CCP uses "National Network Identity Authentication Public Service Management Measures" to conduct further censorship
How to understand 国家网络身份认证公共服务管理办法
The Chinese government’s recent proposal for a national network identity authentication system claims to be guided by the principle of voluntary participation. On the surface, it appears aligned with international norms surrounding privacy and digital rights. Individuals can, the text says, opt into receiving a digital identity credential—one that would streamline access to online services and reduce the spread of false information. However, the concept of voluntariness within the political logic of the Chinese Communist Party cannot be interpreted through a liberal-democratic lens.
The CCP operates as a Leninist organization, where the Party is understood to be the vanguard of the people and the central mechanism for ensuring ideological alignment across all sectors of life. Within this framework, voluntariness is a function of strategic necessity, not of personal freedom. The Party’s organizational logic rests on democratic centralism—a model that tolerates debate only until the central line is set, after which obedience is absolute. Voluntariness under such a structure is often temporal and conditional.
Historically, systems introduced with the language of choice have quickly transitioned into forms of compulsion. The health code apps during the COVID-19 pandemic are a notable example. Initially presented as tools for safety and convenience, they became mandatory for travel, work, and even entry into residential buildings. Similarly, real-name registration—first a suggestion for internet safety—became a requirement across nearly all digital platforms. These developments were not aberrations; they were consistent with the Party’s logic of controlling the narrative space and ensuring that the state remains the singular point of trust and truth.
In that context, the proposed identity authentication framework is best understood not as an optional tool for digital convenience, but as an early-stage mechanism for tightening informational and behavioral governance. The system, while nominally voluntary, creates the architecture for future compulsion. Platforms may “encourage” participation through incentives—or restrict access to users who opt out. Over time, the digital identity could become a gatekeeper for basic participation in online society.
Thus, to regard the system as truly voluntary is to misunderstand its political context. Under Leninist organizational theory, voluntariness is a flexible concept—useful in early adoption phases but ultimately subordinate to the Party’s strategic priorities. This proposal is no exception. Its logic is not freedom of choice, but calibrated control, achieved with minimal resistance.