From fraudulent platforms to cognitive war entrances: Red Book is limited in Taiwan, and the real struggle is digital sovereignty on the two sides

After Taiwan restricted Chinese social platform Red Book, a set of notable data emerged.Radio Free Asia on September 4The Taiwan side said that in the eight months after the implementation of restrictive measures, the fraud cases related to the Red Book fell from 525 to 145, down 72%; related financial losses fell from about 98.9 million to 3.388 million, down 66%.

A lifestyle platform that is being redefined as a digital infrastructure. The Red Book connects shopping, make-up, travel, study, emotions and everyday experiences, and looks far from politics; but it has the advantages that traditional political propaganda can hardly get: high frequency use, strong algorithmic recommendations, real social sense and low defence.

Fraud is one of the most easily quantified risks.

Taiwan says one of the important reasons for the implementation of the restriction is that the platform does not cooperate with the fraud investigation, and law enforcement agencies find it difficult to obtain the necessary information. Fraud cases and losses decline, providing the most intuitive public reason for policy.

Whether a platform is dangerous does not depend only on whether it has a political slogan today, but also on how much user behavior data it has, whether it can determine what users see, and who controls this ability at critical moments.

This is also the biggest political dispute between the Red Book and the general overseas social platform. It is a Chinese company, and there is no institutional environment completely independent from political power when Chinese enterprises face the Party State security system. The platform has a large number of Taiwanese young users, meaning its background can accumulate interest preferences, consumer behavior, geographic location, social relationships and content interaction patterns. These data are used for commercial advertising and are equally valuable in political communication.

“Not talking about politics” itself can also shape political perception.

Many users like Red Book just because it is “not so political.” A lot of content revolves around restaurants, dressing, traveling, studying, urban life, giving young people on both sides a sense of intimacy in a similar consumer culture. This exchange itself is not a bad thing, but can not ignore the power of the algorithmic environment: a platform not only by “recommending what” influences cognition, but also by “what is not easy to see” shaping boundaries.

For Beijing, the most effective influence on Taiwan is not necessarily the daily push of a uniform caliber, but the long-term creation of a feeling that the mainland of China is flourishing, convenient, young and fashionable, while political oppression, human rights disputes, military exercises threats and censorship systems are algorithmically naturally pushed out of the content of life. When political influence wears the coat of a lifestyle, it is much less likely to be identified as political spread.

Taiwan faces a difficult choice

The restriction of the Red Book, of course, will trigger disputes over freedom of speech and user choice. Beijing has criticized Taiwan’s move to deprive people of the freedom to use the platform, and there are concerns about the government’s expansion of network controls in the name of national security. These concerns cannot be underestimated, because the credibility of a democratic system depends precisely on whether the government can explain the legal basis, scope, duration and remedies for the restriction.

But on the other hand, Taiwan cannot pretend that all platforms are in the same institutional environment. Faced with a regime from the opposite coast, which continues to conduct military deterrence and political influence on Taiwan, its large platforms controlled by enterprises have a natural security sensitivity. The truly difficult place in a democratic society is not the “closed or unclosed” secondary choice, but how to establish audible rules between open Internet and hostile influence.

This requires answers to at least four questions:

• whether the platform is compatible with fraud and criminal investigation;
• where the data of Taiwan users is stored and who has the right to access;
• whether the algorithm is subject to independent audit;
• whether there is a systematic de-empowerment, blocking or targeted spread of the platform in the face of political sensitive events.

The Red Book dispute will become a test ground for digital conflict on the two sides.

Long-standing U.S. debate around TikTok has shown that short video and social platforms are no longer merely seen as Internet products, but are incorporated into national security, data sovereignty and foreign influence policies.

"Focused on China" believes that the red book events most worth paying attention, is not Taiwan's young people can still watch the makeup attack, but the two-street competition has been from the middle line of the Strait, military aircraft, into the recommendation page in everyone's mobile phone. The past war depends on visitors, media and organizational relationships; today's platform era, influence a society can be completed through algorithms, lifestyle, red and interest labels.

If the Taiwanese government wants to maintain restrictions, it must provide transparent, verifiable data and clear legal procedures; and if the Red Book insists on itself as a common business platform, it should also accept a higher degree of public review of data, algorithms, and law enforcement cooperation. The real determinant of this controversy should not be who’s political slogans are louder, but who’s willing to have their power under transparent supervision.