The Chengdu Municipal Public Security Bureau of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) issued three consecutive notices this week, taking administrative detention or criminal detention measures against four self-media account holders under the charges of “fabricating false information” and “disrupting the online order.” The incident has raised concerns from the public about the local authorities tightening control over online public opinion.
According to the public information released by the Chengdu Municipal Public Security Bureau, from January 16 to 18, the Chengdu High-tech Zone Branch, Wuhou District Branch, and Chenghua District Branch successively issued notices stating that the involved accounts continued to publish graphic, video, or commentary content on social platforms. These accounts repeatedly used geographical tags such as “Chengdu” during the publishing process to associate the information with the city’s image.
The police summarized the actions of the involved self-media individuals as “deliberately creating topics.” The Public Security Bureau stated that the accounts did not objectively state facts but repackaged original information through editing, splicing, out-of-context quoting, and even fabricating videos and screenshots. They amplified the dissemination effect through platform recommendation mechanisms, inducing the public to form incorrect perceptions.
A local netizen in Chengdu, Mr. Jiang, told Epoch Times that the local internet management has noticeably tightened recently. “The authorities here are closely monitoring the content on platforms like Douyin, WeChat, and Xiaohongshu. I think it’s probably about tightening public opinion control. Even ordinary discussions like prices are being scrutinized. There are more cases of accounts being restricted and content being deleted than before.”
Mr. Jiang mentioned that the frequent issuance of notices by the public security department is essentially meant to deter, making many netizens keenly feel that the space for internet expression is being further restricted. “What they (the police) truly fear is not so-called false information. Often, the ‘false information’ they fear is not groundless; they fear the collective resistance of netizens against them.”
In a specific case, the police in the notice stated that a suspect named Qi (male, 25 years old, registered in Gong County, Yibin, as the legal representative of a certain media company) has been organizing staged scenes since December 2025 to gain attention, attract traffic, and prepare for subsequent live-streaming sales. They released video content with false plots, such as “absorbing Yangqi.” These contents distorted facts, created confrontations, and misled the public. The related videos quickly garnered a large number of reposts and comments, causing a “large number of false interpretations,” thus affecting the online order and public opinion environment beyond normal expression limits.
The notice also revealed that besides Qi, there were multiple similar cases. Among them, a 23-year-old man was accused of posting false video content; two self-media practitioners were accused of fabricating news screenshots with misleading texts for dissemination; and in another case, a company’s legal representative was accused of creating exaggerated plots and deliberately magnifying disputes, leading to the spread of public opinion.
Mr. Yang, a lawyer in Chengdu, expressed that the public security department repeatedly emphasized in the three notices that the actions of the involved internet users “caused adverse or negative social impacts.” Based on this, they cited the “Public Security Administration Punishment Law” or used the grounds of “suspected of provoking troubles” to take administrative or criminal compulsory measures against the relevant parties, while also closing their online accounts. He pointed out that this handling method indicates a significant overreaction.
From a legal perspective, Mr. Yang told the reporter that whether it constitutes public security violations or even criminal offenses should be judged based on whether the specific behaviors directly endanger social order, rather than solely relying on “provoking public opinion” or “widespread dissemination” to make severe classifications. “If it’s just false or exaggerated content, it should be dealt with first through administrative corrections, clarifications, deletions, etc., rather than immediately resorting to detention or criminal means.”
He noted that equating the effect of online dissemination itself with social harm could easily expand the boundaries of law enforcement discretion. “Once ‘adverse effects’ are deemed as grounds for law enforcement, law enforcement agencies may hold any expressive discussion that sparks debate accountable, thus significantly chilling normal internet discussions.”
Mr. Yang believed that the frequent use of catch-all charges like “provoking troubles” in handling internet speech cases not only blurs the line between administrative violations and criminal offenses but also easily raises public doubts about the fairness of law enforcement.
Although the official CCP focus on rectification is expressed as “cracking down on false information,” public opinion believes that by repeatedly emphasizing “city image” in the notices, law enforcement acts are interpreted as further tightening control over public expression. Some observers argue that the CCP authorities are concerned not only about the authenticity of information but also whether the content touches on narratives they do not approve of.