“Doxing” refers to the malicious act of collecting and publicly disclosing another person’s private information online. This behavior is often accompanied by cyberbullying and, in some cases, real-life harassment. However, with the global proliferation of the internet, a growing number of minors are becoming involved in such activities, frequently shifting roles between perpetrators and victims (Chen, Cheung, & Chan, 2019).
In March 2025, an ordinary user left a seemingly mild comment under a post about South Korean celebrity Jang Wonyoung, questioning her description of a fashion show trip as “brutal.” The user wrote, “Sleeping in first class can’t be that bad—12 hours hardly sounds like a brutal schedule.” Not long after, she was doxed by Jang’s fan community. Her name, phone number, occupation, home address, and other personal details were maliciously exposed online. When fans discovered that she was pregnant, the harassment escalated—reaching her family and loved ones, who were subjected to insults and online abuse.
One of the users involved in the doxing, known by the handle @你的眼眸是世界上最小的湖泊 (“Your Eyes Are the Smallest Lake in the World”), had a history of doxing others in fan communities since 2024. Based on clues from her multiple social media accounts, other users deduced that she was the 13-year-old daughter of Xie Guangjun, a vice president at Baidu, currently studying abroad in Canada.
On March 17, Baidu Vice President Xie Guangjun issued a public apology, stating that his 13-year-old daughter had revealed someone’s private information online in a moment of “emotional instability,” which in turn led to her own personal details being exposed and widespread backlash. He expressed “deep remorse” and offered a formal apology to everyone affected. The apology quickly pushed the incident into the center of public debate. Many began to question how the girl obtained such detailed personal information in the first place, especially considering her connection to a high-ranking tech executive. As the most widely used search engine in China, Baidu holds a vast amount of user data—raising serious concerns about the potential misuse of such information by those in positions of power.
On March 19, Baidu released an official statement through its social media accounts, strongly condemning both the leaking and public sharing of private data as a form of cyberviolence. The company stressed that it has a strict zero-tolerance policy for any violations of user privacy. The statement also outlined its internal data protocols, including anonymization processes, data isolation, and access controls that prevent employees—regardless of rank—from retrieving user information. According to the company, the data involved in this case came from an overseas “data breach repository”—a database of personal information gathered through illegal means (Wu, 2025).
I. The Overwhelming Violence of Internet Power
Looking back on the entire incident, after being doxed by a fan group, the pregnant woman’s name, phone number, and family information were shared and re-shared on China’s Weibo platform. Some even posted screenshots of phone harassment and verbal abuse. Personal details she had shared on social media were also used to attack her verbally. Others went so far as to contact her husband on WeChat, accusing him, saying “Your wife is online criticizing you, complaining that the money you gave her when you got married was too little.”
Clearly, in the virtual environment built by the digital internet, doxing is the most extreme weapon. In online disputes, whoever controls this weapon gains the upper hand, not just in cyberspace but in the real world as well.Since the birth of the internet, its anonymity and decentralized features have been seen as ideal public space carriers. Online platforms provide us with spaces for connection and communication, setting the rules for participation within them. Here, we create virtual identities to express ourselves. The internet has created genuine personal connections, as well as real communities of people gathered around various shared interests (Suzor, 2019).However, doxing further blurs this boundary, intervening in users’ private lives and real social relationships.
It is this power to intervene in real life that creates a strong deterrent. Once someone’s real identity is exposed, they can be manipulated in the real world. This immediately shifts the balance of power between individuals with differing opinions online, resulting in overwhelming power relations. If we analyze this using Foucault’s theory, one party’s real personal information and social relationships are stripped bare and exposed on the central stage, humiliated, mocked, and ridiculed, with no chance of defending themselves; meanwhile, the instigator of the violence remains hidden in the shadows, monitoring everything, enjoying the thrill of launching attacks at any moment (Foucault, 2008).
This distinction between information exposure and concealment creates a completely one-sided judgment. Fans of celebrities exist within the codes of the internet, like flawless individuals, mercilessly judging a pregnant woman who is already disempowered in real life. What we see is a completely irrational comparison: our idol is so excellent, how dare you criticize them?
We find it difficult to accept that a person’s freedom to express their views should come at the cost of their work and family being affected, even destroying their existing social relationships. All of this becomes a source of power pleasure for the perpetrators. Making others face “social death,” this is how the overwhelming collective violence of power is completed.
II. The Distortion of Fan Culture in the Digital Age
In this incident, the perpetrator was just 13 years old, yet managed to skillfully use platforms like Telegram to access large amounts of personal information and regularly participate in doxing activities. What triggered the extreme reaction from this minor was a seemingly insignificant comment someone made about an idol. The underdeveloped mind of a teenager is easily swayed by group emotions, and they may come to see the invasion of someone’s privacy as an act of “justice.”
At the same time, we can glimpse the shift in the discourse ecosystem of fan culture in the digital age. Fans not only express admiration and praise within their small circles, but they also work tirelessly to purify every aspect of their idol’s online presence. The purer this discourse ecosystem becomes, the more fragile and sensitive it becomes. It cannot tolerate differing voices, and as a result, the lines between friend and foe become sharply drawn. The act of following an idol turns into a kind of witch hunt against those who dissent.
This phenomenon is not exclusive to fan culture—it is a consequence of the nature of the internet itself. Everyone can find a cause to support and create their own faction, carving out camps based on any division. People seek their own version of equality and democracy, but the internet has become a space increasingly lacking in tolerance. Individuals tend to look for malice in others’ words and, in doing so, become more entrenched in defending their own position (Carlson & Frazer, 2018).
Fan culture is highly organized, driven by the combined forces of the entertainment industry and commercial capital. In the digital age, fans, as the core consumers, are grouped in a system where “traffic” is central, contributing to the commercial value of celebrities. On one hand, this immense mobilization capacity can be transformed into economic power or used to bear social responsibility; on the other hand, the mobilization of hatred can become a powerful force, leading to intense conflict. When we consider the relationship between these two, we can see how internet users become deeply attached to digital communities, with social relationships in these communities serving as a form of social validation and motivation. People feel that their existence matters because they are doing the same things as others, giving them a sense of purpose in the cyber space.
This energy is not concentrated in isolated individuals or groups, but exists within the structures they grow up in. According to the “echo chamber effect” in communication theory, people in closed public opinion environments tend to accept and reinforce information that aligns with their own views, blocking or rejecting differing opinions. As a result, the group as a whole becomes more homogeneous and extreme. In the era of social media and algorithmic recommendations, this effect has become even more pronounced, especially when it involves minors and fan culture (Cinelli et al., 2021).
Moreover, the technical barriers in the digital age are gradually lowering, and the cost of accessing information is continually decreasing. On some social media platforms, personal information illegally leaked through various channels can be purchased for a small fee. The increasing accessibility of technology for minors has turned online violence into a weapon that anyone can wield.
III. The Compatibility of Platform Governance and Technological Neutrality
Although Baidu issued a statement emphasizing that no data was leaked, the public’s questioning of the responsibility of tech platforms has only intensified. According to various reports, the platform used to spread this personal information was Telegram, a global messaging app with significant influence.
Founded in 2013, Telegram positioned itself as a secure platform for encrypted messaging and privacy protection, attracting users who valued security. By 2014, its user base reached 15 million, and by 2024, it surpassed 950 million, making it the second-largest messaging app in the world. Its key features include end-to-end encryption and a decentralized architecture, offering users an environment for “uncensored, unmonitored” conversations (Wikipedia, n.d.). However, these encryption features are increasingly being exploited by global black markets, with personal information trading, illegal goods sales, and extremist group communications all taking place on the platform, constantly developing through its anonymity.
Telegram’s core design, such as end-to-end encryption and anonymous accounts, embodies a “technological neutrality” philosophy—using technology to ensure absolute privacy and freedom of communication, thereby avoiding government intervention. It also open-sources its code, inviting global developers to contribute to its technical improvements. This decentralized model mirrors the utopian ideals of the early internet (Flew, 2021). Telegram has long refused government data-sharing requests, fully embracing its liberal values. However, this approach has clear limitations. While encryption can counter surveillance, as a tool, it is hard to guarantee it won’t be misused—potentially even weaponized.
This development path is shaped both by the company’s own values and the global technological political struggles of the modern era. Although the platform is gradually moving towards compliance under regulatory pressure, its period of unchecked growth and its exploration of decentralization can serve as an important reference for understanding the relationship between freedom and power in the digital age.
As for Baidu, being a data-heavy company, it has long faced public skepticism regarding its credibility. Whether or not this incident is directly linked to the company’s data security, the public’s concerns about internal management and potential misuse of data are valid. The company must take proactive responsibility in rebuilding trust.
IV. Conclusion
This incident serves as a mirror, reflecting that anyone could be the next victim. Only through a combination of legislative protection, technological advancements, educational guidance, and international cooperation can we build a firewall to safeguard privacy. The security of personal privacy is the bottom line of our entire digital civilization.
References
Carlson, B., & Frazer, R. (2018). Social Media Mob: Being Indigenous Online. Macquarie University. https://research-management.mq.edu.au/ws/portalfiles/portal/85013179/MQU_SocialMediaMob_report_Carlson_Frazer.pdf
Chen, M., Cheung, A. S. Y., & Chan, K. L. (2019). Doxing: What adolescents look for and their intentions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(2), 218. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16020218
Cinelli, M., De Francisci Morales, G., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W., & Starnini, M. (2021). The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(9), e2023301118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023301118
Flew, T. (2021). Regulating platforms. Polity Press.
Foucault, M. (2008). Panopticism. Race/Ethnicity: Multidisciplinary Global Contexts, 2(1), 1–12. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/252435
Suzor, N. P. (2019). Who makes the rules? In Lawless: The secret rules that govern our digital lives (pp. 10–24). Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/lawless/who-makes-the-rules/6688999078ABFE0821E84D76A055BE70
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Telegram (software). Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegram_(software)
Wu, Y. (2025, March 19). Baidu issues statement on executive Xie Guangjun’s daughter being doxxed: Information came from overseas [百度就“高管谢广军女儿开盒”事件发布声明：开盒信息来自海外]. The Paper. https://m.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_30436735
Be the first to comment