讀後心得

A Chinese national, Aya, posted short videos on TikTok promoting unification through military force, which was deemed a threat to national security by Taiwan's Ministry of the Interior, leading to the revocation of her residence permit and a deadline to leave the country. This incident has sparked discussions on the boundaries of free speech and democratic defense, prompting some scholars to criticize the government for suppressing free speech without providing specific recommendations on how to delineate the boundaries of free expression. Furthermore, Aya's short videos are not an isolated event; they reflect China's strategy of cultural infiltration using digital platforms, particularly by conveying political messages through a friendly and harmless image, effectively manipulating the emotions and identities of viewers. In the face of the rise of short video culture, Taiwan's communication academia should rethink its strategies and strengthen criticism of platform hegemony and data manipulation, in order to rebuild democratic defense mechanisms and resist the infiltration of authoritarianism.

Lin Jing-tang recently pointed out that the Chinese national spouse "Ya-ya" posted multiple short videos promoting unification on the TikTok platform, which led to a report against her. Ultimately, the Ministry of the Interior deemed her actions a threat to national security and revoked her residency permit, mandating her departure. This incident not only touches on the boundaries of freedom of speech and democratic defense but also raises confusion regarding the self-positioning of some "middle-left" factions. As short videos have become the front line for China's narrative infiltration and cognitive warfare, how should Taiwan adjust its critical communication political economy discourse and engage in opposing trends such as community hegemony and algorithm control?

• Firstly, Professor Feng Jian-san and his 75 scholars criticized the Lai Ching-te government for compressing freedom of speech, but they did not provide policy suggestions on how defensive democracy should define freedom of speech.
• Moreover, they surprisingly chose to avoid discussing Ya-ya's statements and the unification strategies behind them.
• As communication scholars, Feng Jian-san, Guo Li-xin, and others have yet to utilize political economy thinking to deeply analyze how Taiwan can respond to new forms of community communication issues and cultural unification offensives.

If scholars' discussions on freedom of speech cannot touch on the boundaries of defensive democracy and ignore the protection of Taiwan's self-cultural communication rights and communication economic structure, then what is the meaning of higher-level freedom of speech? On the contrary, these so-called critiques from the "leftist academic community" might serve as a protective flank for China's totalitarian discourse, revealing confusion in positions and knowledge politics.

The incident of Ya-ya’s short videos is not an isolated event; it is actually a microcosm of China's digital cultural infiltration through everyday influencer short videos. These influencers, presenting themselves as "Chinese wives living in Taiwan," craft harmless images and import phrases such as "Taiwan will eventually return to the motherland" and "the people in mainland China are very kind." This cultural unification operation is not primarily about forced indoctrination but is conducted through subtle persuasion, allowing audiences to gradually absorb political information amid entertainment.

• Ya-ya's short videos are not merely a form of expression but a synthesis of visual symbols, music, rhythm, and emotions, aiming to gradually dilute Taiwan's collective identity and manipulate public feelings and recognition.
• China has already launched a unified front strategy for short videos globally, simplifying its ideology into emotional experiences.

Today, the existence of platforms like TikTok and YouTube Shorts has turned communication algorithms and attention capital into battlegrounds, and these discourses are gaining attention. However, these tools are not just about content uploading; they can also influence which types of content are visible, subsequently shaping perceptual reality.

In this context, communication political economy must certainly re-examine its direction. The Ya-ya incident clearly shows that current critical communication theories are facing challenges, particularly regarding how to understand the ideological operations on community platforms and their levels of manipulation. As algorithms continually change their promotion mechanisms, scholars in Taiwan need to pay attention to and respond to this new cultural warfare in order to establish effective democratic defense mechanisms.

In conclusion, communication political economy needs to find new pathways to face the challenges of platform hegemony and digital totalitarianism. Refusing silence is the deepest tribute to the past. We need to rebuild the discussion surrounding freedom of speech, not merely to protect traditional values, but to establish resilient future cultural narratives.