Which Social Media Facilitate Online Public Opinion in China?

Abstract

Why does online public opinion emerge in some social media more easily than in others? Building on research on authoritarian deliberation, we describe spaces for political discussion in Chinese cyberspace in terms of interactivity, which results in different forms of political discussion. Drawing on semi-structured qualitative expert interviews with information and communications technology professionals at Tencent, Weibo, and Baidu, we explain how major social media differ in terms of their structure and the company's motivation. We specify which features are more likely to facilitate the emergence of online public opinion in Chinese social media and provide preliminary evidence from 92 semi-structured interviews with Internet users.

Nationalism and political system justification in China: differential effects of traditional and new media

“…Previous studies on the democratic potential of social media in China have focused on two competing views, one of which stresses the democratizing effect of social media (Cairns & Carlson, 2016), and the other emphasizes the quick adaptation of the CCP to the social media environment and its efforts to use the new media to its own advantage (Hyun et al, 2014;Hyun & Kim, 2015). However, recent studies have demonstrated that the political information available on Weibo is more diverse than that on traditional state-led mass media (Rauchfleisch & Sch€ afer, 2015;Stockmann & Luo, 2017) and that Chinese citizens can still read grievances and critical opinions on Weibo (Qin et al, 2017). Arguably, because those posts are useful in monitoring public opinion and enhancing the accountability of local governments and politicians, the central government allows people to post critical comments on political issues despite its massive censorship and manipulation (e.g.…”

“…Although this effect was not fully supported in the social media sample, it suggests that the political implications of WeChat use are remarkably different from those of Weibo. Although WeChat provides an online social networking service like that of Weibo, its technological features strongly facilitate social interactions among people who know each other in person, which limits the dissemination of public information beyond intimate social circles (Stockmann & Luo, 2017). Furthermore, WeChat emerged shortly before Xi's administration started to tighten regulations on the media industry (Creemers, 2017).…”

“…The network is built on both strong and weak ties, including offline friends, online strangers, media accounts, celebrities, and enterprise accounts (China Internet Network Information Center [CNNIC], 2017). Compared with traditional mass media, Weibo has a decentralized and relatively open environment in terms of the flow of information because its design empowers users to become information sources and spread information (Stockmann & Luo, 2017). Although posting on Weibo is tightly controlled by the government, much criticism of local governments and many accusations of corruption remain (Qin et al, 2017).…”

“…Specifically, because of its instant messaging function and Moments, WeChat facilitates intensive, closed social interaction among users, which hinders open and public discussion on WeChat. In addition, the government strictly regulates the dissemination of political information and opinion expression in chat groups and Moments (Stockmann & Luo, 2017). In 2014, the WeChat service provider Tencent published the WeChat Open Platform Operating Regulations, which specifically restricted the content and volume of messages that public accounts could disseminate.…”

Authoritarians don’t deliberate: Cultivating deliberation and resisting authoritarian tools in an age of global nationalism

“…According to He (2006) "Chinese authoritarian deliberation is authoritarian in the sense that top leaders are not elected; therefore, deliberation takes place under oneparty domination" (p. 134). Indeed, over the past few decades the Chinese government has experimented with and established numerous democratic institutions designed to provide feedback and information from its citizenry in promotion of state policy (Fishkin, He, Luskin, & Siu, 2010;He, 2006He, , 2014He & Warren, 2011;Jiang, 2008;Stockmann & Luo, 2017). This feedback system, and notion of authoritarian deliberation, operates on a "system of modern science and technologies, and must appeal to reason rather than force" (He, 2006, p. 135).…”