Beyond Censorship: Taiwan’s Model for Combating Disinformation
In today's digital and globalised world, disinformation is a greater threat than ever. In 2024, when major democracies held elections, fears of its impact were especially strong. According to the Council of Europe, two-thirds of EU citizens report coming across fake news at least once a week. Over 80% of EU citizens say they see fake news both as an issue for their country and for democracy in general. More than half of EU citizens aged 15-30 acknowledge the need for critical thinking and information skills to help them combat fake news and extremism. This alarming trend underscores the urgent need for effective counter-disinformation strategies that do not infringe on democratic values.
In light of the growing threat of disinformation, the most frequently suggested response is censorship. This approach aims to curtail false information at its source by banning apps or filtering out content about certain subjects. However, censorship is not a viable long-term solution and directly conflicts with the democratic principles that many nations seek to uphold. Taking a different approach, Taiwan has emerged as a model for countering disinformation through a multifaceted, proactive strategy that engages multiple sectors of society.
Before analysing Taiwan’s success, it is essential to distinguish between misinformation and disinformation. While misinformation refers to false information shared without harmful intent, disinformation involves deliberately spreading false information to mislead or manipulate public opinion. Recognising this distinction is crucial for formulating effective counter-disinformation strategies that target intentional deception without stifling legitimate discourse.
Disinformation manifests in various forms, including manipulated news reports, deceptive social media content, and misleading messaging through apps like WhatsApp or Line. While banning these platforms may appear to be the straightforward course of action, much like the Lernaean Hydra, cutting off one source of disinformation often leads to the emergence of multiple new sources. Moreover, in democratic societies—where freedom of speech is a fundamental right—legal restrictions on information pose the risk of government overreach and state-sanctioned censorship, ultimately undermining the very democratic principles they seek to protect.
The European Union’s approach to disinformation offers a case study of why legal measures alone are insufficient. In response to Russian disinformation campaigns, the EU banned Kremlin-backed media outlets and mandated that social media platforms block content originating from Russia. While these measures aimed to protect European citizens from harmful narratives, they also sparked debates about whether restricting access to information violates democratic values. Additionally, between 2011 and 2022, the rise of anti-fake news legislation across various countries led to the imprisonment of numerous journalists, highlighting the unintended consequences of legalistic approaches to disinformation control.
Given the challenges of censorship and legal restrictions, Taiwan has successfully developed an alternative counter-disinformation approach, recognising effectiveness of transparency, resilience, and media literacy. Taiwan’s strategy is based on several core principles: building public trust, promoting fact-checking, leveraging civic engagement, and utilising innovative technological solutions.
One of the fundamental reasons for Taiwan’s success is its proactive stance in narrative-building. Instead of merely reacting to disinformation, the Taiwanese government actively constructs and disseminates counter-narratives that provide accurate information. As Taiwanese official Audrey Tang noted in 2022, free speech is not a liability but rather a crucial asset in the fight against disinformation. This philosophy is reflected in Taiwan’s efforts to empower independent media and fact-checking organisations rather than imposing top-down censorship measures.
Taiwan implements this strategy through its strong fact-checking infrastructure. Organisations such as MyGoPen and the Taiwan FactCheck Center play a crucial role in verifying public claims and debunking misinformation in real time. These organisations rely on advanced technological tools, including AI-driven bots that respond to thousands of daily inquiries about potential falsehoods. By collaborating with government agencies, media outlets, and civil society organisations, these fact-checking institutions create a well-coordinated response to disinformation threats.
Transparency is another cornerstone of Taiwan’s disinformation response. The government has prioritised openness in its use of artificial intelligence and information verification technologies. By fostering transparency, Taiwan has built public trust, ensuring that citizens view official sources as credible and reliable. This trust-based approach contrasts sharply with restrictive measures seen in other countries, where government-led efforts to control information often breed scepticism and resistance among the population.
Equally important is Taiwan’s investment in digital literacy and public education. Recognising that an informed populace is the best defence against disinformation, Taiwan has integrated media literacy programs into its education system and regularly conducts workshops to teach citizens how to critically evaluate news sources. These initiatives empower individuals to identify and reject false information independently, reducing society’s overall vulnerability to disinformation campaigns.
The effectiveness of Taiwan’s approach is particularly evident in its response to Chinese disinformation campaigns. Given Taiwan’s geopolitical position, the island has long been a target of Chinese cognitive warfare, with Beijing seeking to manipulate public opinion and undermine Taiwanese governance. The 2024 Taiwanese elections saw a surge in disinformation, including false allegations against political candidates and attempts to sow discord in Taiwan-U.S. relations. By leveraging its multifaceted strategy—including fact-checking, civic engagement, and media literacy—Taiwan successfully mitigated the impact of these disinformation efforts.
Taiwan’s response is further reinforced by its ability to recognise and adapt to emerging threats. Government agencies continually monitor disinformation patterns and adjust strategies accordingly, ensuring that countermeasures remain effective in an evolving digital landscape. This adaptability sets Taiwan apart from more rigid, law-based approaches that struggle to keep pace with rapidly changing disinformation tactics.
Despite Taiwan’s successes, it is important to acknowledge that replicating its approach in other democracies presents challenges. Taiwan benefits from a relatively unified national identity and a strong public consensus on the need to counter disinformation, particularly in response to Chinese influence. Larger and more diverse democracies, such as the United States, may find it more difficult to implement similar measures due to political polarisation and differing perceptions of government intervention. Nevertheless, Taiwan’s model offers valuable insights into how democratic societies can combat disinformation while upholding fundamental freedoms.
Ultimately, Taiwan’s case illustrates that combating disinformation requires a holistic approach that balances free speech with proactive intervention. By fostering transparency, strengthening fact-checking institutions, and cultivating an informed citizenry, Taiwan has demonstrated that disinformation can be effectively countered without resorting to censorship. For other democracies grappling with similar challenges, Taiwan serves as a powerful example of how a society can defend itself against disinformation while remaining committed to democratic values.
Image courtesy of Voice of America via Wikimedia Commons, ©2016. Some rights reserved.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the wider St. Andrews Foreign Affairs Review team.
