Asro
A Comprehensive Definition of Cyberviolence
Under Article 2 of the draft, cyberviolence is formally defined as the use of the internet to harm the lawful rights and interests of individuals or organizations—specifically their reputation, honor, privacy, and personal information—through concentrated or sustained activities. This includes the organized publication of insults, rumors, and defamation, as well as the incitement of hatred and the fomenting of antagonism. Notably, the law also targets the illegal disclosure of personal information (doxing) and continuous online intimidation or harassment.
The scope of the law is expansive, applying to all activities within the mainland territory of the People’s Republic of China. Furthermore, Article 3 introduces an extraterritorial component, stating that overseas individuals or organizations targeting domestic entities or citizens with cyberviolence will be held responsible under the relevant provisions of the law. This reflects the government’s intent to address the global nature of digital harassment and the potential for cross-border influence operations.
The Evolution of China’s Digital Governance
The release of this draft law is the culmination of years of increasing concern over the "toxic" nature of certain online communities. China’s internet population reached 1.09 billion users as of December 2023, according to the China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC). As the digital space became the primary arena for public discourse, high-profile cases of cyberbullying led to tragic real-world consequences, including the suicides of several young influencers and private citizens who were targeted by "keyboard warriors."
Previously, cyberviolence was addressed through a patchwork of regulations, including the Civil Code, the Criminal Law, and various "Clean and Bright" (Qinglang) campaigns initiated by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC). In September 2023, the Supreme People’s Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, and the Ministry of Public Security jointly issued "Guiding Opinions on Punishing Cyberviolence Crimes According to Law." This new draft law seeks to elevate those opinions into a permanent statutory framework, providing clearer definitions and more robust enforcement mechanisms.
Platform Accountability and Technical Mandates
A central pillar of the draft law is the imposition of strict "gatekeeper" responsibilities on internet service providers. Under Chapter II, platforms are required to establish sophisticated monitoring and identification systems. This includes:
- Real-Name Verification: Article 12 mandates that providers of information publication and instant messaging services must verify the real identity of users. Failure to provide this information results in a denial of service.
- AI-Driven Monitoring: Article 13 requires platforms to use a combination of artificial intelligence, big data, and manual review to identify risks of cyberviolence. They must build "early-warning models" and "cyberviolence marker pools" to flag potential harassment before it escalates.
- Intervention Mechanisms: When a risk is detected, platforms must stop using algorithmic recommendations to push related content and may limit traffic, suspend updates, or place warning markers on irregular accounts.
- User Protection Tools: Platforms must provide users with "one-click" protection settings, allowing them to block unknown users or prohibit comments and forwards on their posts.
The draft specifically highlights the role of AI, noting that platforms must prevent the use of generative AI to produce or spread cyberviolence information. This includes implementing systems to label AI-generated content, ensuring that digital harassment can be tracked back to its source.
Targeted Governance: MCNs and Influencers
Chapter IV introduces specific regulations for Multi-Channel Network (MCN) agencies and high-influence accounts. MCNs, which manage professional influencers, are now legally obligated to monitor their signed accounts for cyberviolence. If an MCN is found to have organized or incited harassment, platforms are required to limit their monetization, remove them from the platform, or blacklist them.
Article 33 dictates that creators of public accounts with large followings must not use their influence to incite "witch hunts" or online mobs. They are tasked with managing their comment sections and group chats to prevent the spread of harmful content. This shift moves the burden of moderation from the state and platforms onto the influencers themselves, effectively deputizing popular content creators in the fight against digital toxicity.
Judicial Protection and the Injunction Mechanism
One of the most significant legal innovations in the draft is the "Injunction Against Harm to Personality Rights" (Article 37). This allows victims who are currently being targeted, or are about to be targeted, by cyberviolence to apply for a court injunction. If the court finds that the harassment would cause "harm that is difficult to repair," it can order the perpetrator or the platform to stop the conduct immediately.
Furthermore, the law addresses the historically difficult task of evidence collection in digital cases. Article 41 states that in private prosecution cases where the victim has difficulty gathering evidence, the People’s Court shall require public security organs (police) to provide assistance. This "public-private" bridge aims to lower the barrier for victims seeking justice through the court system.
For cases that "seriously impact social order and national interests," the procuratorate (prosecutors) are empowered to initiate public prosecutions. This ensures that the state can intervene in major incidents of cyberviolence even if the individual victim does not or cannot file a lawsuit.
Strict Penalties and Sanctions
The draft law outlines a rigorous penalty regime for non-compliance. Internet service providers that fail to fulfill their obligations can face fines ranging from 50,000 to 10 million RMB, depending on the severity of the violation and the resulting social impact. In extreme cases, platforms may have their business licenses revoked or be ordered to shut down entirely.
Individual perpetrators and organizations that organize or incite cyberviolence face administrative punishments, such as detention or fines under public security regulations. If the conduct constitutes a crime—such as criminal defamation or insult—perpetrators will face criminal prosecution. Article 55 also integrates cyberviolence violations into China’s social credit system, allowing the state to blacklist "seriously untrustworthy entities" from accessing online services.
Official Responses and Social Implications
Government officials have emphasized that the law is not intended to stifle legitimate public opinion oversight or the reporting of crimes. Article 59 explicitly exempts lawful reporting and "public opinion oversight" from the scope of the cyberviolence law.
"The goal is to foster a healthy, uplifting online ecology that adheres to Core Socialist Values," a representative from the state cybersecurity department noted during a briefing. "By establishing clear rules and technical standards, we provide a shield for the vulnerable and a sword against those who use the anonymity of the internet to destroy lives."
Legal analysts suggest that the law’s success will depend on how "concentrated or sustained" activity is interpreted in practice. While the law provides robust protection for victims, some observers note that the broad definitions could lead to over-moderation by platforms eager to avoid the massive fines outlined in Chapter VI. The requirement for platforms to report "notable increases in browsing or searching" to the government also signals a high level of state integration into daily internet traffic monitoring.
Timeline for Implementation
The draft is currently in its public comment phase, allowing stakeholders, legal experts, and citizens to provide feedback. Following the review of these comments, the draft will be refined and submitted to the National People’s Congress for formal adoption. While a specific effective date has not been finalized, the rapid progression from "Guiding Opinions" in 2023 to a comprehensive draft law in 2024 suggests that the government views the governance of cyberviolence as a top-tier legislative priority.
As China moves toward a more codified digital legal system, the Law on the Prevention and Governance of Cyberviolence will serve as a foundational pillar alongside the Cybersecurity Law and the Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL). It represents a definitive move toward a "civilized" internet, where the rights of the individual are balanced against the collective responsibility of the platform and the state’s mandate for social stability.
Asep Darmawan
Layla Zulfa
