Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

[link removed]

Donate

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]





CHINA MEDIA BULLETIN

Issue No.186: December 2024

Subscribe

[link removed]

/ Read Online

[link removed]

A monthly update of media freedom news and analysis related to China

For daily updates in the Chinese language, follow FH_China

[link removed]

on X.



Analysis: With All Eyes on TikTok, US Should Not Overlook WeChat

In the News:

Censorship and surveillance

Harassment and detentions

Hong Kong

Beyond China

Read Online

[link removed]





With All Eyes on TikTok, US Should Not Overlook WeChat

The messaging app is dominant among users in the Chinese diaspora, and it features heavy censorship and surveillance.​​​​​

By Yaqiu Wang

[link removed]

Last Friday, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on TikTok’s bid to block a federal law requiring the short-video application’s Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to sell its US operations or risk a full ban in the country. Many US lawmakers and intelligence officials, as well as Chinese democracy advocates, argue that the Chinese government could exploit TikTok to spy on Americans, spread pro-Beijing propaganda, or interfere in US elections.

Though Freedom House agrees that apps like Tik Tok do present serious national security and human rights concerns, we do not

[link removed]

endorse the law in question or a ban of TikTok. Outright bans of platforms affect

[link removed]

how millions of people express themselves, access information, and participate in civic affairs, and such a ban in the United States could inspire harmful emulation by other countries. There are alternative approaches that would tackle legitimate human rights and national security concerns in a more proportionate way.

However, Washington is right to scrutinize the proliferation of Chinese apps in the United States. Many social media platforms, regardless of their country of origin, are rife with false and misleading information and irresponsibly collect and share user data for the sake of profit, but Chinese tech companies are more at risk of being used as political tools by the all-powerful Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

In fact, no effort to counter Beijing’s malign influence would be complete if it failed to examine another Chinese app, WeChat. While WeChat, owned by the Chinese tech giant Tencent, does not enjoy the same popularity in the United States as TikTok, its influence within China and among the Chinese diaspora is extraordinarily deep

[link removed]

. Many first-generation Chinese outside the country rely on WeChat as their exclusive digital information resource. Independent researchers, media groups, and civil society organizations have documented how WeChat users outside of China face censorship and surveillance

[link removed]

on the platform. (Tencent was recently listed

[link removed]

by the US Defense Department as a company with ties to the Chinese military.)

Diaspora WeChat usage is motivated in part by the need to communicate with those still in China. “I always say, our China-based friends and relatives are hostage held by CCP through Wechat,” the prominent New York–based Chinese journalist Vivian Wu wrote

[link removed]

on X. “They only use Wechat, so if you still want to keep in touch with the locals . . . then you have to use Wechat. Then you are bound to be subject to this surveillance and control web.” To be clear, people in China do not stick to WeChat by choice, but because they have few alternatives: the Chinese government has blocked all major international social media and messaging apps.

This “hate-it-but-can’t-leave-it” feeling about WeChat is widely shared among the Chinese diaspora. “WeChat is a formidable United Front tool of the CCP, its harms are even bigger than TikTok,” a Chinese person living in the United States said

[link removed]

. On his X account, the man detailed the relentless censorship of his WeChat account and complained

[link removed]

that “the U.S. government has done little to support Chinese Americans like me who strive for free speech in this country.”

The US government can and should do something about WeChat, but it needs to exercise caution. In 2020, when the first administration of President Donald Trump attempted to ban WeChat through an executive order, it was blocked by a court based on First Amendment free-speech concerns and the hardships it could cause to communities that use the app as a primary means of communication. Under international human rights standards, while it is legitimate in some cases for governments to take actions that effectively limit speech or access to information, such restrictions must be necessary, proportionate, and transparent. Governments should first take the least restrictive measures available to address the problem at hand. If those fail, then more restrictive policies may be justified.

Congress could begin by holding hearings to better understand the scope, nature, and impact of politicized censorship and surveillance on WeChat, and then explore avenues for pressuring the company to uphold US-based users’ rights to free expression and privacy. Hearings should feature testimonies from Chinese activists and ordinary users who have encountered censorship and surveillance on the platform in the United States, as well as executives from Tencent. Leaders of other tech companies, including Google, Meta, X (then Twitter), and TikTok, have all been called before Congress in the past. Lawmakers should also write formal letters to Tencent, asking explicit questions regarding its data protection, moderation, and official account policies as they relate to users in the United States.

At the same time, Congress should adopt laws that require tech companies to be transparent about their recommendation and data-collection systems, to engage in risk mitigation efforts and reporting on human rights due diligence, and to provide platform data to vetted researchers. This approach would force all such companies, including those with ties to China or other authoritarian states, to operate more responsibly and better protect US-based users’ data, while shedding light on foreign governments’ influence over them.

Malign CCP influence through social media is a very real problem, but an effective solution must be well informed and well calibrated.

​​​

Yaqiu Wang is the research director for China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan at Freedom House. This article was also published by the Diplomat

[link removed]

on January 16, 2025.





Censorship and surveillance

Diplomats spar on International Human Rights Day: December 10 marked the 76th International Human Rights Day. As the world commemorated the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which affirms fundamental human rights such as the freedoms of speech and belief, Chinese censors took down

[link removed]

a statement by Nicholas Burns, the US ambassador to China, that urged

[link removed]

Beijing to honor the declaration and release human rights defenders imprisoned for exercising their rights. The same day, Canadian Minster of Foreign Affairs Mélanie Joly announced

[link removed]

sanctions against eight Chinese government officials, alleging that they are involved in “grave human rights violations” in China. In response, Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson

[link removed]

Mao Ning dismissed the sanctions as “illegal,” and accused Ottawa of “hypocrisy” for condemning Beijing’s human rights records while failing to address issues of its own.

Economists silenced: Social media accounts belonging to economists Fu Peng and Gao Shanwen were blocked due to their purportedly unenthusiastic commentaries on the Chinese economy, Reuters reported

[link removed]

on December 6. A leaked transcript

[link removed]

of an internal meeting at international financial group HSBC in November shows that Fu, chief economist at the Chinese brokerage firm Northeast Securities, criticized the restrictive speech environment in China. “Talking about economic problems is not allowed, or one is deemed unpatriotic,” Fu said, “but what’s truly dreadful is that the silence leads to biased feedback and, eventually, faulty decision-making.” Gao, chief economist at the state-owned SDIC Securities, reportedly demonstrated

[link removed]

a positive correlation between a younger population and lower consumption growth across provinces, suggesting that young people operate on tight budgets due to a gloomy job market and sinking income expectation. Gao’s remarks have since been scrubbed

[link removed]

from Chinese social media.

Taiwanese influencer exposed propaganda techniques: In a YouTube video

[link removed]

titled “China’s United Front Exposed: Officials’ Leaked Calls and Tactics to Buy Off Taiwanese Influencers,” Taiwanese rapper and influencer Chen Boyuan talked about his experiences with the Chinese Communist Party’s United Front network. Chen claimed that after he gained recognition over a song

[link removed]

promoting Covid-19 prevention measures, Chinese authorities approached him and subsequently promoted his career as a pro-Beijing Taiwanese influencer in order to advance United Front agendas. In a separate video

[link removed]

posted one day later, Chen disclosed that he was being targeted by a wave of ferocious attacks on Chinese social media. Searches for his account on platforms such as Weibo, Kuaishou, and Douyin yielded no results. Videos featuring Chen’s music, even when posted by different users, were deleted across multiple online platforms.

Public’s questions over woman’s disappearance quashed: On December 3, the Shanxi police announced

[link removed]

that the police had successfully located the family of a woman unable to articulate her identity. The statement reads, “the woman, surnamed Bu, went missing from her home in 2011, and was later taken in by a local man surnamed Zhang.” The story quickly made headlines, and details omitted from the police statement began to surface. Bu reportedly

[link removed]

gave birth to four children after she was “taken in” by Zhang—two were raised by Zhang, one was adopted by another family, and the fourth child passed away. Bu’s story triggered widespread public outcry

[link removed]

, with some questioning

[link removed]

whether Bu, who allegedly has a mental illness, was a victim of trafficking, illegal detention, or other crimes. Censors moved quickly to quell the online uproar, blocking

[link removed]

at least nine Weibo hashtags referring to the case by December 10. A Beijing Daily commentary calling for accountability and an investigation into Bu’s 13-year ordeal was also deleted

[link removed]

.





Harassment and detentions

Prominent journalist sentenced: On November 29, a Beijing court handed down a seven-year sentence

[link removed]

to Dong Yuyu, a former editor and journalist at the party-controlled Guangming Daily, on trumped-up charges of espionage. Dong was detained

[link removed]

in February 2022 while meeting with a Japanese diplomat, who was also briefly detained. Dong was held incommunicado for several months before he was formally arrested, and his family members told

[link removed]

The New York Times that he has endured further prolonged delays at every stage of his case. In a written

[link removed]

statement, Dong’s family condemned the verdict as “a grave injustice.” The US State Department has urged

[link removed]

that Dong be immediately and unconditionally released.

Human rights defender sentenced: A court in Shandong sentenced human rights defender and former university lecturer Zhang Zhongshun to four and a half years in prison in November, according

[link removed]

to human rights group Weiquanwang. The authorities placed Zhang under residential surveillance—an informal form of detention

[link removed]

widely used against dissidents—and raided his house after he testified in support of Xu Zhiyong and Ding Jiaxi, two prominent activists who received 12- and 14-year prison sentences respectively for the “subversion of state power.” Zhang was subsequently charged with subversion and “possession of firearms and ammunition.” This is not the first time Zhang has faced such retaliation; in 2007, he was arrested for “sabotaging the enforcement of law by cult organizations,” after showing videos of the Tiananmen Square Massacre to his class. He was released in 2010.

Imam detained in Yunnan: Yunnan Yuxi police detained prominent imam Ma Yuwei at a local restaurant on December 15 and refused to provide any legal documents approving the arrest, according to a Radio Free Asia (RFA) report

[link removed]

. The incident set off a large-scale protest, with demonstrators congregating in front of local government offices to demand Ma’s release. Local authorities responded by deploying a heavy police presence to seal off the area. Ma’s parents were also reportedly taken into custody. The Muslim community in Yuxi has faced persistent harassment by the authorities; in May, a WeChat article

[link removed]

reported that the local authorities had accused a Yuxi mosque of engaging in illegal activities and labeled a highly respected imam as “fake religious personnel.” The article was censored the same day it was published.





Hong Kong

Prodemocracy activist convicted of rioting: A Hong Kong court convicted

[link removed]

seven men of rioting, including former democratic lawmaker Lam Cheuk-ting, the Hong Kong Free Press reported on December 12. The trial is connected to a mob attack

[link removed]

during the 2019 prodemocracy protests, in which a group of men in white shirts, reportedly numbering in the hundreds, gathered at the Yuen Long metro station and assaulted protesters and pedestrians. Lam was present at the scene and was reportedly injured

[link removed]

due to the violent attacks. During the trial, Lam claimed

[link removed]

that he was present only to mediate, but the court rejected his argument, ruling instead that he had been there to incite further violence. Lam faces up to seven years in prison for the rioting charge. He is currently serving

[link removed]

a sentence of six years and nine months in prison for participating in the unofficial democratic primary election

[link removed]

in 2020.

Bounties on exiled activists announced: On December 24, the Hong Kong Police Force issued

[link removed]

arrest warrants and bounties of one million Hong Kong dollars ($128,600) for six prodemocracy activists living overseas, accusing them of violating the National Security Law (NSL). The wanted activists include

[link removed]

Carmen Lau and Chloe Cheung, avid advocates for democracy in the city; Tony Chung, former head of the now-defunct proindependence group Studentlocalism; Chung Kim-wah, a former pollster at the Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute; Joseph Tay, a former actor; and Victor Ho, a Youtuber. These arrest warrants and bounties, when added to similar warrants issued in July

[link removed]

and December

[link removed]

2023, bring the total number of officially wanted activists to 19.

Beyond China

TikTok bans and appeals: On January 10, the US Supreme Court heard

[link removed]

arguments over a law that could force TikTok to sever ties with its Chinese parent company ByteDance or face a nationwide ban, set to take effect on January 19. The law, formally known

[link removed]

as the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, was passed

[link removed]

with bipartisan support and signed into law by President Biden last spring. On December 3, a three-judge federal panel dismissed TikTok’s appeal

[link removed]

, which argued that the law unfairly targets TikTok, prompting

[link removed]

the company to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court. The court has not yet issued its ruling, although US President-elect Donald Trump, in a December 27 brief, pressured

[link removed]

the court to halt the ban. Meanwhile, in Europe, on December 21, Albania’s prime minister announced

[link removed]

a one-year TikTok ban, citing concerns over the platform’s alleged role in instigating violence among children. The ban is expected to come into force sometime in 2025.





Take Action

Access uncensored content: Find an overview comparing popular circumvention tools and information on how to access them via GreatFire.org, here

[link removed]

or here

[link removed]

. Learn more about how to reach uncensored content and enhance digital security here

[link removed]

.

Support a prisoner: Learn how to take action to help journalists and free expression activists, including those featured in past issues of the China Media Bulletin here

[link removed]

.

Visit the China Media Bulletin Resources section: Learn more about how policymakers, media outlets, educators, and donors can help advance free expression in China and beyond via a new resource section

[link removed]

on the Freedom House website.





Copyright 2025 Freedom House

All rights reserved.

Freedom House

1850 M Street NW 11th Floor

Washington, DC 20036



update subscription preferences

[link removed]



[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]