Interpretation and Improvement of the Provisions on the Governance of Online Violence Information

Background:

Numerous empirical studies have long demonstrated that the reputation of entrepreneurs can influence corporate performance in many respects. An enhanced entrepreneurial reputation can positively affect company performance, effectively curb inefficient investment, and improve innovation outcomes. Compared with ordinary entrepreneurs, enterprises led by celebrity entrepreneurs tend to deliver even stronger performance. Whether in terms of long-term or short-term corporate performance, celebrity entrepreneurs have a positive effect, and the long-term benefits that an elevated social reputation of a celebrity entrepreneur brings to the company far outweigh the short-term gains. This fully demonstrates that an entrepreneur’s reputation is closely tied to the interests of the enterprise. Entrepreneurial reputation has become one of the most valuable assets of a company, and any gain or loss to that reputation has a decisive impact on the survival and development of the business.

When an entrepreneur’s reputation is damaged, the enterprise often suffers severe turbulence as well. In recent years, online violence targeting entrepreneurs has occurred with increasing frequency. Take Xie Guangjun, former Vice President of Baidu, as an example. After his 13-year-old daughter was accused of “doxxing and publicly shaming others online,” Xie was criticised for poor parenting, which in turn triggered further online violence directed at him personally. However, he did not respond promptly on any public platform, issuing only an apology through his private WeChat Moments. Because his response was untimely and his apology was not delivered through a public channel, netizens refused to accept it, deeming it insincere. Enraged netizens flooded the comment sections under Baidu’s official Weibo account with a large volume of negative remarks, and Baidu inevitably landed on the trending-search lists. Coinciding with the launch of Baidu’s new AI large language model, many netizens also discussed the incident and disparaged Baidu’s products beneath related news articles and announcements. Undoubtedly, this dealt a similarly tremendous blow to Baidu’s corporate image and product reputation. Such online violence shaped public opinion and harmed the entrepreneur’s reputation. During the period in which online violence information was being disseminated, the enterprise faced a very real risk of significant stagnation or even termination of its normal operations and business partnerships. Online violence has produced serious negative impacts on every aspect of enterprise operations and corporate value.

Against this backdrop, the objectives of the “Qinglang” (Clear and Bright) series of special campaigns deployed by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) in both 2024 and 2025 have emphasised the protection of enterprises targeted by online violence. The promulgation of the Provisions on the Governance of Online Violence Information provides a further practical basis for the protection of entrepreneurs’ reputations. Drawing on these Provisions, this article offers a clause-by-clause analysis to clarify their key points and to provide guidance for entrepreneurs seeking to defend their reputations on internet platforms.

Interpretation and Improvement:

I. What Constitutes Online Violence Information

Article 32 of the Provisions on the Governance of Online Violence Information defines the term as follows: “Online violence information as used in these Provisions refers to unlawful and harmful information that is released in a concentrated manner against an individual through the internet in the form of text, images, audio, video, or other formats, and that contains content such as insults and verbal abuse, rumour-mongering and defamation, incitement of hatred, intimidation and coercion, invasion of privacy, as well as accusations, mockery, disparagement, and discrimination that affect physical and mental health.” This definition generally clarifies the scope of online violence and specifies the concrete forms that such conduct may take. Nevertheless, several elements merit careful interpretation.

First, how should the element of “released in a concentrated manner” be understood? The authors believe that not all negative information can, on its own, constitute an act of online violence. The requirement of “concentrated release” means that online violence information is formed by the accumulation of multiple pieces of negative information. To satisfy this requirement, one of the following two scenarios should apply: (1) spatial concentration in the horizontal dimension, such as the simultaneous dissemination of identical content through multiple accounts and across multiple platforms; or (2) temporal concentration in the vertical dimension, such as multiple negative comments posted under negative information about a particular subject within a short period, or a particular subject posting negative information at high frequency. In actual cases, for example, in February of this year, NIO’s legal department issued a statement stating that NIO and its brands had been subjected to sustained, organised, malicious attacks and smear campaigns, and that batches of accounts had recently launched attacks against the company. The negative information posted by these accounts, taken together, should constitute online violence information of the first type—spatial concentration in the horizontal dimension. In the dispute between “Chai Duidui” and Pang Donglai, the influencer “Chai Duidui” released a large number of videos slandering Pang Donglai’s products within a short period and repeatedly made mocking and defamatory remarks about Pang Donglai during livestreams. The multiple pieces of negative and false information posted by “Chai Duidui” in that case, taken together, should be defined as online violence information of the second type—temporal concentration in the vertical dimension.

Second, the criteria for determination also differ depending on the type of information. The five categories of “insults and verbal abuse,” “rumour-mongering and defamation,” “incitement of hatred,” “intimidation and coercion,” and “invasion of privacy” do not need to reach the threshold of causing “effects on physical and mental health” and can be directly recognised as “online violence information.” By contrast, the two categories of “accusations and mockery” and “disparagement and discrimination” must meet the standard of being “sufficient to cause, or having already caused, effects on the victim’s physical and mental health” before they can be recognised as “online violence information.”

Finally, information that can constitute online violence must be unlawful and harmful information. If negative information is not unlawful or harmful but instead has a lawful basis and is supported by solid evidence, it should be recognised as legitimate public-opinion oversight rather than negative information capable of constituting online violence.

II. The Applicable Subjects

Natural persons are the primary targets of online violence, and the protection of natural persons against online violence was the logical starting point for drafting the Provisions on the Governance of Online Violence Information. Whether enterprises, as legal persons, can directly invoke the Provisions to assert their rights depends on whether the term “individual” in Article 32 encompasses only natural persons or both natural persons and legal persons. The authors believe that, from the perspective of systematic interpretation under Chinese law, the term “individual” as used in past legislation has consistently referred only to natural persons and excluded legal persons. For example, in the Personal Information Protection Law, the definition of “personal information” reads: “Personal information refers to all kinds of information related to identified or identifiable natural persons recorded by electronic or other means, excluding information that has been anonymised.” It is self-evident that “individual” refers only to natural persons.

However, because enterprises, as legal persons, enjoy the right of reputation just as natural persons do, and because online violence, as a tortious act, infringes precisely upon the right of reputation of both natural persons and legal persons, the authors believe that, at a time when China is advancing policies to protect enterprise reputation against online violence while the relevant rules have yet to be fully refined, when an enterprise is subjected to online violence, the relevant provisions may be applied by analogy, as the circumstances warrant.

III. The Governance Framework for Online Violence

Article 4 of the Provisions on the Governance of Online Violence Information: The national cyberspace administration department is responsible for the overall coordination of the governance of online violence information nationwide and for the related supervision and administration work. The relevant departments of the State Council, including public security, culture and tourism, and radio and television, shall carry out the supervision and administration of online violence information within the scope of their respective duties. Local cyberspace administration departments are responsible for the overall coordination of the governance of online violence information and for the related supervision and administration work within their respective administrative regions. The relevant local departments, including public security, culture and tourism, and radio and television, shall carry out the supervision and administration of online violence information within their respective administrative regions within the scope of their respective duties.

Analysis: This article establishes, in general terms, the institutional framework for the governance of online violence information and is of great significance to the governance of online violence. It clarifies that, in incidents of online violence, the cyberspace administration offices are responsible for the overall coordination of the relevant work, while other departments are responsible for assisting the cyberspace administration offices in supervising online violence information.

From a practical standpoint, the authors believe that this article lays the legal foundation for the cyberspace administration offices to serve as the receiving authority for the governance of online violence cases. In fact, taking the Enterprise-Related Infringing Information Reception Service Station in Yangpu District, Shanghai, as an example, the station has already established a closed-loop service consisting of “providing enterprises with preliminary communication and consultation—receiving disposal applications and evidentiary materials submitted by enterprises—conducting preliminary verification and guiding enterprises to refine their materials—submitting the case to the Cyberspace Administration Committee of the Shanghai Municipal Party Committee for assessment and disposal—following up on the disposal outcome.” Entrepreneurs seeking to defend their rights against online violence now have a clear point of contact: an authority designated to receive their cases.

Article 5 of the Provisions on the Governance of Online Violence Information: Internet-related industry organisations are encouraged to strengthen industry self-discipline, carry out public awareness campaigns on the rule of law regarding the governance of online violence information, urge and guide network information service providers to strengthen the governance of online violence information and to accept public supervision, and provide assistance and support such as aid and relief to users who have been harmed by online violence information.

Analysis: This article highlights the bridging role of industry organisations. Internet-related industry organisations should also contribute to the governance of online violence across the pre-event, in-event, and post-event stages. For instance, the Shanghai Internet Industry Association, as an industry organisation, has on multiple occasions hosted and participated in thematic conferences and forums on defending rights against online violence, exploring the concepts and approaches for governing online violence.

The authors suggest that a further avenue to explore under this provision is the establishment of local, authoritative rapid-response platforms for debunking enterprise-related rumours. Such platforms, led by local cyberspace administration offices, coordinated by industry associations, and involving mainstream media, would verify reported leads as quickly as possible and strive to issue clarifications at the earliest stage of an incident, before public opinion ferments, thereby avoiding irreversible reputational damage to enterprises caused by untimely responses.

IV. Specific Measures for the Governance of Online Violence

Article 8, Paragraph 2 of the Provisions on the Governance of Online Violence Information: Network information service providers shall strengthen the management of user account information, provide account information authentication assistance to relevant subjects who have been harmed by online violence information, and prevent and stop the impersonation, spoofing, or malicious association of relevant subjects for the purpose of unlawful registration or the release of information.

Analysis for Rights Protection: When online violence information emerges, entrepreneurs should promptly communicate with the platform and request platform protection. First, they should seek authentication of their personal accounts so that netizens can identify and distinguish authoritative sources of information about the incident. Second, with respect to confirmed or suspected impersonation, spoofing, or malicious association with the relevant subject—including the release or impending release of sensitive, unverified information and malicious comments—entrepreneurs should request that the platform adopt protective measures such as traffic throttling, non-display, or review prior to publication.

Article 10, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Provisions on the Governance of Online Violence Information: No organisation or individual may take advantage of online violence incidents to engage in marketing hype such as riding on the popularity of the incident for traffic generation or promotional traffic diversion, nor may they organise the production, reproduction, release, or dissemination of online violence information through bulk registration or manipulation of user accounts. Where any organisation or individual knows that others are engaged in unlawful or criminal activities involving online violence information, no organisation or individual may provide them with support or assistance in the form of data, technology, traffic, funding, or the like.

Analysis for Rights Protection: With respect to certain accounts that exploit the popularity surrounding online violence incidents to engage in hype and marketing—such as baseless speculation, traffic diversion, direct sale of goods, or disparaging comparisons—entrepreneurs may request that the platform impose restrictions. The means of restriction may refer to Article 21 (which permits measures such as warnings, deletion of information, restriction of account functions, closure of accounts, removal of subscribed or followed accounts, suspension of monetisation privileges, and, in serious cases, blacklisting and prohibition of re-registration).

The problems of “internet water armies” (paid online trolls) and “matrix accounts” constitute a significant source of online violence. In particular, much of the online violence targeting enterprises and entrepreneurs stems from acts of unfair competition by rivals. Common tactics include the bulk release of online violence information through matrix accounts and the organisation of internet water armies to post harmful comments, thereby attacking the reputation of enterprises and entrepreneurs and damaging brand image. For example, Xiaomi’s legal department recently issued a statement noting that a criminal syndicate had used automated text-generation software to fabricate false information about Xiaomi and had manipulated nearly ten thousand social media accounts to maliciously spread rumours and disseminate false statements, while also maliciously hyping the matter by inciting online antagonism and drawing disparaging comparisons, seriously defaming Xiaomi. In this case, Xiaomi could invoke this article to act against the online violence perpetrated by the criminal syndicate. This article helps curb the problems of “internet water armies” and “matrix accounts.”

Article 16 of the Provisions on the Governance of Online Violence Information: Internet news information service providers shall adhere to the correct political direction, public-opinion orientation, and value orientation, and shall strengthen public-interest publicity on the governance of online violence information. Internet news information service providers shall not collect, edit, release, or repost news information involving online violence by means of exaggerating facts, excessive sensationalism, or one-sided reporting. Where news information involving online violence that has been collected, edited, released, or reposted by an internet news information service provider is found to be untrue or unfair, the provider shall immediately make a public correction and eliminate the impact.

Analysis for Rights Protection: With respect to self-media accounts that position themselves as “news aggregators” or “current affairs commentators,” if they engage in the above conduct, such accounts may be required to delete the information in question and to publicly issue a statement of correction in order to eliminate the impact. At the same time, read together with Article 15 of these Provisions (which provides that, where a platform discovers unlawful information involving online violence, or discovers harmful information involving online violence in prominent positions within its services or in key areas likely to attract user attention, it shall immediately cease transmission and adopt disposal measures such as deletion, blocking, or disconnection of links), entrepreneurs may also request that the platform impose restrictions on the relevant content and accounts.

In addition, in order to eliminate the impact, the entrepreneur may also require the publisher of the news in question to post its public statement of correction on the aforementioned local, authoritative rapid-response platform for debunking enterprise-related rumours, so as to achieve the best possible effect in eliminating the impact.

Article 19 of the Provisions on the Governance of Online Violence Information: Network information service providers shall strengthen the management of online forum communities and online groups, and shall prohibit users from producing, reproducing, releasing, or disseminating online violence information in sections, entries, super topics, groups, or other areas, and shall prohibit the creation of forum communities and group accounts containing online violence information through means such as anonymous submissions or remote call-outs. The founders and administrators of online forum communities and online groups shall fulfil their management responsibilities, and upon discovering that users have produced, reproduced, released, or disseminated online violence information, shall take management measures such as restricting posting or removing users from groups in accordance with law and agreements.

Analysis for Rights Protection: Where an entrepreneur discovers forum communities and group accounts on a platform that contain online violence targeting them (such as Weibo super topics, Tieba posts, discussion groups, etc.), they may request that the platform take down the sections involving violence. At the same time, if an entrepreneur discovers online violence information in sections or online communities that are not specifically dedicated to online violence against them, they may also request that the administrators of the relevant sections or communities take appropriate measures to prevent harm.

Article 20 of the Provisions on the Governance of Online Violence Information: Producers and operators of public accounts shall establish and improve a whole-process information content security review mechanism covering publication and promotion, interactive commenting, and other stages, and upon discovering online violence information in areas such as account follow-up comments, shall promptly take measures such as reporting and disposal.

Analysis for Rights Protection: MCN (Multi-Channel Network) agencies themselves also bear certain obligations in the governance of online violence. When online violence occurs under an MCN’s accounts, entrepreneurs may also request that the MCN agency take disposal measures such as deletion, blocking, curated commenting, or reporting with respect to the online violence under its accounts.

In recent years, self-media accounts that fabricate harmful information to chase traffic have proliferated. In fact, behind many of these self-media accounts are contracted MCN agencies that run operations and divert traffic. In the campaign to clean up self-media, cleaning up MCN agencies is a top priority.

Article 24 of the Provisions on the Governance of Online Violence Information: Where a network information service provider discovers that the risk of online violence information involves any of the following circumstances, it shall also provide users with guidance on protection against online violence information and with protective and relief services, assist in initiating protective measures, and report to the relevant departments such as cyberspace administration and public security… (2) where the online violence information invades the personal privacy of a user.

Analysis for Rights Protection: Where online violence involves an entrepreneur’s personal privacy, the entrepreneur may directly request relief measures from the platform, and the platform should also provide guidance and protective relief. This applies to situations in which an entrepreneur is subjected to public doxxing, or in which their family situation or family privacy is publicly disclosed. As illustrated by the case of Xie Guangjun’s daughter cited earlier, that incident also caused Xie himself, the former Baidu Vice President, to suffer online violence; in such circumstances, he too could invoke this article to seek relief.

Article 25, Paragraph 1 of the Provisions on the Governance of Online Violence Information: Where a network information service provider discovers or disposes of online violence information, it shall promptly preserve data such as the content of the information and the number of views, comments, and reposts. Network information service providers shall provide users with convenient functions such as expedited evidence collection for online violence information, and shall provide convenience for users to defend their rights in accordance with law and agreements.

Analysis for Rights Protection: When an entrepreneur discovers online violence information, they may promptly notify the platform and request that the platform promptly preserve the relevant evidentiary information, thereby making it easier for the entrepreneur to defend their rights and collect evidence.

We have noted that some platforms have recently upgraded their infringement-reporting services. In cases involving infringement of portrait rights and privacy rights, users can now enable a feature that blocks the dissemination of identical infringing content. We look forward to this feature being extended to more scenarios involving the protection of individuals’ right of reputation and enterprises’ business reputation, thereby achieving an upgrade in governance from “passive response” to “proactive prevention.”