Just Who Are the Chinese Trolls of the '50 Cent Army'?

HONG KONG — 

On every major public occasion in China, like the current National Day Golden Week holiday that began Oct. 1, the nation’s military is deployed to appear in endless parades and public outreach events.

Online, a different sort of army is also deployed. The “50 Cent Army” is a group of state-backed internet commenters whose numbers have reportedly ranged from 500,000 to two million. The root of the nickname - the idea that the government pays 50 renminbi cents per pro-China post - has long been debunked.

However, “wu mao” (or “50 cents” in Chinese) is still a common online insult, and even the official state media have acknowledged that there are government agents posing as ordinary, patriotic netizens.

A Harvard study published in August analyzed 44,000 posts related to an email leak to paint a picture of this “army.”

It concluded that “50 Centers” are not raging Chinese youth typing furiously away in their moms’ basements, as the stereotype goes, but government bureaucrats in unrelated fields like taxation or sports management, employed overtime to churn out posts allegedly by ordinary citizens.

They are not typical trolls. Instead of arguing about jailed dissidents or naval disputes, they mostly blanket the internet with blandly positive posts. “Almost none of the Chinese government’s 50c party posts engage in debate or argument of any kind,” the Harvard study said.

Not surprisingly, “50 Centers” are found to be busiest when the state wishes to boost patriotism (like National Day) or when it wishes to cover up news, like October independence protests in Hong Kong.

“On an anniversary, everyone is on the edge of their seats,” David Bandurski, editor of the University of Hong Kong’s China Media Project, said in a telephone interview. “It doesn’t matter if it’s an anniversary of the Cultural Revolution or Communist Party or National Day – it’s always a nervous moment. That’s the point of control.”

Bandurski was one of the first Western commentators to write about the 50 Cent Army in 2008, when Beijing was struggling with Tibetan unrest, the deadly Sichuan earthquake and human rights protests ahead of the Beijing-hosted Summer Olympics. At the time, the government diverted Chinese netizens’ attention – and ire – to an American CNN commentator who had criticized China.

“Redirecting public opinion is nothing new,” Bandurski said. “It’s been official policy since 2008.”

The 50 Cent Army is not really an army; it’s just a platoon in a much larger propaganda apparatus. All those positive posts are planted in an environment that bans most Chinese from legally accessing social media like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, as well as critical news media like The New York Times and Bloomberg.

While “50 Centers” may distract viewers with pro-government posts, other branches of the Propaganda Department are busy censoring controversial articles and key words. When the “50 Cent Army” emerged in the early 2000s, online discourse was concentrated in chatrooms, bulletin boards and comment fields under articles. Today, when many millennials are connected to the internet constantly via their phones and watches, their tactics may seem outdated.

“Now is the era of Weibo,” Bandurski said, referring to a popular Chinese social media channel. “By this point, everyone is interacting online in real time.”

Younger internet users may also not be moved by rather dull state propaganda produced by tax bureaucrats working overtime.

In July, the Propaganda Department tried to pep up the Communist Party’s staid 95th anniversary with videos featuring digital animation and hip-hop – though still with torturous lyrics like “You are probably also confused about the situation of Taiwan.”

One of those videos was produced by the Communist Youth League, a powerful group with 89 million members aged 14 to 28 – a demographic better placed to appeal to youthful internet users.

In August, the government released a plan to involve the CYL in its goal to “purify” the internet.

CYL members are certainly more aggressive than the “50-Centers” described in the Harvard study. They also seem adept at jumping The Great Firewall of China to troll subjects on foreign social media.

They have also written posts criticizing entertainers deemed to be insufficiently patriotic.

They left 40,000 angry messages on the Facebook page of Australian swimmer Mack Horton, who beat his Chinese counterpart at the Rio Olympics and accused him of being a “drug cheat.”

A similar thing happened in January when Tsai Ing-wen became the first woman elected president of Taiwan, a self-governed island that Beijing considers a renegade province.

According to Foreign Policy, a campaign was started on a forum on Baidu, a Chinese search engine, to flood Tsai with anti-Taiwan comments. In 12 hours, there were 40,000 negative comments on her Facebook page.

“These are volunteer armies of mobilized angry youth,” Bandurski said. “They are happy to heed the call to, say, spam the Taiwan president.”

“To what extend they are state-organized, we don’t know,” he added. “Is it volunteering? State-encouraged volunteering? It’s so complicated. They are like ‘The 50 Cent’ 2.0.”

One prominent commenter is Lei Xiying, a Chinese PhD student at The Australian National University who produced a video criticizing rights lawyers and activists.

It went viral, especially after it was posted on official government websites. But Lei is not a “50 Center.” He is not posting under a falsified name, nor is there evidence that he is paid to do so.

Experts see China using more savvy ways of controlling opinion online. In the same way that the actual People’s Liberation Army is modernizing – focusing on technology and skill, as opposed to sheer numbers – the “50 Cent Army” is being overhauled, too.

“The 50 Cent Army doesn’t just fade away,” Bandurski said. “They have their teams and infrastructure, and they will continue. But now it’s become more sophisticated and more refined. They are being nuanced and savvy. They’re crunching data. They have a lot of resources.”


Facts not reported about Democide Monster Killer, Mao, YUK! [warning graphic]

Too Close for Comfort: Carney Floor Crosser Comes From a Riding Tainted by PRC Interference

Too Close for Comfort: Carney Floor Crosser Comes From a Riding Tainted by PRC Interference

OpEd: After the Chiang–Tay controversy in Markham-Unionville, and unresolved 2021 vote suppression claims, Michael Ma’s defection turns a fraught riding into a lever for near-majority power.

Dec 12, 2025

Conservative MP Michael Ma, center, meets with controversial Chinese community leaders who have also been linked to travel to Beijing with the Liberal candidate Ma defeated, Peter Yuen. The photos from CC News are reproduced for news reporting and in the public interest, in reliance on Canada’s fair dealing exception under the Copyright Act.

OTTAWA — Mark Carney’s minority government is now one seat shy of a House of Commons majority—not because Canadians changed their minds in an election, but because a newly elected Conservative member of Parliament, Michael Ma, has crossed the floor to join the Liberal caucus.

Floor crossing is legal. It is also one of those Westminster quirks that can be permissible while still corroding public trust—especially when it is used to rewire the meaning of an election after the ballots are counted.

A minority is supposed to be a forcing mechanism. It compels compromise, checks government overreach and corruption, and makes Parliament matter. A majority for Mark Carney—whose government hasn’t put to rest serious ethical concerns carried over from the Trudeau era—does the opposite. It concentrates power, streamlines the machinery, and reduces the opposition’s ability to constrain the executive.

Canadians understand the rules. What they reject is the idea that rules are the same thing as legitimacy, especially at a time when Canada’s own security agencies have repeatedly warned that hostile states are probing and exploiting weak points that fall outside of election periods—such as candidate nominations or leadership races—and when the government itself publicly confirmed an active transnational operation targeting a Conservative federal candidate during the 2025 campaign.

Michael Ma says he crossed because he wants practical governance, and because he believes Carney is offering a steady approach on the economy. It is entirely possible that this decision is purely personal and political. There is no evidence Ma was under any external influence.

But the seat Ma represents, Markham–Unionville, sat at the center of the 2025 campaign’s most explosive foreign-interference controversy, after Liberal incumbent Paul Chiang mused to Chinese-language press that his Conservative rival, Joe Tay, could be turned over to Chinese diplomats to collect the Hong Kong bounty placed on him.

In that context, Carney’s decision to welcome a floor crossing from Chiang’s former riding demands deep scrutiny.

The broader point of this editorial will be reiterated. Canadian voters can no longer casually accept floor crossings. An MP that decides to change sides must trigger a by-election.

But first, to understand why Ma’s floor crossing is too close for comfort, you have to recall the chain of events that runs from the 2021 election to the 2025 campaign—and now, to Carney’s near-majority.

In September 2021, Markham–Unionville flipped.

Conservative incumbent Bob Saroya, first elected in 2015 and re-elected in 2019, was defeated by Liberal candidate Paul Chiang. Chiang—an ex-police officer—won the seat for Justin Trudeau’s Liberals.

In the years that followed, The Bureau obtained allegations from senior Conservative sources that this was not merely a routine political turnover.

According to multiple senior figures from Erin O’Toole’s 2021 Conservative campaign, O’Toole’s team was briefed by Canadian intelligence that Chinese officials were actively surveilling Saroya during the election—activities that one source described as “coordinated and alarming.”

One source recalled being told, bluntly, that “there were Chinese officials following Bob Saroya around,” and that “CSIS literally said repeatedly that this was ‘coordinated and alarming.’”

The allegation was not simply that Saroya felt watched.

It was that suspected Chinese security personnel were shadowing Saroya’s canvassing team and then visiting the same homes after campaign stops—an intimidation pattern consistent with voter suppression tactics.

Next, Paul Chiang’s controversy.

Early in 2025, Joe Tay began organizing to run in Markham–Unionville.

Tay, a former Hong Kong broadcaster and outspoken critic of Beijing’s repression in Hong Kong, had been placed under a Hong Kong National Security Law bounty—a fact that turned his candidacy into a test of whether Canada can protect citizens targeted by foreign states for their speech.

The Bureau reported that Tay and his team did substantial groundwork in Markham–Unionville, and that he intended to seek the Conservative nomination there.

But for reasons that have never been fully explained, Tay’s trajectory changed at roughly the same time of Chiang’s remarks.

Instead of running in Markham–Unionville, the Conservative Party ultimately assigned him to Don Valley North, a neighboring Toronto riding with a large Chinese diaspora.

“Joe Tay put so much effort into Markham–Unionville,” said a Tay campaign staffer who asked not to be identified.

Tay’s campaign in Don Valley North became one of the most closely scrutinized races in the country.

Alarmingly, he faced the same general pattern of pressure that Saroya’s team and Conservative sources claim shadowed Markham–Unionville in 2021.

Only this time, Canadian election-threat monitors publicly confirmed that a transnational repression operation was targeting Tay. More on that later.

In early 2025, Michael Ma was chosen by the Conservatives to run in Markham–Unionville, a seat with a credible path back for the party.

The scandal erupted on March 28th.

Paul Chiang—by that point the Liberal member of Parliament for Markham–Unionville and running again—acknowledged making remarks to Chinese-language media suggesting Tay could be taken to the Chinese consulate in Toronto to collect a Hong Kong bounty.

Chiang said he was only joking and apologized.

Tay rejected the apology and called the remarks “the tradecraft of the Chinese Communist Party.” He added: “They are not just aimed at me; they are intended to send a chilling signal to the entire community to force compliance with Beijing’s political goals.”

Former Conservative leader Erin O’Toole used his X account to publicize a broad version of the allegations The Bureau was already aware of in the Saroya defeat of 2021.

“This riding [Markham-Unionville] was one of the worst for Foreign Interference (FI) in 2021,” O’Toole wrote on X. “Comments from the MP/Candidate confirm longstanding concerns about the result. PM Trudeau ignored FI concerns. I hope PM Carney is more serious. He cannot allow this candidate to stand.”

Carney, it is now important to note, refused to replace Paul Chiang, saying the MP had his confidence.

Concurrently, Canada’s election-threat monitors reported that Chinese propaganda messages had attacked Carney’s rival for the Liberal leadership, Chrystia Freeland, while Chinese intelligence’s messages about Carney were positive or ambiguous.

It was only after international Hong Kong diaspora groups mounted a letter-writing campaign to the RCMP, decrying what they called potentially criminal repression activities in Canada’s election, that the RCMP announced a review of the matter, and Chiang stepped down himself.

Carney was spared from taking direct action. There is still no word from the RCMP on what it has found in the case.

O’Toole, when asked to comment about Saroya’s Markham riding experience in 2021, told The Bureau:

‘“Our candidate Bob Saroya was a hardworking MP who won against the Liberal wave in 2015.

He won in 2019 as well, but thousands of votes from the Chinese Canadian community stayed home in 2021.

We heard reports of intimidation of voters. We also know the Consul General from China took particular interest in the riding and made strange comments to Mr. Saroya ahead of the election.

It was always in the top three of the eight or nine ridings that I believe were flipped due to foreign interference. The conduct of Mr. Chiang suggests our serious concerns were warranted.”’

Even if you treat every one of O’Toole’s statements, and the related claims from senior Conservative Party sources with caution—and you should, as CSIS will not confirm or deny these claims—the theme is unmistakable.

Senior political actors were receiving intelligence briefings that they believed described aggressive, targeted pressure in Markham–Unionville.

Next, in the wake of Chiang’s withdrawal, the Liberals replaced him with Peter Yuen.

During the election,The Bureau reported that Yuen, a retired Toronto Police deputy chief, had joined the board of a Chinese international school in Markham that surfaced in testimony related to foreign interference concerns in Don Valley North.

The Globe and Mail also reported new questions about Yuen’s relations with Beijing-friendly community leaders closely connected to the Chinese Consulate.

The Bureau and The Globe also reported on the controversy surrounding Yuen’s trip with some of these Markham-area community leaders—among a small delegation of Ontario politicians invited to Tiananmen Square in September 2015—to attend a military parade hosted by President Xi Jinping.

At a major October 2025 Chinese-Canadian community banquet attended by China’s Toronto consulate officials—including acting consul general Cheng Hongbo—Michael Ma is shown toasting wine with the same prominent Fujian-linked community leader who reportedly traveled with Yuen to the 2015 People’s Liberation Army parade.

At that banquet a few months ago in Markham, Canadian politicians and community leaders stood with Chinese consular officials as the Canadian and Chinese anthems were sung by a woman performing in front of a large screen showing uniformed Chinese military personnel in Tiananmen Square standing at attention.

In the organizers’ published guest list, Michael Ma appears to have been the only Conservative member of Parliament named among the federal representatives, alongside several Liberal MPs and other provincial and municipal officials.

Back to the last federal election.

On April 21, 2025—one week before election day—the Privy Council Office issued a news release describing what the Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections Task Force had observed: a “transnational repression operation” targeting the election, taking place on Chinese-language platforms and featuring a mock “wanted poster” and disparaging content about Joe Tay, the Conservative candidate for Don Valley North.

This was Canada, in public, acknowledging a core authoritarian tactic—digital harassment and intimidation aimed at suppressing political participation—playing out in a Canadian federal election.

The Bureau later reported that federal police advised Tay to suspend door-to-door canvassing, citing safety concerns, and that police reviewed complaints alleging Tay’s campaign team was shadowed in an intimidating manner while canvassing in the final days.

Tay ultimately lost in Don Valley North to Liberal candidate Maggie Chi, but with a higher Conservative vote share than in 2021.

And then came the twist that would matter months later.

Back in Markham, Peter Yuen—the Liberal replacement for Chiang—was defeated on April 28, 2025 by Conservative candidate Michael Ma.

For Canadians trying to follow the larger interference story, the result is confusing. The riding that had become synonymous with the Chiang controversy and the Saroya allegations flipped back to the Conservatives, even as the dissident candidate at the center of the intimidation debate, Joe Tay, was moved next door and lost in a race the federal government said had been targeted by a transnational repression operation.

This brings us to December 2025.

Ma is now a Liberal. His defection is the second Conservative floor crossing to Carney’s Liberals in just over a month, and it leaves Carney one seat short of majority rule. Reuters notes the broader strategic environment in which this is unfolding.

Canada is grappling with a strained trade relationship with the United States under President Donald Trump, and domestic politics are increasingly volatile. Prime Minister Mark Carney met on October 31st with President Xi Jinping, signaling an intent to renew relations with Beijing and expand strategic engagement.

In China’s diplomatic telling: “President Xi noted that this year marks the 55th anniversary of China-Canada diplomatic relations and the 20th anniversary of the China-Canada strategic partnership. Through the joint efforts of both sides, the China-Canada relationship is beginning to recover and improve.”

Here is the democratic problem, stated plainly.

A riding that has been repeatedly flagged—through intelligence briefings described by senior political actors, through public controversy involving foreign-bounty rhetoric, and through government-confirmed warnings about transnational repression tactics in adjacent diaspora ridings—has now produced a member of Parliament whose post-election decision helps move Canada to the brink of majority government without an election.

That is why this moment should prompt action—not hand-wringing.

If Canada is serious about protecting democratic legitimacy, Parliament should adopt a simple rule: if a member of Parliament crosses the floor to join another party—especially if the move materially alters governing power—there should be a by-election. Not because voters “own” an MP. Because voters own Canada’s democracy.

Carney, if he wants to govern as a majority prime minister, should ask Canadians for a majority. He should not accept it—or engineer it—through a quiet accumulation of defectors, least of all at a moment when Ottawa has publicly confirmed that transnational repression tactics have already been deployed against candidates.

Joe Tay 鄭敬基

@joetay1212

This year, my birthday is filled with confusion and deep frustration. Personally, I lack nothing. Yet living in Canada—a country that has long prided itself on upholding democracy and freedom—I find myself witnessing our democratic system being openly disregarded and attacked in broad daylight. Politicians have publicly abandoned their voters, cast aside the principles they once claimed to uphold, and behaved as though their actions carry no consequences. Without consulting constituents, without regard for public opinion, and without any prior notice, under the solemn institution of the House of Commons, a decision was made to publish the following statement on the Liberal Party’s official website: “After listening carefully to the people of Markham–Unionville in recent weeks and reflecting with my family on the direction of our country, I have informed the Speaker and the Leader of the Opposition that I will be joining Prime Minister Mark Carney in the government caucus.” Because I believe deeply in and respect democracy, I also respect every individual’s right to make their own choices—each person must ultimately be accountable for their decisions. However, this act of crossing the floor is not merely a personal choice. You represent the voices and aspirations of more than 27,000 Conservative voters in Markham–Unionville. Every ballot is sacred. Voters entrusted you with their votes and sent you to the House of Commons to speak on their behalf. This announcement is not simply a matter of switching parties; it is a complete betrayal of the trust placed in you by your constituents and a betrayal of the democratic system that this country is duty-bound to respect. Even without invoking broader national principles, “integrity toward voters and accountability to voters” should be the most basic requirement of anyone who chooses to enter politics—from the very first day—toward themselves, their constituents, their party, and Canada. As a Member of Parliament, you did not uphold the commitment you swore to when taking office—to represent voters and defend democracy. Instead, you chose to ignore the democratic system, failed to close its loopholes, and actively trampled on the democracy Canadians hold dear. I write with such gravity because I have been a victim myself. In 2024, when I announced my candidacy in the same Markham–Unionville riding, throughout the nomination contest and until the conclusion of the 2025 federal election, the RCMP confirmed—supported by findings from the SITE Task Force—and the Department of Foreign Affairs publicly condemned acts of Foreign election interference directed at me, my family, overseas relatives, my campaign volunteers, and the entire election operation. These included threats to our safety, online defamation, surveillance, intimidation, and attacks. Because I chose to participate in a democratic election and speak for voters in Parliament, my family and I were forced to endure daily isolation, fear, and pressure that outsiders can scarcely comprehend. To this day, the trauma remains. After experiencing Foreign election interference, I now find myself witnessing people once again placing personal interests above those of citizens and the nation. On my birthday, I and many voters in Markham–Unionville are simultaneously subjected to Internal election interference and betrayal. For my family and me, this constitutes a second psychological injury.

In your announcement on the Liberal Party’s official website, you claim that your decision was supported by your family and constituents. If that is truly the case, why did all of your social media accounts disappear immediately afterward? During the nomination period, former Liberal MP for Markham–Unionville Paul Chiang—now retired—publicly aligned himself with a Hong Kong national security arrest warrant by calling, at an election press conference, for anyone who turned me over to the Chinese Consulate to receive a 1million-dollar bounty

B.C. man alleges he was targeted by China’s ‘spamouflage’ campaign

 
November 1, 2023 

The YouTube video appears to show a person who looks like Liu Xin making unfounded remarks about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, saying among other things that “he is a man who loves porn.”

But Liu, 60, a prominent online critic of China’s government who lives in Burnaby, B.C., says he didn’t say anything of the sort.

The video is a deepfake creation according to Liu and an Australian security think-tank that analyzed it, and is part of an extensive “spamouflage” campaign that Global Affairs Canada believes is connected to China. 

View image in full screen

Liu Xin is pictured in his residence in Burnaby B.C., on Wednesday, Oct. 25, 2023. 

The video and others making accusations of “criminal and ethical violations” by Canadian politicians were posted on the social media accounts of MPs across the political spectrum, Global Affairs says, including Trudeau and Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre.

But Liu says it was he, and not the maligned politicians, who was China’s main target in the campaign, which Global Affairs says involved a bot network posting thousands of comments and links to the fake videos.

“Their attack on me is extremely malicious and these fake videos have been taking an emotional toll on me,” says Liu, who runs a Chinese-language YouTube channel with 164,000 subscribers under the name “Lao Deng.” He also has more than 300,000 followers on X, formerly known as Twitter.

Liu says he suspects the primary goal of the campaign was to undermine him in the eyes of the public and Canadian politicians.

“If Mr. Trudeau is standing in front of me, I want to tell him: this isn’t me. Both of us are victims of a spamouflage campaign deployed by the Chinese government,” Liu says in an interview conducted in Mandarin, adding that he has been “under tremendous pressure” as a result.
Global Affairs describes spamouflage, a combination of spam and camouflage, as a network of new or hijacked social media accounts that are used to post propaganda messages.

A Global Affairs spokesman said in an email Tuesday that its officials briefed Liu about the fake videos on Oct. 23, confirming they were referring to him in a statement that instead calls him a “popular Chinese-speaking figure.”

The earlier statement says that in addition to discrediting the Canadian politicians named in the videos, the campaign “likely seeks to silence criticism of the CPP (Chinese Communist Party) by getting MPs to distance themselves from (Liu) and discouraging wider online communities from engaging with (Liu).”

It says the campaign culminated in September.

The Australian Security Policy Institute, based in Canberra, released an analysis on Oct. 24 that says the spamouflage campaign is “very likely linked to the Chinese government”.

“In the case of Liu, and in addition to attempts to intimidate and silence him, the new campaign might also be trying to shape Canadian politicians’ perceptions of him, as well as seeking to undermine his work and public reputation,” the analysis says.

The institute says the videos falsely depicting Liu are an example of deepfake technology made with the help of artificial intelligence. It says the videos are sophisticated and use the same backdrop as Liu’s authentic videos.

But it says there are telltale signs of deceit: in one video, the chin of the speaker becomes misaligned with the face, and in all the fakes, Liu’s face is relatively devoid of wrinkles or expression.

There are also editing glitches, the security group says, while noting that Liu had never uploaded a similar video about Trudeau to his YouTube channel.

If confirmed to be a product of the Chinese government “it would be the first publicly unearthed example of the CCP using an AI-enabled face swap in its internationally focused information operations and disinformation campaigns,” the institute says.

0:52Chong tells U.S. lawmakers: Canada, allies must unite against foreign interference

Liu says there is a Chinese saying that describes the “malicious tactic,” to kill with a borrowed knife.

“They are trying to intimidate and harm me by trying to get the Canadian government to turn their back on me,” he says.

“I was once helpless and frustrated. However, I managed to hang in there by clinging to the belief that the truth will come out in the wash – although it takes time.”

Liu says he suspected the spamouflage campaign could also be intended to interfere with Canadian elections by discrediting politicians via fake videos.

“It’s OK to criticize a country’s policy, but it’s really hostile and despicable to make false allegations against a politician’s personal life and morals without any evidence,” says Liu.

Liu has been a vocal critic of China’s government since immigrating to B.C. from China in 2002. He says the Chinese government had been spreading misinformation about him for a long time.

The Australian Institute says in its analysis that Liu sometimes spreads “unverified claims,” such as accusing China of assassinating Canadian Sikh figure Hardeep Singh Nijjar to frame India and create discord between India and the West.

2:10Trudeau ‘not looking to escalate’ tensions with India after 41 Canadian diplomats ordered out

Canada’s government has connected India to the attack on Nijjar in Surrey.

Liu says he got this “inside scoop” from sources in China, but didn’t elaborate.

He has also made unverified claims alleging extramarital affairs and other misbehaviour by China’s leaders.

“Because of my work and what I have been doing, the Chinese Communist Party has put me at the top of their overseas blacklist,” says Liu.

Liu says his income fluctuates based on the popularity of his videos. Sometimes he can make $20,000 in a month, although the average is $10,000.

He splits the income with a team of several people, he says.

“You won’t get super rich from doing YouTube videos, but you can make a living.”

He says he’ll continue to criticize Chinese authorities.

“I am doing meaningful things while making money, so why not keep doing it?” says Liu.

The Chinese Embassy in Ottawa did not respond to an emailed request for comment.
Timely reminder of the ‘Chinese Freemasons’ aka ‘Hongmen’ —— Chinese organized crime front serves Beijing’s interests