Recent events in various parts of China have sparked widespread public attention and become hot topics, including actress Yu Menglong falling from a building and the forced takeover of an 800 million yuan factory construction project in Maotai Town, triggering intense discussions online. At the same time, the Chinese Communist Party’s management of public opinion has shown unprecedented immediacy and severity. According to multiple sources, senior officials have instructed local governments to set up special teams to promptly handle relevant information to ensure a “zero time difference” response. Officials who fail to handle the situation effectively may face dismissal and accountability.
In Renhuai City, a core area for Chinese liquor production, Chongqing Taik Company invested 800 million yuan to build a factory, only to have it forcefully taken over by local authorities. This incident on September 24 set off a wave of reactions on the internet, with major Chinese media outlets and social platforms reporting and reposting related news. Public opinion widely condemned the actions of the authorities as akin to robbery, as it touches on sensitive topics such as local investment environment, property rights protection, and the role of government.
A local liquor factory owner, Huang Huanong (pseudonym), told a reporter from Dajiyuan on September 25 that after the incident, he was informed immediately by his subordinates. He recalled that the former Party Secretary of the city, Fang Guoxing, personally told him that Maotai Town (Renhuai City, Guizhou) operates on the principle of “attracting investment with open doors and cracking down once business starts.” Many people have suffered losses in this process, including state-owned enterprises, central enterprises, and several listed companies. Huang further revealed that high-profile figures like Ma Yun, a friend of former Guizhou Provincial Party Secretary Chen Miner, and others had invested in the area and ended up losing money, highlighting the prevalent corruption among officials and the lack of protection for individual interests.
Under public pressure, the Renhuai City Government’s Information Office released a red-on-white “Situation Report on Public Opinion on the Internet” on the evening of September 24, addressing the recent hot topic of the forced takeover of Chongqing Taik Company’s 800 million yuan factory construction project in Maotai Town. The report stated that Renhuai City had set up a special team based on previous work to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the situation and promised to announce the investigation results to the public in a timely manner. It emphasized the equal and lawful protection of the legitimate rights of various business entities and vowed strict punishment for any actions that harm the legitimate interests of enterprises.
According to a source close to the local government who spoke to Dajiyuan, the release of this report was not a local initiative but a specific requirement from higher authorities during an internal video conference, mandating immediate responses to high-profile events involving enterprises and society, with no public opinion gap exceeding 24 hours.
Several insiders revealed that the CCP Central Propaganda Department and the Cyberspace Administration of China have recently strengthened directives on “real-time control of online public opinion,” explicitly requiring local governments to respond promptly and achieve “zero time difference” in handling such situations. Now, within minutes to hours of an event occurring, related search terms and discussions are promptly deleted or downgraded, effectively suppressing the heat of public opinion.
In early September, actor Yu Menglong’s publicized fatal fall sparked widespread public discussion. Following the incident, the search term “Yu Menglong falling” quickly trended on Weibo but was removed in less than two hours. Subsequently, many netizens reported their comment sections being blocked, some discussion groups being disbanded, and even individuals questioning the official version being administratively detained by the police.
Official reports regarding Yu Menglong’s fall were simplified as an “unfortunate accident” without further details. Discrepancies between these reports and eyewitness descriptions are apparent, raising questions about the transparency of information.
An informant familiar with the Xinjiang Construction Corps, Lao Liu, informed a reporter that local governments are highly sensitive to public opinion matters: “Once an event causing public opinion arises, you must immediately report to higher authorities, the city committee’s publicity department, and handle it promptly – whatever needs to be sealed off should be sealed off, and whatever needs clarification should be clarified. If a local event is amplified to the entire network, and the whole country knows, it will be hard for you to keep your hat.”
Some opinions believe that while the prompt action of grassroots authorities prevents events from escalating into mass incidents, it also renders social supervision mechanisms nearly ineffective. Insiders explain that such actions by authorities are primarily to ensure political security, noting recent incidents like anti-CCP slogans projected outside Chongqing University City walls. The Cyberspace Administration has issued strict orders that in the event of sudden network incidents, governments and the police must handle them immediately and report to the Ministry of Public Security.
Such “rapid cleaning” measures are not new occurrences. During the “7.20 Floods” in Zhengzhou, Henan in 2021, numerous pleas for help from affected individuals on Weibo and WeChat were deleted within a few hours, and media investigative articles quickly disappeared, sparking public outrage. In the same year, during the Tangshan “Barbeque Restaurant Assault” case, videos widely circulated, but the authorities swiftly ordered the deletion of most of the footage and detained some netizens who shared them on the grounds of spreading rumors.
These cases illustrate that the CCP has developed a comprehensive emergency public opinion control mechanism in response to sudden incidents: swiftly suppressing information, steering official narratives, holding local officials accountable, and utilizing internet trolls to manufacture a “unified voice.”
A reporter obtained internal official training materials from mainland China, showing that the CCP Central Committee repeatedly emphasizes “who is responsible for the incident” during training sessions at the provincial, municipal, and county levels and uses a “three-step accountability process” as a warning. The document states that if an event is mishandled, the main responsible person will face administrative consequences, ranging from a warning to dismissal. If the situation is severe, disciplinary action within the Party may be initiated, including severe internal warnings or dismissals. Finally, cases involving misconduct or negligence may be referred to the judicial system for investigation.
The document also specifies that “online public opinion must be initially assessed within 2 hours and a handling report prepared within 24 hours.” This means that local officials have little buffer time when dealing with sensitive incidents.
Information retrieved online shows that on July 1st this year, the Beijing Emergency Management Bureau website released the “Beijing Network Security Incident Emergency Plan,” requiring all districts and departments to report to the Municipal Cyberspace Security Emergency Office within 2 hours of confirming an incident. On the 2nd, Shanghai authorities pledged to report to the municipal government and party committee within “30 minutes orally and 1 hour in writing,” introducing a system of “initial report, continuous report, and final report” to ensure timely updates on the situation and analysis. Additionally, authorities in Shaanxi and Nanjing, Jiangsu province, propose reporting handling opinions within 2 hours for major accidents.
A law professor from Tsinghua University in Beijing commented that this “real-time control” model can indeed suppress societal discontent in the short term. However, over time, it will severely damage the government’s credibility. He noted that if incidents are handled secretly and public opinion continues to be suppressed, the public will increasingly suspect hidden truths behind the issues, citing past incidents like the Beijing Leiyang event and the disappearance of school student Hu Xinyu in Shangrao, Jiangxi, where allegations about organ harvesting arose, with related videos recently being deleted online.
Independent commentator Li Jianguo (pseudonym) was frank in stating that top CCP officials are shifting risks to lower-level officials through “high-pressure accountability,” leading local officials to adopt harsh suppression measures to protect themselves. He highlighted a potential future where society becomes an environment where people “only listen to propaganda and don’t trust investigations.”
Another political scholar from southern China added that under such pressures, grassroots governments increasingly resemble “firefighters for the internet,” rushing to extinguish any fires but never addressing the root causes openly. He forewarned that continued in this manner may erode societal trust and lead to irreparable rifts between officials and citizens.
On platforms like Weibo and Xiaohongshu, it is observed that numerous comments related to sudden events have disappeared, leaving only reposts of government announcements. A netizen, after having their post deleted, questioned the authorities, saying, “When a child goes missing, they do nothing; but when it comes to catching criminals, they act swiftly. They don’t go to save those who need help.”
Li Jianguo pointed out that such questioning is often short-lived but reflects a sense of helplessness under controlled public opinion. Scholars believe that this atmosphere could potentially become an underlying source of social division.
With the CCP advancing its digitized surveillance and “real-time accountability” methods, online public opinion control is entering a phase where every second is crucial. On September 22, the CCP Central Cyberspace Administration formally announced a two-month special campaign called “Cleaning Up and Addressing Maliciously Inciting Negative Emotions.” This operation targets social platforms, short videos, live streaming, and conducts a comprehensive review of topics, trending lists, recommendations, barrage comments, and reviews.
According to official statements, this network “crackdown” primarily focuses on inciting extreme emotional opposition, promoting panic and anxiety, spreading false disasters and rumors, forging government announcements, taking passages out of context, fabricating conspiracy theories, among others. The authorities emphasized that this campaign would verify and rectify the platform’s recommendation mechanisms, trending ranking lists, and topic pushes, taking action against violative platforms or accountable individuals.
In response, a netizen commentator, Mr. Zhang, stated that the authorities’ internet “crackdown” is related to the growing expression of dissatisfaction with the system by netizens. He reported that numerous comments on WeChat and TikTok have been censored: “More and more people are making comments that are unfavorable to the government. I merely reposted some news about the economic downturn on WeChat or expressed complaints about daily life, and as a result, my posts were flagged as violations or my images wouldn’t send. I was even banned for over ten days for posting a photo of fried rice.”
Mr. Zhang criticized the CCP authorities, saying, “In official statements, everything is portrayed as positive, but we cannot express our anxieties and helplessness in our daily lives. Now, you don’t see many people on the streets; ordinary folks are not going out to save money. At home, all we can do is swipe on our phones, but even expressing opinions is restricted.”
Shortly after the initiation of the so-called “clean internet campaign,” platforms were summoned or reported. For instance, ByteDance’s news platform, “Today’s Headlines,” was instructed to rectify issues related to harmful content in its trending and topic recommendation sections, while UCWeb, under Alibaba, faced regulatory intervention for allowing “sensitive and malicious topics” to dominate its trending lists.
Wang Zhiyuan (pseudonym), a legal scholar from Shandong, pointed out that the biggest problem with the “clean internet campaign” lies in the blurred boundaries and unclear standards. He remarked, “What constitutes ‘inciting anxiety’? What is ‘inciting opposition’? These concepts are highly subjective, leaving law enforcement with significant discretionary powers. As a result, to safeguard themselves, local officials tend to handle situations overzealously and extensively, leading to even legitimate criticism being censored. Over time, public opinion spaces risk being cleansed, while societal contradictions remain concealed.”
Some scholars believe that in the short term, this mode of control by the CCP may help the regime avert further crises, but accumulated public doubts and dissatisfaction may lead to larger-scale protests in the future.