David Wertime

Surprising Crackdown on WeChat


Welcome to the big leagues, WeChat. 

For the past year, the mobile chat app WeChat, or Weixin in Chinese, has been the fresh new face in China’s hyperactive social media, stealing millions of members – not to mention mojo – from its wounded but still potent archrival, the Twitter-like Sina Weibo. WeChat, which boasts 271 million users, functions primarily as a home for private, friends-only chat groups, but it has also come to host more than two million “public accounts,” on which media outlets, business owners, and anyone else wishing to share their views can push out articles to followers once per day. While many WeChat public accounts are affiliated with state-owned media, WeChat has also given rise to “self-media,” or media startups comprising independent journalists and editors who have seized the opportunity to build new brand names and reach a new audience. They have done so free of the high-profile censorship crackdowns that have dogged Sina Weibo and its 280 million members — until now.

On March 13, users visiting some of the highest profile WeChat public accounts — including individuals like legal scholar Xu Xin, self-media like Consensus Net and Elephant Magazine, and the WeChat presence of one of the accounts affiliated with Caixin, one of China’s top finance and political news outlets — found the accounts had been deleted with no apparent forewarning. Visitors attempting to access those accounts receive a message that the given account “has been repeatedly reported,” and upon investigation has been shown to be “in violation of the rules, and all of its functions have been deleted.” The message advises users to stop following the accounts.

Wen Yunchao, an outspoken Chinese blogger and media analyst based in New York, says several dozen WeChat accounts have been deleted. He told Foreign Policy that the accounts span subject matter, including “law, history, and culture.”

The vast majority of those targeted for deletion are politically liberal. The website of Beijing-basedConsensus Net features articles on democracy among other topics. Elephant Magazine’s content, still available on other web platforms, includes irreverent articles like one asking why China’s top leaders like the late Chairman Mao Zedong and former President Jiang Zemin wore their pants so high. For its part, Caixin is known to harbor liberal DNA and push the envelope of what’s considered allowable reporting, although it’s skilled at staying on the safe side of authorities’ invisible red line. (Not every blocked account stood on the same side of the political spectrum: The WeChat presence of the prominent conservative Maoist website Utopia also got the axe.)Bloggers now banned from WeChat have taken to Weibo to vent their displeasure. Xu asked, “Which of my articles was sensitive? Which law did I violate? And why didn’t I have a chance to answer the charges?” One Beijing-based user who described herself as an e-commerce professional commented that WeChat has “imposed its own law on people who are powerless to resist.” Beijing-based reporter Li Hualiang wrote that self-media, until recently such a promising platform, “is an edifice built on sand.”

In a statement to Hong Kong-based media group iFeng, a spokesperson for Chinese web giant Tencent, the company that owns WeChat,claimed Tencent took the action “to safeguard the user experience.” The statement continued that as a public platform, WeChat “strictly prohibits” what it called “malicious marketing,” as well as pornography, violence, and “political rumors.” In language redolent of government propaganda, the company averred that it “strikes hard” at such content “as soon as it is discovered.” Tencent did not respond to an email request for immediate comment.

Although users have rightly complained the deletions came with “absolutely no forewarning,” recent domestic media coverage contains what, at least in retrospect, look like omens. On Feb. 23, Communist Party mouthpiece People’s Daily’s website syndicated a story discussing the problem of plagiarism on the WeChat platform. Then on March 10, Sina news portal ran a story bemoaning the proclivity of self-media to spread misinformation, particularly about the Beijing-bound Malaysian airliner that went missing on March 8 with 153 Chinese nationals on board, among others passengers. The article fumed, “apart from still having no information about the flight, what is making families mentally and physically exhausted are the Internet rumors.”

Wen said, “It’s very possible that this is the first action taken by the small working group on Internet security headed by [Chinese President] Xi Jinping.” That group, with a broad portfolio including cybersecurity, Internet culture, and Internet politics, met for the first time on Feb. 27. Wen added that the scale of the crackdown surprised him, making him believe it was done on orders from the Chinese government and was not  a prophylactic action driven by the company. The government “waits for a new medium to gain a certain level of influence and then they crack down,” he said.

In fact, WeChat has never shown itself to be a fan of public accounts, despite the function’s popularity. In August 2013, in the name of reducing spam, WeChat collapsed all media accounts into one “subscription folder,” meaning that users had to go to a single access point to view them, and limited the number of push notification from such accounts to once a day. Previously, users who subscribed to many public accounts would see notifications of new articles along side by side with updates from friends within their private circles.

Even before this latest move, WeChat has never been free from censorship. Analysis of messages on WeChat has revealed that the platform is closely monitored by censors. From time to time, specific articles are also blocked on WeChat. One self-media account attaches a warning on all its articles that it may later become unviewable because the information it contains is “too fascinating.” But a wholesale deletion of public accounts is unheard of. Those enticed by WeChat’s latent promise as an outlet for independent media are now wondering whether they had simply enjoyed a false spring.Bethany Allen, Yiqin Fu, and Alexa Olesen contributed reporting.

Jump To Comments

David Wertime

David is the co-founder and co-editor of Tea Leaf Nation. He first encountered China as a Peace Corps Volunteer in 2001 and has lived and worked in Fuling, Chongqing, Beijing, and Hong Kong. He is a ChinaFile fellow at the Asia Society and an associate fellow at the Truman National Security Project.
  • Lina

    Great work. Just as an annoying correction, the numbers of Wechat users and Sina Weibo users mentioned in the top paragraph are not correct, unless you talk about “monthly active users”. The number of members/users is far greater for both platforms…

    Otherwise nice overview of public accounts and rumors on Wechat related to censorship etc. I would love an article comparing other venues than microblogs and IM’s for public debate. Have BBS’s like Tianya providing topic based discussions and anonymity got a revival because censorship on other platforms? And what about the state of or predictions for newcomer zhihu.com?

    • http://mykafkaesquelife.blogspot.com/ Taiwan Explorer

      @Lina: If someone doesn’t actively use a product, why would you still count him as a user? Anyone can download the app, but that doesn’t mean they are a user.

      • Lina

        Hey TE,
        I see your point, but actually Sina Weibo define their “active users” as people who log on at least once a month. So I guess the definition of active is also up for debate?;) The reason active versus non-active might be interesting to distinguish is because the number of actives has fallen for Sina Weibo, and their number of subscribers (people with a profile/account/registered persons) haven’t neccesarily. If we talk about flows of activity from one platform to another (like if one platform was more subject to censorship and another one wasn’t and some people prefer one over the other) I think it’s not totally insignificant. When I said it was an annoying correction, I meant that it was just a small precision of what they actually write in the article… Some articles talk about total numbers of users/members (people with a profile/account/registered persons) like this one; http://www.techinasia.com/sina-weibo-400-million-registered-users/ and other talk about active users. It is just to avoid any confusion, and understand the comparison of numbers better;)

  • poisson

    Tencent, for all intensive purposes, is a SOE. I’m very surprised at all the surprise.

    • magores

      “intents and”, not “intensive “

  • http://batman-news.com Dem

    To support democracy and justice, I just started a petition on the White House petitions site, We the People. Will you sign it? http://wh.gov/lp6Jz