The National Communications Commission (NCC) on June 29 proposed a draft digital services intermediary act, which would establish special provisions for platforms such as Facebook, YouTube and DCard. Although the move has been criticized by opposition parties as restricting freedom of speech, this is actually not the case.
The draft law is largely based on the EU’s Digital Services Act, with the purpose of protecting users’ rights and requiring technology platforms to implement a self-discipline mechanism and improve transparency.
Whether during election and campaign periods, or since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a lot of fake news on the Internet, spreading confusion and panic. Most of the fake news items are obviously part of cognitive warfare conducted by Chinese cyberarmies, aiming to disrupt Taiwan’s elections or interfere with its control of the pandemic.
Therefore, this bill is necessary.
Facebook’s unreasonable censorship should also be targeted by the bill. Media reports have said that even though Chinese citizens are legally prohibited from using Facebook, Chinese are the ones responsible for censoring Taiwanese posts.
The reach of remarks that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) does not like — such as posts mentioning Hong Kong’s anti-extradition movement or supporting Hong Kong — is often reduced, resulting in particularly low visibility.
Words that the CCP does not like, such as “武漢肺炎” (Wuhan pneumonia) etc, may even be categorized as contravening the code of conduct and the author banned from posting.
On the other hand, many fake accounts in simplified Chinese that spam pornographic posts are often categorized as not in contravention of the rules even if they are reported, showing that Facebook’s censorship system is problematic.
Taiwan and China are obviously different countries, why should Taiwan’s posts be censored by people from another country, especially Chinese who grew up without freedom of speech?
Taiwan is one of the heavy users of Facebook. The platform makes a lot of money in Taiwan, but it makes Taiwanese users subject to China, which is hardly reasonable. Large-scale online platforms can easily become a vulnerability, enabling totalitarian countries to use democracy to oppose democracy.
It is important that the NCC follow in the footsteps of the EU’s Digital Services Act and require these platforms to be open and transparent.
As a democratic country, Taiwan should use auld digital services intermediary act to require Facebook to set up Taiwan’s own censorship team to prevent the platform from serving the CCP.
Pan Kuan was a participant in the Sunflower movement.
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