The present study investigates the Chinese public’s perception toward the widely adopted (and often accused of misuse) technology of face recognition. Through topic modeling and a social network analysis of 151,654 Weibo posts, we examine the “content dimension” and the “actor dimension” of civic discussions on facial recognition technology. Our results demonstrate that there is rising social concern and skepticism directed at the commercial use of this biodata-collected technology in China’s cyberspace, despite the state’s adoption, supervision, and regulation of facial recognition technology being broadly granted. Moreover, while our findings illustrate an extent of openness and equality within the public debates on facial recognition technology, they also show the Chinese government becoming an important “interlocutor” within the said debates, with discursive engagement from industry and academia largely marginalized. Drawing on the results, we suggest that further investigation into the formation of China’s scientific public sphere should be located within the broader context of China’s vision of a centrally planned digital economy.
BauerABognerA (2020) Let’s (not) talk about synthetic biology: Framing an emerging technology in public and stakeholder dialogues. Public Understanding of Science29(5): 492–507.
2.
BeckU (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: SAGE.
BleiDM (2012) Probabilistic topic models. Communications of the ACM55(4): 77–84.
5.
BrossardDLewensteinBV (2009) A critical appraisal of models of public understanding of science. In: KahlorLStoutP (eds) Understanding and Communicating Science: New Agendas in Communication. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 11–39.
ChenFFuXHeYXueC (2018) Identifying Weibo opinion leaders with social network analysis and influence diffusion model. Data Analysis and Knowledge Discovery2(12): 60–67.
8.
ChenWTuFZhengP (2017) A transnational networked public sphere of air pollution: Analysis of a Twitter network of PM2.5 from the risk society perspective. Information, Communication & Society207: 1005–1023.
9.
CookGPieriERobbinsPT (2004) ‘The scientists think and the public feels’: Expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food. Discourse & Society15(4): 433–449.
10.
FangX (2014) Local people’s understanding of risk from civil nuclear power in the Chinese context. Public Understanding of Science23(3): 283–298.
11.
FangXYanF (2017) The complexity, harmfulness and countermeasures research of China Internet industry monopoly. Journal of Shantou University (Humanities and Social Sciences Edition)3: 49–54 (in Chinese).
12.
GamsonWAModiglianiA (1989) Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology95: 1–37.
13.
GerhardsJSchäferMS (2009) Two normative models of science in the public sphere: human genome sequencing in German and US mass media. Public Understanding of Science18(4): 437–451.
HaerpferCInglehartRMorenoAWelzelCKizilovaKDiez-MedranoJM, et al. (eds) (2020) World Values Survey: Round Seven—Country-Pooled Datafile. Madrid, Spain & Vienna. Vienna, Austria: JD Systems Institute & WVSA Secretariat.
16.
HanGWangW (2015) Mapping user relationships for health information diffusion on microblogging in China: A social network analysis of Sina Weibo. Asian Journal of Communication251: 65–83.
17.
JiaHLiuL (2014) Unbalanced progress: The hard road from science popularization to public engagement with science in China. Public Understanding of Science23(1): 32–33.
18.
JiaHMiaoW (2017) Theoretical origins and developments of science communication, risk communication, and health communication, and the implications of Chinese communication research. Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication39(02): 66–89. [In Chinese]
19.
KingGPanJRobertME, (2013) How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression. The American Political Science Review107(2): 326–343.
20.
KostkaG (2019) China’s social credit systems and public opinion: Explaining high levels of approval. New Media & Society21(7): 1565–1593.
21.
KostkaGSteinackerLMeckelM (2021) Between security and convenience: Facial recognition technology in the eyes of citizens in China, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Public Understanding of Science30(6): 671–690.
22.
LiangJLiuXZhangW (2019) Scientists vs laypeople: How genetically modified food is discussed on a Chinese Q&A website. Public Understanding of Science28(8): 991–1004.
23.
LinkovaMStockelovaT (2012) Public accountability and the politicisation of science: The peculiar journey of Czech research assessment. Science and Public Policy39: 618–629.
LüL (2009) The value of the use of biotechnology: Public views in China and Europe. Public Understanding of Science18(4): 481–492.
26.
LuSChenWLiXZhengP (2018) The Chinese smog crisis as media event: Examining Twitter discussion of the documentary under the dome. Policy & Internet10: 483–508.
27.
MaeseelePASchuurmanD (2008) Biotechnology and the popular press in Northern Belgium: A case study of hegemonic media discourses and the interpretive struggle. Science Communication29(4): 435–471.
28.
MairederASchlöglS (2014) 24 hours of an #outcry: The networked publics of a socio-political debate. European Journal of Communication29(6): 687–702.
29.
NisbetMC (2009) Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development512: 12–23.
30.
PalenJ (1999) Review: science in the public eye. Bioscience49(1): 75–77.
31.
RenJPetersHPAllgaierJLoY-Y (2014) Similar challenges but different responses: Media coverage of measles vaccination in the UK and China. Public Understanding of Science23(4): 366–375.
32.
StevensKKegelmeyerPAndrzejewskiDButtlerD (2012) Exploring topic coherence over many models and many topics. In: Proceedings of the 2012 joint conference on empirical methods in natural language processing and computational natural language learning (EMNLP-CoNLL’12), Jeju Island, South Korea, 12–14 July, pp. 952–961. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
33.
StierSSchünemannWJSteigerS (2018) Of activists and gatekeepers: Temporal and structural properties of policy networks on Twitter. New Media & Society20(5): 1910–1930.
34.
SunY (2020) How conversational ties are formed in an online community: A social network analysis of a tweet chat group. Information, Communication & Society2310: 1463–1480.
35.
WangHYuD (2018) Opinion leader relationship and subject participation tendency: A coupling analysis of Weibo hot events. Journalism & Communication1: 51–65, 127 (in Chinese).
36.
WangLChenX (2017) We-media science communication impact on media salience: An empirical study on Guokr We-chat public account. Journalism Bimonthly5: 68–76, 149 (in Chinese).
37.
Xinhua (2020) “Public survey report on face recognition applications (2020)” released 60% of respondents believe that face recognition technology has a tendency to abuse. Available at: http://www.xinhuanet.com/tech/2020-10/19/c_1126627071.htm (accessed 11 August 2021).
38.
XuJHuangHYouX (2021) The ideal and reality of Weibo as the “public sphere” of gender issues: Computer-assisted content analysis based on the topic “masculinity.”Chinese Journal of Journalism & Communication5: 106–124 (in Chinese).
39.
XuQYuNSongY (2018) User engagement in public discourse on genetically modified organisms: The role of opinion leaders on social media. Science Communication40(6): 691–717.
40.
YangSQuan-HaaseARannenbergK (2017) The changing public sphere on Twitter: Network structure, elites and topics of the #righttobeforgotten. New Media & Society19(12): 1983–2002.
41.
YangZ (2021) Deconstruction of the discourse authority of scientists in Chinese online science communication: Investigation of citizen science communicators on Chinese knowledge sharing networks. Public Understanding of Science30: 993–1007.
42.
ZengJChanCHSchäferMS (2020) Contested Chinese dreams of AI? Public discourse about artificial intelligence on WeChat and people’s daily online. Information Communication & Society25: 319–340.
43.
ZhangJY (2015) The “credibility paradox” in China’s science communication: Views from scientific practitioners. Public Understanding of Science24(8): 913–927.
44.
ZhangXChenAZhangW (2021) Before and after the Chinese gene-edited human babies: Multiple discourses of gene editing on social media. Public Understanding of Science30(5): 570–587.
45.
ZhengPShahinS (2020) Live tweeting live debates: How Twitter reflects and refracts the US political climate in a campaign season. Information, Communication & Society23(3): 337–357.
