Real Reason Behind Government's Ban on RedNote
Storm Media Opinion, December 11, 2025
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration, whose performance and resolve in combating fraud are hardly commendable, suddenly banned the mainland Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu (RedNote) last week in the name of anti-fraud. Over the past two years, RedNote has had more than 1,700 fraud cases—a tiny number compared to Facebook’s 50,000.
Why was RedNote singled out as the scapegoat for Taiwan’s rampant fraud problem? Only Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Shen Pao-yang honestly said the quiet part out loud: under existing law, the only grounds for “restricting access to an online platform/website” are child sexual exploitation, fraud, and the dissemination of sexual abuse images. In other words, banning RedNote was the DPP’s real goal; anti-fraud is merely a smokescreen. Of course, Legislator Shen’s bold endorsement of legal abuse and disregard for the rule of law is even more alarming when considering the DPP administration’s intentions.
In fact, Legislator Shen’s understanding that fraud can be used as grounds to “restrict access to an online platform” is itself an expansive interpretation of the law. The Ministry of the Interior (MOI) cited Article 42 of the Fraud Prevention Act to issue a “DNS blocking and access restriction” order. This move was rushed and far from deliberate.
On December 10, during a Legislative Yuan committee hearing, Legislator Huang Kuo-chang of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) sharply pointed out problems with the MOI’s legal basis. First, the MOI has never designated RedNote for regulation under Article 27 of the Act, meaning subsequent requirements under Article 29—such as localization, implementation of anti-fraud measures, and penalties—cannot apply. This direct blocking was therefore not carried out in accordance with the law.
Second, the MOI’s use of Article 42 to directly block RedNote contradicts the legislative intent and wording, which refer to blocking fraudulent websites, not blocking an entire platform that merely contains fraudulent advertisements. According to Legislator Huang, if Article 42 can be used to directly block an online platform, then all compliance measures outlined after Article 29 become entirely pointless.
In truth, if Article 42 could be expanded as the MOI claims, then platforms such as Facebook, LINE, and YouTube should have been blocked long ago—instead of allowing impersonation scams, investment scams, and other schemes on these platforms to financially ruin people or even cost lives. If the MOI truly believed it possessed such a sweeping “imperial clause,” then it would have far more leverage in negotiations with these wealthy tech giants. But of course, the DPP administration would never dare take on major Western platforms, choosing instead to selectively target RedNote, where fraud cases are comparatively few.
What’s infuriating is that fighting fraud is the government’s responsibility—yet the DPP has weaponized the public’s hatred of fraud to advance political aims, showing a remarkable disregard for public sentiment. Even more troubling is that this combination of expansive interpretation and selective enforcement means that domestic platforms or media outlets could be blocked at the government’s whim. This is the real cause of concern behind the RedNote incident. Although the DPP failed to pass the long-sought Digital Intermediary Services Act due to lacking a legislative majority, it can still use administrative means to control media. In the past, it used the Social Order Maintenance Act to intimidate citizens into avoiding criticism of the government on social media. Now, through administrative interpretation, it can control or block platforms altogether. This clearly opens yet another pathway for executive overreach and speech control.
By blocking RedNote without due process, the MOI has harmed not RedNote but the informational rights of its three million Taiwanese users. Deputy Minister Ma Shih-yuan claimed this does not affect freedom of speech—an example of the executive branch acting as judge and jury. Since when does the executive get to decide whether freedom of speech is violated? Why doesn’t the DPP administration take a page from how the United States handled TikTok—through Congressional legislation and Supreme Court debate? The process spanned three administrations and involved discussions about national security and free speech. Although the final outcome may have been influenced by U.S. President Donald Trump’s political maneuver, it still better protected American users’ rights than abrupt platform bans. Compared with the United States, the DPP administration has clearly chosen the simplest and most heavy-handed approach.
The final question is: if fraud is not the real reason, then why did the DPP target RedNote? Analysts note that RedNote is mainly a lifestyle and beauty platform, unlike TikTok, which contain political content. RedNote even avoids political messaging, so theoretically it should not be a target of government suppression. Ironically, this may be exactly why it was banned. After years in power, the DPP seems lacking in confidence regarding its own governance record. If Taiwan were truly as strong and successful as the DPP claims—so successful it could even “support China’s economy”, then why fear RedNote’s soft influence? Even if RedNote had implicit united front goals, does Taiwan not have strengths that appeal to mainland users? During the tenure of President Ma Ying-jeou from 2008 to 2016, mainland Chinese often said “Taiwan’s most beautiful scenery is its people.” Where has that cultural confidence gone? Perhaps the DPP administration, which blocked RedNote, should reflect on why it lacks the confidence to win hearts across the strait instead of fearing being influenced itself.
Taiwan’s past confidence came from engaging in institutional competition with the mainland while safeguarding its democratic system. But now that Taiwan is imitating Communist China—disregarding the rule of law to arbitrarily block platforms and build its own version of the Great Firewall—our democratic edge has dwindled. This erosion is even more evident after this undemocratic trial run of blocking RedNote.