CDT presents a month-to-month sequence of censored content material that has been added to our “404 Deleted Content material Archive.” Every month, we publish a abstract of content material blocked or deleted (typically yielding the message “404: content material not discovered”) from Chinese language platforms reminiscent of WeChat, Weibo, Douyin (TikTok’s counterpart within the Chinese language market), Xiaohongshu (RedNote), Bilibili, Zhihu, Douban, and others. Though this content material archived by CDT Chinese language editors represents solely a small fraction of the web content material that disappears every day from the Chinese language web, it gives priceless perception into which matters are thought of “delicate” over time by the Social gathering-state, our on-line world authorities, and platform censors. Our totally searchable Chinese language-language “404 Deleted Content material Archive,” at present comprises 3,141 deleted articles, essays, and different items of content material. The entry for every deleted merchandise contains the writer/social media account identify, the unique publishing platform, the subject material, the date of deletion, and extra data.
Under is an inventory of key matters and a few associated deleted articles from CDT’s abstract of deleted content material for February 2026. Between February 1-28, CDT Chinese language added 59 new articles, primarily from WeChat, to the archive. (Notice that the dates confer with when an article was printed on the CDT web site, not when it was deleted from Chinese language social-media platforms.) Subjects focused for deletion in February included:
- The detention of investigative journalists Liu Hu and Wu Yingjiao
- Xenophobic and misogynistic feedback by on-line influencer Lao A
- An investigation into fraud and embezzlement at Nanjing Museum
- The sixth anniversary of COVID whistleblower Li Wenliang’s demise
- Hong Kong writer Jimmy Lai’s 20-year jail sentence
- Humanoid robots featured within the annual CCTV Spring Competition Gala
- Free Nora report on combating human trafficking
Two investigative journalists, Liu Hu and Wu Yingjiao, had been detained by police in reference to their reporting right into a corruption case in Chengdu, Sichuan province.
In early February, CDT archived 22 deleted articles in regards to the cross-provincial arrests of two investigative journalists, Liu Hu and Wu Yingjiao, in obvious reference to their reporting on a corruption case in Pujiang county, Chengdu, Sichuan province. Liu and Wu had been launched on bail two weeks later, however the case towards them stays open. Chengdu authorities insist that among the data printed by these two extremely regarded journalists was unfounded.
“‘The Final Investigative Reporter’ Liu Hu Detained for Exposing Pujiang County Social gathering Secretary’s Suspected Corruption” by Hu An, WeChat account The Aquarian
February 2
This piece from on-line journalism collective The Aquarian (水瓶纪元, Shuǐpíng jìyuán, previously translated as “Aquarius Period”), from which we printed translated excerpts on February 4, detailed the cross-border detentions of investigative reporters Liu Hu and Wu Yingjiao by Chengdu public safety officers the day prior to this. It describes the content material of the article the 2 had printed on January 29, over which they appeared to have been detained. In it, they reported allegations of corruption involving a joint development venture in Chengdu’s Pujiang county: native officers had courted personal traders (together with Liu and Wu’s supply), however their successors unilaterally broke off the settlement, apparently intent on seizing the positioning and turning it right into a kindergarten with the intention to fraudulently declare subsidies from increased ranges of presidency. Pujiang County Social gathering Secretary Pu Fayou was named within the report, which additionally highlighted his involvement in a pressured demolition case that led to a person’s suicide some years earlier. [Editor’s note: The Aquarian and its sister WeChat account 水瓶启元 (Shuǐpíng qǐyuán, “Aquarian Genesis”) were shut down in February and March, respectively. The Aquarian continues to publish a Substack newsletter.]
“The Liu Hu I Know, A Newsman of the Gallant Fraternity,” WeChat account Port Youth
February 3
This publish recounts Liu Hu’s journalistic profession together with a interval working with the writer in Guangzhou throughout its “golden age of investigative journalism, [which was] additionally the final glimmer of print media,” till lastly Liu was pushed out of the trade and compelled to publish by pseudonyms or by way of social media. The writer highlights Liu’s repeated “reincarnations” on WeChat (“I simply checked, and he’s now listed as ‘LiuHu21’”), his dogged perseverance and strict skilled requirements, and his function in on-line communities as a behind-the-scenes mentor and supporter of different journalists. Like most of the different posts gathered right here, this one expresses the writer’s longstanding anxiousness about Liu’s security. The publish portrays Liu as a latter-day jianghu—a time period Ian Johnson described in his 2023 ebook, “Sparks: China’s Underground Historians,” as referring to “the honorable bandits and rogues of the backwoods who had change into a logo for Chinese language folks with a conscience.” Alluding to the authorities’ obsession with relentless “constructive vitality” in information and elsewhere, Port Youth writes, “A patch of forest will at all times want some woodpeckers; it could’t all simply be magpies chirping good tidings. On this age of flocking magpies, woodpeckers like Liu Hu are uncommon and valuable certainly.”
“Ramifications of the Liu Hu Incident: ‘Political Karma’ Awaits These Who Would Suppress Their Critics,” by Lao Xiao, WeChat account Previous Xiao’s Random Reflections
February 3
Blogger Lao Xiao warns that Liu and Wu’s detentions “will change into an essential check case for supervision by public opinion [or ‘watchdog journalism‘] throughout the rule of regulation.” Offered as non-confrontational governance recommendation, the publish argues that native officers who heavy-handedly suppress public-opinion crises are typically solely suspending the inevitable and sometimes making issues worse for themselves, resulting in reputational injury and stalled careers even for many who escape disciplinary motion. “Each time an official makes use of heavy-handed techniques to suppress criticism, they’re writing the primary line of their political epitaph.” CDT translated pretty in depth excerpts from this piece in February.
“Liu Hu’s Detention Is The Final Nail in Journalism’s Coffin,” by Yu Feng, WeChat account I Am Yu Feng
February 4
Yu Feng, one other beneficiary of Liu Hu’s on-line journalism community-building, “at all times questioned the place he [Liu] bought the cellphone numbers to maintain registering new WeChat accounts” after successive bans. Yu writes that when Liu was beforehand detained in 2013, the detention heart positioned him amongst hardened criminals in an effort to offer him a tough time, however that he received the opposite inmates’ respect once they heard how he had uncovered corrupt officers; Liu generated much more goodwill by serving to a few of his fellow inmates apply for sentence reductions. At the moment, Yu recollects, Weibo was nonetheless free sufficient to function an efficient platform for supporters to talk out on Liu’s behalf. This time, although, supportive posts on WeChat had been being deleted nearly as shortly as they appeared, and lots of journalism professors and others had been too cowed to talk out in any respect. Yu describes the official discover on Liu Hu’s detention, focusing on such a distinguished pillar of the journalism group, as “a sign to the entire information world and society generally: this sort of investigative journalist is now not allowed to exist. That is how Chengdu, recognized for its openness, tolerance, and cultural prosperity, drives the ultimate nail into journalism’s coffin.”
“A Telephone Name With Wu Yingjiao,” by Xuanyuan Jian, WeChat account Huang Jian February 4
Whereas a lot of the posts listed right here targeted squarely on Liu Hu, this one places the highlight on his youthful colleague Wu Yingjiao. The writer emphasizes Wu’s soft-spoken method, at odds with the burden of his skilled status, and declares, “He’s not Liu Hu’s shadow, he’s one other blade—simply extra deeply hid.” The writer recollects how, when he got here beneath stress over his personal writing, Wu contacted him to supply public help from himself and Liu. Huang recollects being shocked that two folks in such dangerous conditions themselves would make such a proposal to somebody they’d by no means met in individual—all of the extra so since Wu had just lately change into a father, and had his younger household to consider:
[…] It could be simple to only casually point out this and transfer on, however I maintain getting drawn again to it.
There’s probably not far more that must be mentioned in regards to the significance of turning into a father at that [young] age, beneath these circumstances. What it does imply is that you simply begin to actually admire the worth of what it’s a must to lose. There’s one thing holding you again, now, and no person would blame you for letting it.
However he didn’t again down.
He selected to maintain writing with Liu Hu, sharing the danger collectively, being named collectively, and being detained collectively.
He didn’t use “youth,” “household,” or “parenthood” as excuses, nor as bargaining chips.
He simply stood his floor. [Source]
Controversy erupts over xenophobic and misogynistic pronouncements (significantly about Chinese language ladies who stay or examine overseas) made by on-line influencer Lao A, who gained recognition for coining the phrase “kill line” to explain poverty and homelessness within the U.S.
“Society’s Best Tragedy Is Holding Up Lao A as a Hero and Conscientious Journalists as Cowards!” by Mu Bai, WeChat account Mu Bai’s Writing is Mediocre
February 3
This text laments that investigative journalists like Liu Hu are broadly dismissed as troublemakers whereas figures like on-line influencer Lao A, “who spends all day making mountains out of international molehills and slagging off Chinese language college students abroad,” are “held up as a shining mannequin for the ages who’ll lead us into a brand new period.” Mu Bai highlights a number of problems with public curiosity that got here to gentle by investigative reporting: “Gutter oil, [melamine-tainted] Sanlu milk, meals oil in gasoline oil vehicles, this present story about psychological hospitals locking folks up unnecessarily to fleece them … if not for journalists reporting on these darkish corners, what number of extra strange folks would have been harmed?” The piece concludes: “Finally, what I wish to say is that this: the lives of strange folks in a society that holds Lao A up as a hero could be very completely different to ones in a society that celebrates journalists.”
The conclusion of an investigation into fraud and embezzlement at Nanjing Museum raises as many questions because it solutions.
In February, CDT archived 4 deleted articles in regards to the conclusion to an investigation right into a decades-long mismanagement and corruption scandal on the Nanjing Museum in Jiangsu province. (We additionally archived 5 articles on the subject in December 2025.) At the very least 5 of 137 artworks donated to the museum by the household of collector Pang Laichen had been falsely recognized as fakes, transferred to a state-owned provincial storehouse for cultural relics, and resold at public sale for a revenue. The Pang household found the subterfuge after one of many donated works—“Jiangnan Spring,” a silk-scroll portray by Ming Dynasty painter Qiu Ying, price an estimated 88 million yuan ($12.5 million)—surfaced at a Beijing public sale in Might of 2025. The story broke in December 2025, and a subsequent investigation concluded that there had been systematic mismanagement and corruption on the Nanjing Museum, and 25 people are dealing with authorized or disciplinary motion. The deleted articles from February talk about the official investigation and the museum’s public apology, noting that each elevate extra questions than they reply, together with how low-level staff might have stolen the work with out the connivance of higher-level directors reminiscent of Xu Huping, former vice-director of the museum.
“‘Jiangnan Spring’ Survived 5 Catastrophic Chapters in Human Historical past and Was Saved Secure for 500 Years … Till 1997, When It Was Offered for a Pittance by the Nanjing Museum,” by Xiang Dongliang, WeChat account Fundamental Frequent Sense
February 9
This piece by Xiang Dongliang describes the historical past of the culturally vital scroll portray “Jiangnan Spring” and discusses 5 instances that it got here beneath risk because of invasion, civil conflict, or political strife, however was protected by involved students and archivists. The conclusion to Xiang’s article is translated beneath:
The scroll portray “Jiangnan Spring” has weathered 500 years of tumultuous change. Safeguarded by generations of upstanding students and people of integrity, it survived one disaster after one other: the Qing Military [plundering during the Ming-Qing transition], the Taiping Riot, the Japanese invasion, the Nationalist forces, and the [Cultural Revolution-era] marketing campaign to “Destroy the 4 Olds.” The truth that it has survived into the current day is nothing in need of miraculous.
Till 1997, that’s, when it was [falsely] recognized as a “forgery” by Xu Huping and his band of thieves, and offered for a pittance of two,250 yuan, tarnishing its true worth.
That is lamentable, pathetic, and completely shameful. [Chinese]
There was on-line censorship of commemorations of the sixth anniversary of Wuhan ophthalmologist and COVID whistleblower Dr. Li Wenliang’s demise.
Dr. Li succumbed to the coronavirus simply over a month after he was censured by Chinese language authorities for trying to alert colleagues to an rising mysterious “SARS-like virus.” Every year on the anniversary of his demise, there may be an uptick in on-line censorship associated to Dr. Li, suggesting that he stays as censored in demise as he was in life. Regardless of this, Chinese language netizens proceed to depart greetings and tributes beneath Dr. Li’s remaining Weibo publish, which seems to stay on-line as a sort of security worth, and has change into often known as China’s “Wailing Wall.”
“Dr. Li: Six Years, Six Questions,” by Huge Shot Fellini, WeChat Account Fellini Typing Away
February 7
Among the many censored articles this yr is “Dr. Li: Six Years, Six Questions,” which raises six questions and 6 corollaries about Dr. Li’s punishment for attempting to alert his colleagues to an rising medical emergency, in regards to the lingering results of data suppression within the early days of the COVID pandemic, about why folks proceed to seek out solace and group on Dr. Li’s Wailing Wall, and extra. A brief excerpt is translated beneath:
Dr. Li’s preliminary actions weren’t scandalous or surprising. He didn’t bypass the chain of command and report back to increased authorities, nor did he converse out to the general public; he merely alerted his colleagues to the bizarre state of affairs he had noticed and suggested them to take precautions.
So, the primary query is: In a correctly functioning system, how ought to such an alert be handled?
Is there well timed gathering of data, which might then be verified or disproven? Or does it immediately devolve into an try and “silence the one that identified the issue,” as a substitute of trying to resolve the issue itself?
[…] Later, we’d all be taught that the reply was the latter. [Chinese]
Hong Kong democracy advocate and newspaper writer Jimmy Lai was given a 20-year jail sentence on prices of sedition and international collusion.
Jimmy Lai, founding father of the now-shuttered Hong Kong newspaper Apple Every day, was sentenced to twenty years in jail in early February on prices of sedition and international collusion. Six different Apple Every day employees members additionally acquired sentences of as much as 10 years. The tough sentence meted out to Lai was broadly seen as a politically motivated try and suppress dissent, and met with voluble worldwide criticism from abroad governments, human rights teams, NGOs, and journalists (together with some former Apple Every day employees), though Hong Kong-based journalist teams had been notably silent.
“Newspaper Writer Sentenced to twenty Years,” by Li Yuchen, WeChat account Li Yuchen
February 9
CDT editors famous stringent on-line censorship of content material associated to Li’s sentencing. One archived WeChat publish, by authorized blogger Li Yuchen, tried to dodge censorship by nearly solely omitting correct nouns: Lai is known as 老人 lǎorén, or “the previous man”; Apple Every day as 那份报纸 nà fèn bàozhǐ, or “that newspaper”; and others by their job titles or relationships to Lai. Even “Hong Kong” is rarely talked about by identify, solely as 那座城市 nà zuò chéngshì, or “that metropolis.” Regardless of this, the publish was nonetheless deleted. Under is an excerpt from Li’s article, beforehand translated by CDT:
After the session, the previous man’s spouse wept outdoors the court docket. Members of the general public embraced one another, saying that nothing might be performed.
The previous man himself calmly left the courtroom after the sentencing, his face almost devoid of expression.
Solely the [former] managing editor of the newspaper’s English version tried to remain behind, trying to make eye contact with folks within the public gallery.
His sentence was ten years, as a result of he had not testified towards his boss.
The previous man was born in Guangdong in 1947. On the age of 12, he stole throughout the border to that metropolis.
Based on his autobiography, a stranger at Guangzhou Railway Station gave him a chunk of chocolate. This was the primary time he had ever tasted it. He mentioned later that it tasted like freedom.
He labored as a toddler laborer in a garment manufacturing unit, and labored his means up till lastly beginning his personal model of clothes. Later, he launched that newspaper. Later nonetheless, he was arrested.
Now, on the age of 78, he’s dealing with one other 20 years in jail.
Twenty years for operating a newspaper.
[…] That’s 2026 for you. [Source]
There was the standard wry criticism of CCTV’s Annual Spring Competition Gala, and a few spirited debate in regards to the gala’s flashy martial-arts efficiency by a troupe of humanoid robots.
This yr as ever, Chinese language web customers engaged within the nationwide sport of poking enjoyable at and criticizing the standard of CCTV’s televised annual Spring Competition [Chinese New Year’s] Gala. One archived WeChat article claimed that the Gala stands alongside China’s nationwide soccer group as a uncommon “protected goal for on-line derision.” (Apparently there are limits to this security, as a result of the article was deleted.) However probably the most talked-about a part of the Gala was a powerful synchronized martial-arts efficiency by humanoid robots.
“Certain, These Spring Competition Gala Robots May Be Superior, however What Do They Have To Do With Working Stiffs Like Us?” by Li Yuchen, WeChat account Li & Chen
February 19
This publish by authorized blogger Li Yuchen dismisses the Gala’s flashy robotic acrobatics as little greater than a sequence of very costly advertisements that don’t have anything to do with the each day lives of Chinese language folks. Li compares the relative standing of China’s robots with its human residents, and concludes that whereas robots are honored as flagbearers for China’s financial progress, too many human staff are handled as “huminerals”—expendable sources to gasoline the financial machine. Under is a portion of Li’s article, beforehand translated by CDT:
Each New 12 months’s Eve, the Spring Competition reveals you the way superior we’re. We’ve bought 5G, AI, quantum computing, and humanoid robots. The core applied sciences are homegrown and beneath home management.
What they don’t present you is what any of this progress has to do with you.
Robots have gotten extra agile, whereas staff have gotten extra oppressed by algorithms. Expertise gallops ahead, whereas strange folks get left behind.
Onstage, man and machine dance collectively; offstage, the people are worse off than the robots.
The quantity that a spot is keen to spend on backflipping robots displays the quantity of thought it’s going to spare for actual folks.
At this yr’s Gala, the robots had been extra lifelike than ever.
They will dance, converse, and acknowledge feelings … they’ll be nicely taken care of.
And the folks?
They will run, they’ll carry, and once they break, they’ll get replaced, and nobody will care.
So ultimately, are robots turning into extra human, or are people turning into extra like draft animals?
Or to place it one other means: Who’s handled with care on this nation, and who’s an expendable useful resource? [Source]
To mark the third anniversary of the Xuzhou “chained girl” incident, the Free Nora grassroots media collective launched a multipart report assessing authorities progress on combatting human trafficking and offering companies for trafficked ladies with psychological or developmental disabilities, amongst different benchmarks.
In late February, CDT editors archived three deleted posts from Free Nora, a various and impartial media collective that grew out of grassroots activism following the 2022 Xuzhou “chained girl” incident. (The group’s identify was impressed by Nora Helmer, the protagonist of Henrik Ibsen’s 1879 play “A Doll’s Home.”) The three archived posts (1, 2, and three) are chapters of Free Nora’s civil-society report assessing Chinese language authorities progress on its “Motion Plan Towards Human Trafficking (2021-2030).” Among the many report’s key findings: whereas efforts to fight human trafficking have intensified, the variety of circumstances filed has fallen, and backlogs and low clearance charges are an issue; each enforcement and legislative progress are fragmented; rural ladies with psychological disabilities proceed to be at excessive danger of being trafficked, and are marginalized in each coverage and apply; and the federal government’s response stays insufficient throughout most dimensions.
Not lengthy after these posts had been censored, the Free Nora WeChat account was shut down, one in all many progressive advocacy teams hit with account bans simply earlier than March 8 Worldwide Ladies’s Day.
Samuel Wade additionally contributed to this publish.
