Taiwan's National Security Bureau (NSB) has reported that China is utilizing fake news websites and social media accounts to disseminate misinformation aimed at undermining Taiwan. According to a recent analysis by the NSB, over 45,000 fake social media accounts and more than 2.3 million instances of disinformation were identified in 2025 as part of China's cognitive warfare strategy.

The NSB's findings indicate that Chinese IT and marketing companies are involved in creating these deceptive platforms under the direction of China's Central Publicity Department and the Ministry of Public Security. These entities employ various marketing firms to establish fake news sites that promote narratives consistent with official Chinese positions.

Additionally, the report highlights that Beijing supports content farms operated by a Chinese marketing company on platforms like Facebook, which initially attract followers with sensational content before shifting to politically charged posts. This tactic aims to influence public perception in Taiwan, deepen internal divisions, weaken resistance against China, and sway international support for Taiwan.

To combat this misinformation campaign, the NSB is collaborating with government agencies and fact-checking organizations to identify and remove false information from social media platforms. The bureau has also engaged in over 80 security dialogues with international partners over the past year to strengthen cooperative efforts against China's cognitive warfare tactics.

Original article (taiwan) (china) (facebook)

The article presents a concerning issue regarding misinformation campaigns by China aimed at Taiwan, but it lacks actionable information for the average reader. Here’s a breakdown of its value:

First, in terms of actionable information, the article does not provide clear steps or tools that an individual can use to combat misinformation. While it mentions that Taiwan's National Security Bureau (NSB) is working with agencies and fact-checkers to address disinformation, it does not offer specific guidance for readers on how they can protect themselves from misinformation or identify fake news. Therefore, there is no immediate action a reader can take based on this article.

Next, regarding educational depth, the article provides some context about China's strategies and tactics but remains largely superficial. It mentions statistics about fake accounts and instances of disinformation without explaining their significance or how these numbers were derived. The lack of deeper analysis means that readers may not fully understand the broader implications of these tactics or how they fit into larger geopolitical dynamics.

In terms of personal relevance, while the topic is significant for those in Taiwan or interested in international relations, its impact on an average person's daily life may be limited unless they are directly affected by these misinformation campaigns. The relevance feels more abstract than immediate for most readers.

Evaluating public service function reveals that while the article highlights a serious issue—misinformation—it does not provide warnings or safety guidance that would help individuals navigate this landscape responsibly. It recounts findings without offering context on what individuals should do with this information.

On practical advice, there are no concrete steps provided for ordinary readers to follow to counteract misinformation effectively. This absence makes it challenging for someone looking to take proactive measures against potential threats posed by disinformation.

Considering long-term impact, while understanding misinformation strategies is crucial in today's digital age, the article focuses primarily on current events without offering insights into how individuals might prepare themselves against future occurrences of similar issues.

Finally, examining emotional and psychological impact reveals that while the topic is alarming—given its implications for national security—it does not offer constructive ways to respond or cope with these fears. Instead of fostering clarity or calmness around such issues, it may inadvertently contribute to feelings of helplessness among readers who feel overwhelmed by such large-scale operations.

The language used in the article appears straightforward and factual rather than sensationalized; however, it could benefit from more engaging content that encourages proactive thinking rather than simply reporting facts.

To add real value beyond what was presented in the article: individuals can adopt basic critical thinking practices when consuming news online. They should verify sources before sharing content by checking if other reputable outlets report similar stories and examining whether claims are supported by evidence. Engaging with diverse viewpoints can also help build resilience against one-sided narratives. Additionally, being aware of common signs of misinformation—such as sensational headlines or lack of credible sources—can empower people to navigate social media more safely and effectively. Encouraging discussions about media literacy within communities can further enhance collective awareness about identifying reliable information sources versus misleading ones.

The text uses strong words like "fake news" and "misinformation" to create a sense of urgency and danger. This choice of language can lead readers to feel that the situation is more serious than it may be. By labeling the information as "fake," it suggests that there is no truth at all in what is being reported, which can manipulate public perception. This bias helps to frame China negatively without presenting any evidence of specific instances.

The phrase "cognitive warfare strategy" implies a calculated and malicious intent behind China's actions. This wording can evoke fear and suspicion towards China, suggesting they are engaged in a deliberate attack on Taiwan's stability. It positions China as an aggressor while framing Taiwan as a victim, which may not fully represent the complexities of international relations. This bias serves to rally support for Taiwan by portraying them as under threat.

The report states that Beijing supports content farms operated by a Chinese marketing company, which shifts from discussing misinformation to implying broader control by the Chinese government over social media narratives. The wording suggests that these operations are part of an organized effort rather than isolated incidents, making it seem like there is widespread manipulation at play. This framing can lead readers to believe that all information from these sources is unreliable without considering context or individual cases.

When mentioning the NSB's collaboration with fact-checking organizations, the text presents this action positively but does not provide details about how effective these measures are or if they have faced challenges. The lack of critical analysis on this collaboration might mislead readers into thinking that simply identifying false information will solve the problem entirely. This omission creates an impression of certainty about combating misinformation without acknowledging potential difficulties.

The statement about engaging in over 80 security dialogues with international partners suggests strong global support for Taiwan against China's tactics but does not provide specifics on what these dialogues achieved or their impact. By emphasizing quantity over quality, it implies success without evidence of meaningful outcomes from those discussions. This could mislead readers into believing there is significant international backing for Taiwan when details are lacking.

The text describes Chinese IT and marketing companies creating deceptive platforms under government direction but does not mention any counter-narratives or perspectives from those companies or their supporters. By focusing solely on one side's actions without including other viewpoints, it presents a biased picture that may oversimplify complex motivations behind such activities. This one-sided portrayal helps reinforce negative perceptions about China while ignoring potential nuances in their strategies or intentions.

The text conveys several meaningful emotions that shape the reader's understanding of the situation regarding Taiwan and China's misinformation campaign. One prominent emotion is fear, which emerges from the description of China's use of fake news and social media to undermine Taiwan. Phrases like "disseminate misinformation" and "cognitive warfare strategy" evoke a sense of threat, suggesting that Taiwan is in danger from external forces seeking to manipulate its society. This fear is strong because it highlights the potential consequences of such disinformation on national security and public perception, aiming to alert readers to the seriousness of the issue.

Another emotion present in the text is anger, particularly directed towards China for its deceptive tactics. The mention of "fake social media accounts" and "deceptive platforms" implies a violation of trust and integrity, stirring feelings against those who engage in such manipulative practices. This anger serves to rally support for Taiwan's efforts against these tactics, encouraging readers to view China’s actions as unjust and worthy of condemnation.

Additionally, there is an underlying sense of pride conveyed through Taiwan's proactive measures in combating misinformation. The NSB's collaboration with government agencies and international partners reflects a commitment to safeguarding national security. This pride may inspire confidence among readers about Taiwan’s resilience and determination in facing external threats.

These emotions work together to guide the reader’s reaction by creating sympathy for Taiwan’s plight while simultaneously fostering concern about the implications of misinformation campaigns. The fear generated encourages vigilance among citizens regarding information sources, while anger can motivate action against perceived injustices perpetrated by China. Furthermore, pride in Taiwan’s response can bolster national unity and support for governmental initiatives aimed at countering disinformation.

The writer employs emotional language strategically throughout the text to enhance its persuasive impact. Words like "fake," "deceptive," and phrases such as “weaken resistance” amplify negative sentiments associated with China’s actions, making them sound more severe than mere political maneuvering; they suggest an existential threat rather than just competition between nations. By emphasizing collaborative efforts with international partners through phrases like “over 80 security dialogues,” the writer fosters trust in Taiwan's leadership while also appealing for collective action against a common adversary.

In summary, through carefully chosen words that evoke fear, anger, and pride, along with specific writing techniques that highlight urgency and cooperation, the text effectively shapes readers' perceptions about China's misinformation campaign against Taiwan. It aims not only to inform but also to inspire vigilance and solidarity among Taiwanese citizens while fostering a broader understanding of their struggle on an international stage.