Telling both sides of online story

Editor's note: Chu, a Fudan University lecturer, writes a micro-blog under the name Wenyuangedaxueshi, or "Great Scholar". He has more than 50,000 followers on Sina Weibo.

Weibo is certainly a good channel for disseminating information, but the cases of Qinhuohuo and Lierchaisi should sound warning bells for netizens, because they emphasize that we should be responsible for what we say, especially micro-bloggers with many followers, even though the Internet is a virtual space.

However, many legal professionals have raised the question: Should the government be directly involved in cases of this sort? If rumors damage people's reputations, it seems more reasonable for the victims themselves to come forward and request moral and legal help.

I think it is a legal topic open to discussion because it's also related to the definition of freedom of speech. I believe these cases will prove beneficial by helping to clarify the definition of freedom of speech.

It's important to combat rumors, but there must be a strict distinction between rumor and truth. We need truth, but not a "Department of Truth".

Qinhuohuo's case reminds me to exercise caution when I want to forward some exciting micro-blogs. All micro-bloggers want to become popular online and attract a lot of comments and forwards, but rumors should not be encouraged.

I heard a story during a dinner in the summer of 2012. I took it down and posted it on a micro-blog. More than 20,000 people forwarded the post. However, some people said it was a just rumor and reported the case to Sina Weibo. I usually don't bother to defend myself, even if people question me online and, as a result, it was decided that I had fabricated the rumor and then spread it. My user account was suspended for two weeks. Later, I dined with the subject of the story and he gave me his version of events, which was generally the same as what I'd posted, although a few details were different.

I told myself that I deserved to have my user account suspended because I failed to check the facts. But confirming information is not easy because different people may have different narrative angles at different times and their accounts may be contradictory, and people's memories are not always reliable.

Therefore, I think we should regard micro-blogs as an open platform for debate. People put their different opinions about the same thing on the table and support those opinions with facts and evidence, which is actually helpful in uncovering the truth.

Seeking truth from facts is in the spirit of the Communist Party of China, and it's something we should do in our daily lives.

Comparing credit cards is one of my interests. I like using credit cards supplied by a specific bank, so from time to time I write comments, both positive and negative, about those cards. However, many people have asked whether I have taken money from Bank of China, the bank in question, but that's not the case.

It seems natural that if you say something positive about institutions that are often the subject of criticism, especially banks, people will believe you've been paid to write the comment or that the company is involved in some way. However, I don't have all that many followers, so it's not a big problem for me.

There are indeed occasions where publishers make contact and ask me to forward their micro-blogs, which are usually just book promotions. In cases like these, I reject them outright because I haven't read the books.

I can accept the use of micro-blogs as promotional channels. However, I hope they won't consist purely of ads, but will also include a range of comments, from positive feedback, which explains the merits of an item, to negative reviews that point out the drawbacks. I would be totally OK with that.

Jason Chu was talking to Yang Yang.