Hu Xijin: How to Promote Orderly Openness and Freedom

Hu Xijin, former editor-in-chief of Global Times, is one of China’s most intriguing journalists. He wears many “faces.” On certain international issues, he is seen as a  strong nationalist who staunchly defends China’s interests. In the context of China–U.S. relations, however, he advocates both safeguarding China’s core interests and managing bilateral ties prudently—seeking cooperation wherever possible and doing utmost to preserve peace between the two countries.

When commenting on sensitive or widely debated domestic issues, Hu often takes the side of disadvantaged or vulnerable groups. In one of his recent and widely discussed commentaries, he observed that many Chinese citizens have become afraid to post personal updates on WeChat, the country’s most popular social media platform, for fear of being “canceled” or getting into trouble for various reasons. Hu argued that this trend is unhealthy for society.

We have translated his commentary here to help readers better understand China’s current social and cultural climate.

These days, many people have become increasingly cautious about speaking on social media—or have simply stopped altogether. Celebrities who used to share bits of their daily lives now post only official announcements. Those working in government-related institutions are even more careful; many no longer post anything on their private feeds, and if they do, it is usually just a repost of some official news story. University professors have also become a “sensitive group.” Most of them have chosen to say as little as possible online. The same goes for senior and mid-level managers in private enterprises. In short, the personal and individualized content once visible from many social groups has now disappeared, leaving the online landscape as clean and empty as a field after harvest.

This is a loss for the public sphere in the internet age. It has made public discourse less complete—this kind of collective silence is not what should exist in an open society.

Why has this happened? I believe the fundamental reason is that social tolerance has declined. Expressing one’s individuality online now carries increasing risks—it can easily bring trouble to oneself, or even implicate one’s workplace or institution. As a result, people have either voluntarily, or under “reminders” from their organizations, drastically reduced their willingness to share views or participate in discussions online. Many have essentially stopped posting altogether, leaving only browsing, and occasionally giving a “like.”

Looking closer, there are two main factors behind this. First, the overall atmosphere of the internet has become harsher. People now search for “flaws” with increasing frequency and precision. Once a target is found, public attention quickly gathers, and the digging and extrapolation that follow can go on endlessly—often escalating matters to a political or moral level. For anyone who becomes the focus of such scrutiny—especially a public-sector employee or a mid-level manager at a private firm—the consequences can be unbearable, and their workplace can easily be dragged into the fray.

The definition of a “public official” has also expanded dramatically. Nowadays, anyone working in a government agency or public institution—and even many people in state-owned enterprises—are categorized as such online. This “public official” label brings added sensitivity and often leads to unequal treatment for the same mistake.

University professors and private-sector managers are also seen as having special social identities online, which makes the risk of their statements being scrutinized and causing trouble much higher.

To avoid these risks, various “sensitive groups” on the internet have joined the ranks of the low-profile. “Say less, or say nothing at all” has become their guiding principle—just to be safe.

On another level, the internet’s tendency to over-interpret people’s words—or to draw excessive conclusions from a photo someone posts—can easily lead to criticism being directed at that person’s institution. Ideally, organizations should have the courage to stand firm and not punish employees disproportionately when they are targeted by online attacks. But in reality, most institutions today are afraid of trouble and do not want to get involved in any controversy. For government-affiliated organizations, there is the additional fear that such incidents might displease their superiors or draw reprimands from higher authorities. In private companies, the situation is even worse—once firing an employee can help calm public anger, it is done with little hesitation.

I believe that our society, under the constitutional order led by the Party, should remain as open and flexible as possible. This requires efforts at both the societal level and within the governance system. While the internet plays an important role in enabling public oversight, it must also rest on a collective consensus to respect individual rights. Personal expressions should not be over-interpreted or politicized, and online attacks should not aim to destroy someone’s reputation or life. Some people, out of emotional excitement or in pursuit of traffic and clicks, may want to “finish off” a target completely once they become a focus of attention. But society as a whole needs to build a shared consciousness that respects individuals and allows people the chance to correct their mistakes. Our internet environment should not be excessively severe—once someone is caught saying something wrong, they should not be “destroyed” for it. If a person happens to have some identifiable social or institutional status, that should not automatically make their mistake more serious. We should not operate that way.

Institutions, for their part, should take the lead in defending openness and freedom within the constitutional framework. They must accept public supervision and make real corrections when genuine problems exist, but at the same time they should respect employees’ personal rights when those issues are unrelated to their official duties. Employees can and should be held to high standards in their professional conduct. But in their private time, within the general boundaries of positive values and public decency, their freedom to exchange information and ideas online should be protected. Even if what they post draws some criticism or public attention, institutions should show tolerance rather than punishing employees simply because controversy has arisen. It should not be the case that “if there is an uproar, then someone must be blamed,” or that criticism of the institution leads to anger directed at the person who “brought the criticism.”

Of course, if an institution and its employees have genuinely serious problems and are rightly exposed online, that is another matter entirely.

In any case, the fact that many people with identifiable social roles are no longer willing to speak out online is not a good thing. Promoting greater openness and flexibility within the constitutional framework is one area where concrete progress can be made. Our society should be rich and diverse, and social media should serve as a platform for all citizens to exchange information and ideas. If some groups withdraw or become largely passive, leaving only a few others to dominate public expression, the result will certainly not be healthy—and will only give rise to new problems.