the time, we truly hoped that it could transform the CCP’s nature. It was not until after the Tiananmen Square Massacre that we gradually gave up hope.
Today, our relationship with the CCP is no longer the stark opposition and mutual estrangement of two political camps that existed previously — instead, it is a complex, intertwined relationship. The Internet has only further complicated the situation.
To protect the interests of its regime, the CCP is extremely sensitive about the Internet. In the late 20th century, Jiang Mianheng (江綿恆) — the son of former Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) — who had just entered the telecommunications sector, said that China must build an independent Internet system that does not rely on the outside world.
US media praised him at the time, and US tech companies such as Cisco Systems Inc and Intel Corp helped China build its own telecommunications network. Once the job was done, China gradually forced all of those US companies out. Platforms such as Facebook were never allowed to enter the Chinese market and Google was forced out — now, it is Microsoft’s turn.
Our social media platforms are meant for communication between people, but China bans them and only allows its own. Meanwhile, it has built platforms such as TikTok and Xiaohongshu to enter other countries and brainwash their citizens, pushing them to accept China’s positions and viewpoints. These tactics are not direct — they are packaged with entertainment, and political messaging is inserted only at critical moments so users end up subconsciously accepting it.
This is a war without gunpowder. By the time you notice it, all you can do is scramble to disinfect and patch the leaks. As some members of the public have already grown used to these platforms and believe they represent freedom of speech, it is impossible to shut things down directly as China does. We are on the defensive in this war, constantly taking hits with no way to counterattack — all while dressing it up as “democratic confidence.”
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has spoken of the “Four Confidences” in socialism, communism, the party monopoly and “socialist culture.” If he is so confident, why does he still need to block us, while we are barred from blocking them? If the reason is that China is an authoritarian state, then why should Taiwan ever unify with it?
When Western countries do business with China, they must use Chinese platforms, such as the networking app WeChat or Chinese e-mail services. Yet when Chinese people do business with foreign countries, they get to use those same Chinese platforms. Why has the Western world tolerated this asymmetry for so long? We remain so intoxicated by the superiority of democracy that when the time comes, we would not even realize what led to its demise.
In US President Donald Trump’s tariff war against China, should he establish equal footing in social media relations, or should he sacrifice his country’s Internet sovereignty for the sake of economic interests?
Paul Lin is a Taipei-based political commentator.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
The cancelation this week of President William Lai’s (賴清德) state visit to Eswatini, after the Seychelles, Madagascar and Mauritius revoked overflight permits under Chinese pressure, is one more measure of Taiwan’s shrinking executive diplomatic space. Another channel that deserves attention keeps growing while the first contracts. For several years now, Taipei has been one of Europe’s busiest legislative destinations. Where presidents and foreign ministers cannot land, parliamentarians do — and they do it in rising numbers. The Italian parliament opened the year with its largest bipartisan delegation to Taiwan to date: six Italian deputies and one senator, drawn from six
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
Taiwan and India are important partners, yet this reality is increasingly being overshadowed in current debates. At a time when Taiwan-India relations are at a crossroads, with clear potential for deeper engagement and cooperation, the labor agreement signed in February 2024 has become a source of friction. The proposal to bring in 1,000 migrant workers from India is already facing significant resistance, with a petition calling for its “indefinite suspension” garnering more than 40,000 signatures. What should have been a straightforward and practical step forward has instead become controversial. The agreement had the potential to serve as a milestone in
China has long given assurances that it would not interfere in free access to the global commons. As one Ministry of Defense spokesperson put it in 2024, “the Chinese side always respects the freedom of navigation and overflight entitled to countries under international law.” Although these reassurances have always been disingenuous, China’s recent actions display a blatant disregard for these principles. Countries that care about civilian air safety should take note. In April, President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) canceled a planned trip to Eswatini for the 40th anniversary of King Mswati III’s coronation and the 58th anniversary of bilateral diplomatic
RSS