In today’s highly information-based society, the question of how to appropriately regulate large-scale transnational social media platforms has become an unavoidable issue for all democratic countries.
When considering the many available policy options, the key question is how to ensure that the majority of Internet users, and of digital network and communications businesses, are not harmed by fraudulent criminal activities.
Looking back over the past few years, although the government has put a lot of effort into informing the public about various kinds of fraud, it has been hard for such public information messages to reach a wide audience.
However, you only have to go onto Facebook, which is as popular in Taiwan as anywhere else, and you would see things like a fake version of cosmetic surgeon Chiu Cheng-hung (邱正宏) selling weight loss pills, a bogus version of traditional Chinese medicine doctor Wu Ming-chu (吳明珠) peddling anti-wrinkle creams, a copy of business media chairman Hsieh Chin-ho (謝金河) advertising services to teach people how to make a fortune from stocks and shares and a phony lookalike of radio host Hsia Yun-fen (夏韻芬) sharing her tips on playing the stock market.
The reason why such fraudulent messages spread so quickly and widely is that social media platforms make money from accepting and pushing advertisements placed by fraud syndicates.
Analyzed according to the “broken windows theory” of criminal psychology, this situation arises because, in the absence of statutory controls, fraudulent advertisements on social media platforms are not promptly blocked or corrected.
This is why there are so many complaints from the public about the government’s failure to effectively combat online fraud.
Earlier this month, the Cabinet convened a number of ministries responsible for combating fraud, namely the National Communications Commission, the Ministry of Digital Affairs, the Financial Supervisory Commission and the Ministry of Justice, to work on drafting a law specifically aimed at combatting fraud.
This is good news, but the authorities should bear in mind that, while criminals might seem like ghosts hiding in the labyrinths of online social media platforms, the culprits who allow disinformation to reach large numbers of people are the social media companies that make money from doing so.
That is why the EU’s Digital Services Act adopts a hierarchical management approach, requiring the onshore regulation of major offshore platforms.
Hopefully, in the next few months, Taiwan’s ruling and opposition parties would set aside partisan rivalry and have the courage to follow the examples of the EU and UK legal systems in establishing effective platform governance regulations to calm the chaos of online fraud.
Lo Cheng-chung is a policy committee member of the Taiwan Nation Alliance and director of Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology’s Institute of Financial and Economic Law.
Translated by Julian Clegg
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