A batch of internal documents concerning China's online content control, dubbed "LeEco censorship directives," were recently made public. Compiled by China Digital Times and included in the "Truth Museum" of China's digital space, these materials span from March 2, 2017 to March 10, 2020, and contain 718 publicly available documents. The documents record the processes by which internet regulatory authorities issued deletion, filtering, and blocking orders to LeEco, as well as the platform's censorship personnel's execution of these orders and their regular data reporting.
These files are archived daily using "LeEco directives." The directives separate "deletion" and "filtering" categories; the former refers to content removed after being uploaded, while the latter refers to content blocked before publication. Representative directives extracted by China Digital Times show that the relevant topics cover top leaders, ethnicity and religion, diplomacy and international affairs, the Hong Kong anti-extradition movement, public events, public health, and maintaining stability and protecting rights. Some directives also indicate that the platform must categorize and retain samples when handling content.
Internet censorship has entered routine procedures.
In an interview with this station, Qian Ying, a veteran Chinese media professional, said that internet censorship in China has a long history, and in recent years, more and more departments have been involved in censorship. She said, "People can no longer live without the internet. Every platform you can think of is subject to censorship, including self-media platforms, online communities, and forums. The management departments include the Cyberspace Administration of China, the cyber police, and even the security departments of workplaces. The targets of regulation include news media platforms, self-media platforms, and forum communities; the scope is already very large."
Qian Ying also said that news organizations usually have their own banned word lists, which contain a large number of sensitive words. She said, "Pro-China media in Hong Kong are another matter. Other media may even have their newspaper names included in the banned word list, such as Hong Kong's Ming Pao, and the now-defunct Apple Daily, etc. Some of their word lists contain tens of thousands of phrases."
Sensitive issues are included in routine handling.
LeEco's censorship directives have established a relatively fixed categorization template for content involving China's top leader, Xi Jinping. Materials show that the relevant content, categorized by type, includes information about Xi Jinping and his relatives, discussions related to policies and high-level personnel appointments, innuendo in social hot topics, information related to his overseas visits, and reprints of articles from overseas.
Regarding ethnic and religious issues, the materials categorize Tibetan-related content into rumors, ethnic separatism, religious extremism, information from overseas media, illegal gatherings, sensitive cases and incidents, the dissemination of circumvention tools, methods of making terrorism and explosives, and content related to the sensitive date of "March 10th". Similar requirements appear in directives concerning Xinjiang. For example, the LeEco directive dated January 1, 2019, required statistics on the number of deletions and filters related to "the dissemination of circumvention software and usage methods to people within Xinjiang".
Li Xiaohong, who previously worked for a mainland internet platform, told this station that mainland platforms typically have internal review departments and technical filtering systems. After regulatory authorities issue requirements, the platforms will convert relevant content into keywords, manual review standards, or special cleanup tasks. She revealed: "The Central Propaganda Department publishes a list of prohibited words every year. Many official terms used since the Republic of China era cannot be used by news media. For example, 'village chief' is now called 'village director'; 'Hong Kong's return' must be changed to 'the People's Republic of China resumes the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong.' The names of national leaders cannot be used alone at will; they can usually only appear when reprinting full texts from official sources such as Xinhua News Agency and People's Daily."
The materials show that LeEco has issued censorship orders concerning human rights lawyers, police, military personnel, the Lei Yang case, early information about the COVID-19 pandemic, the Li Wenliang incident, the Hong Kong anti-extradition movement, the Fan Bingbing tax evasion case, and the Gao Yan sexual assault case involving a student in Shenyang. Some orders required the platform to summarize the handling situation by time period, and in addition to the number of deletions and filters, to provide samples, post information, and screenshots. Li Xiaohong believes that this shows that censorship is not limited to deleting content, but also includes recording the speakers, dissemination paths, and the scale of public opinion.
The archives and the sensitive word database complement each other.
An index released by China Digital Times shows that 718 LeEco censorship orders cover the period from March 2017 to March 2020, with a larger number collected from 2017 and 2019, and the remaining 2020 orders covering up to March. China Digital Times explains that these "LeEco censorship orders" complement other materials leaked from the same platform, such as the "LeEco Video 2017 Sensitive Word Database" and "LeEco Video 2015-2016 Partial Removal Content." The sensitive word database shows how the platform pre-filtered words, and the removal records which videos or programs were removed, while the daily orders record how regulatory authorities issued handling requirements for specific events and public opinion.
Mr. Tang, a scholar familiar with the online censorship process, told our station that the backend data accumulated by Chinese platforms during the censorship process is often more telling than the frontend deletion results. He said that users see posts and videos being blocked, but they may not know that the backend leaves processing records, including accounts, clicks, dissemination levels, and handling results. This information can become internal records that may be subject to investigation.
