Beijing criticizes Xiaohongshu ban; DPP cites data proving anti‑fraud success.

The Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China recently publicly criticized the Taiwan government for implementing restrictive measures against specific online social platforms such as Xiaohongshu, accusing the move of "depriving Taiwan's youth of their freedom of choice." In response, the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) Department of China Affairs issued a strong rebuttal today, pointing out that following the implementation of relevant government preventive measures, the number of fraud cases and public financial losses associated with the platform have both decreased significantly. The DPP questioned whether Beijing's eager defense of a specific commercial platform truly stems from any concern for the vital rights and interests of the Taiwanese people, or rather whether it is driven by the desire to allow Chinese digital platforms to continue expanding their influence in Taiwanese society without effective oversight.

In recent years, with the popularization of social media and mobile internet, various new types of cybercrimes have emerged endlessly, among which investment fraud, shopping fraud, and dating fraud utilizing overseas social platforms are particularly rampant. Taiwan's law enforcement agencies and relevant ministries have long received a large number of public reports, indicating that certain overseas social platforms have become breeding grounds for criminal syndicates due to inadequate review mechanisms or deliberate non-compliance with the investigation and anti-fraud demands of Taiwan's judicial and police authorities. To safeguard citizens' property safety and social order, the government has imposed necessary administrative and technical restrictions on these overseas platforms that refuse to cooperate with anti-fraud efforts. Such practices are essentially defensive measures based on public interest and national security, aimed at building a firewall to prevent innocent citizens from falling into meticulously designed online traps.

The DPP's Department of China Affairs emphasized in today's statement that actual data has proven the correct direction of the policy following the implementation of the relevant restrictions. According to statistics from police and financial anti-fraud units, after taking restrictive actions against platforms that fail to cooperate with anti-fraud efforts, the incidence rate of fraud cases highly related to platforms such as Xiaohongshu, as well as the substantial financial losses suffered by citizens as a result, have both shown a clear downward trend. This data not only directly refutes external accusations of "infringing upon rights," but also highlights the necessity and urgency of the government's decisive actions in the face of cross-border cybercrime. Combating fraud is currently an absolute consensus in Taiwanese society. Any attempt to politicize security issues or distort anti-fraud measures as restrictions on freedom of speech and choice does nothing to help solve the problem, and instead risks acting as an accomplice.

However, the Taiwan Affairs Office speaking out at this time to voice support for a single commercial platform and criticize the practices of the Taiwan government has prompted deep reflection across the ruling and opposition parties and all sectors of society. The DPP pointed out that Beijing's remarks and eager posture of defense precisely expose its true underlying considerations. The Chinese government has long exported its digital influence externally through various channels, and various social software and audiovisual platforms produced or operated in China are often questioned by the outside world for bearing the functions of information penetration and public opinion guidance. When the Taiwan government, based on security and national security considerations, demands that these platforms shoulder corresponding social responsibilities and comply with Taiwan's legal norms, Beijing intervenes under the pretext of "youth freedom." This forces people to suspect that what the Chinese Communist Party truly cares about is not the rights or well-being of Taiwan's youth, but whether Chinese internet giants can advance unimpeded and expand their digital footprint and political-economic influence in Taiwanese society without being bound or supervised by Taiwan's laws.

From the macro perspective of democratic defense and information security, democratic nations currently generally face hybrid warfare threats from authoritarian regimes, among which the manipulation of internet platforms and algorithms is a common gray-zone warfare tactic. As a democratic entity standing at the forefront of countering disinformation and cybercrime, how Taiwan can effectively block the penetration of hostile external forces and economic crimes while safeguarding freedom of speech is an extremely difficult but necessary task to confront. The government's imposition of restrictions on overseas platforms that fail to cooperate with anti-fraud mechanisms is not merely routine law enforcement and security maintenance, but a component of defending national digital sovereignty and social stability.

In summary, the DPP's response to the accusations by the Taiwan Affairs Office has once again clarified that the core essence of the incident lies in "anti-fraud and public security," rather than the "deprivation of freedom" intentionally shaped by Beijing. Data shows that the restrictive measures have indeed effectively protected the public's wallets and reduced the number of fraud victims. In the face of the backlash from the Taiwan Affairs Office, Taiwanese society should gain a clearer understanding of the potential strategic intentions behind overseas platforms, firmly support the government in implementing information security and anti-fraud work on the basis of the rule of law, and ensure that Taiwan's democracy and social order are not eroded by external forces.