Xiaohongshu Ban: Is the DPP Building a Digital Great Wall and Imposing Information Martial Law?

Loading...

---

On December 4th, the Ministry of Interior, citing the Fraud Crime Hazard Prevention Act, issued an order to stop DNS resolution and restrict access to the “Xiaohongshu” (Little Red Book) app effective immediately, effectively blocking it for one year. As soon as the news broke, it triggered an immediate public outcry.

(Co-authored by Juchun Ko)

As a young person who has also served as a court clerk for several years, in this “Xiaohongshu Ban” incident, I see the DPP government’s reasons for the ban as not only absurd but also a deliberate distortion of the law’s text, attempting to expand power and deprive people of their freedom of information. It truly feels “more like the Communist Party than the Communist Party”!

The DPP Government’s Problematic Application of Law

The DPP government’s application of the law in banning Xiaohongshu is deeply problematic.

Looking at Article 42 of the Fraud Crime Hazard Prevention Act cited by the Criminal Investigation Bureau of the Ministry of Interior, this article states: “To handle emergency cases of fraud crime prevention and timely prevent the public from accessing fraud websites, when the competent authority of the target business and the judicial police agency deem immediate action necessary, they may order the internet access service provider to take measures to stop resolution or restrict access.”

The object of this regulation is “websites,” but “Xiaohongshu,” which the National Police Agency blocked, is a “mobile application (App).” This inevitably leads one to suspect: Is the administrative agency expanding the interpretation to apply this article?

Is the government’s expanded interpretation of the law eroding our digital rights?

Moreover, there are countless one-page phishing scam websites on the internet, yet we rarely see the government invoking this article to order their immediate removal. Many scam websites continue to circulate widely on major social media platforms. One has to question: Where exactly is the government’s standard for applying this regulation?

Violation of Proportionality and the Administrative Procedure Act

Even if we take a step back and assume that an APP can be the object of Article 42 of the Fraud Prevention Act, the order to take down and block it not only limits the freedom of information guaranteed by the Constitution but may also affect the people’s digital human rights.

One cannot help but ask: Does the administrative action taken by the relevant Executive Yuan agencies violate the principle of proportionality? Is it a case of “using a cannon to shoot a bird”?

From a legal perspective, before making such a major administrative disposition that restricts the people’s basic rights (similar to a coercive measure), the competent authority should have given the Xiaohongshu platform operator an opportunity to state their case in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. However, looking at the facts of the case, the administrative agency seems not to have met the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act or Article 29 of the Fraud Prevention Act. Almost simultaneously with the press release, Xiaohongshu was blocked, restricting people from using the app. This in itself is suspected of being illegal.

Freedom of Information at the Constitutional Level

Furthermore, from a constitutional perspective, freedom of information has been recognized by the Constitutional Court as a basic right guaranteed by Article 22 of the Constitution. If it is to be restricted by an administrative disposition, it must meet the prerequisite of the principle of proportionality in accordance with Article 23 of the Constitution.

Looking at this case, the administrative agency proceeded to block Xiaohongshu on the grounds of cybersecurity concerns, national security concerns, and preventing fraud. Can this pass the scrutiny of the strict principle of proportionality?

Concepts like cybersecurity and national security concerns are inherently vague. To limit the people’s freedom of information so drastically on the grounds of these concerns and fraud prevention—especially when the number of reported fraud cases on Xiaohongshu is far lower than on other platforms—is a disproportionate measure. Whether there is a gross imbalance between the means and the public interest is certainly open to question!

Lack of Clear Standards and Procedural Justice

This is the “first time” an administrative agency has applied Article 42 of the Fraud Prevention Act to restrict an App with such high usage. Apart from the aforementioned questions about the applicable object, since it is the “first time” such a major administrative disposition restricting basic rights is made, shouldn’t there be a more careful consideration of the circumstances? Is it truly necessary to make an administrative disposition with such a huge impact? And was it really necessary to be so immediate, without even a notice period?

In addition, before making an administrative disposition with significant impact, there should be clear legal orders or administrative rules regarding the standards for the degree of restriction and the basis for the duration of the restriction, so that the people and administrative agencies have guidelines to follow. Yet this time, a total ban was imposed with just a government order, completely disregarding the basic principles of legal application and the basic rights guaranteed to the people by the Constitution!

Throughout this case, we have not seen the Criminal Investigation Bureau, the Mainland Affairs Council, or the Ministry of Digital Affairs formulate or promulgate relevant subsidiary laws, nor have they established relevant administrative rules to clarify how Article 42 should be applied in practice. If there are absolutely no standards—restricting whatever object they want, for however long the agency pleases—how should the people conduct themselves?

Platform Neutrality and the Chilling Effect

In my view, the platform itself should be neutral. If there are fraudulent messages and content circulating on it, the action should be to take down and process that specific content, rather than extending it indefinitely to take down or block the entire platform just because there is some fraud information on it. If this logic stands, Taiwan will have no search engines or mobile applications left for the public to use.

It must be known that “Xiaohongshu,” due to its large user base and rich data, has advantages such as easily finding creators with “similar conditions,” convenient image search, comprehensive and detailed travel information, professional and precise beauty and fashion content, all-encompassing life knowledge, and fast circulation of second-hand transactions. It enjoys an extremely high usage rate among Taiwan’s younger demographic.

The DPP government’s one-size-fits-all approach, suddenly banning the Xiaohongshu app without warning, has caused great inconvenience and backlash among young people. It inevitably makes people worry: “Will Taiwanese people in the future have to be like the mainland netizens often mocked by the DPP, needing to ‘jump over the wall’ (use VPNs) to peek at the world? Will we also have to ‘jump over the wall’ to use apps that collect information conveniently and quickly?”

Conclusion: The Fear of the Boiling Frog

Once there is a first time, it is very easy to have a second. What is even more frightening is the DPP government’s “boiling frog” tactic, using various high-sounding reasons to get people to agree to “information control.” This time it’s Xiaohongshu; will the next one be another App that people use every day?

Whether the government’s actions can successfully fight fraud remains an unknown, but it has already caused concern about whether Taiwan will become increasingly closed off, with freedom of information being more and more restricted. Is the era of internet martial law coming? Is a digital Great Wall gradually being built?

We often take pride in enjoying various democratic freedoms. Since when has it come to the point where mainland netizens ridicule Taiwanese people for needing to “jump over the wall” to use Xiaohongshu?

---

About the Author

---

Originally published in: Storm Media - XiaoHongShu Ban…