At present, on online platforms such as takeaway and second-hand trading, tens of thousands of netizens are becoming "cyber judges" (public judges who judge the reasonableness of comments, transaction disputes, etc.), and make their own judgments in the face of the scene of "the public says that the public is reasonable, and the mother-in-law says that the mother-in-law is reasonable". (December 21, China Youth Daily).
The so-called "cyber judge" model actually gives merchants a chance to appeal: when they receive negative reviews from customers, merchants can apply to the "Internet Court" and invite reviewers to determine whether the reviews are biased and decide whether the bad reviews are displayed or not.
In this process, netizens can not only see the reasons for various bad reviews, but also realize that it is not easy to do business, and when the merchant pretends to be confused, he can also clearly observe the autumn and not let him pass the test. Compared with the systematic judgment, the public review is more fair and more interesting, and participation and onlookers can be used as the "spice" of life.
The trivial dispute about firewood, rice, oil and salt has made many people see the light of justice, but its actual effect needs to be tested.
First, the "cyber judge" model is obviously a more favorable function for merchants - in the face of negative user reviews, merchants can file appeals and show their defenses, but consumers have no second chance to defend themselves;Second, "* case judgment" is more like a marketing gimmick of the platform - some of the review content is detached from reality, and even deliberately funny, using dramatic conflicts to attract attention and attract traffic, and bring traffic and popularity to the platform.
What's more, the "Cyber Judge" model is still inherently subjective. Many reviewers tend to stand with whoever is reasonable, and who is in a weak position, which leads to the fact that if someone makes up stories and writes essays to sympathize, the supposed fair judgment may give way to emotional ruling, and even give rise to secondary problems such as "surrogate judgment of the water army".
The big wave receded, the platform got traffic, the merchants took advantage of the loopholes, and the netizens had fun, what did the buyers get?Deviate from the original intention of the review, and ultimately hurt the consumer. If you let it go, it will only make more and more "Internet coaxers" and fewer and fewer "Internet heroes".
In view of this, the "Cyber Judge" model should be a trickle-down. On the one hand, trivial disputes and disputes can adopt the public review mechanism, which involves larger interest disputes, and still requires professional arbitration institutions to participate in the evaluationOn the other hand, set a reasonable screening threshold, combined with the specific circumstances such as knowledge background and age structure, to match disputes to more accurate and professional "judges".
Regardless of who makes the judgment, the fundamental criterion is evidence. If the buyer and the seller have no evidence, can a few jokes or essays be a reason to defend themselves?Can it be used as a conclusion?In the final analysis, only the facts themselves can make opinions reasonable and well-founded, and can they abandon subjective emotions and prejudices.
It is true that everyone has the right to speak out, but the expression of opinions cannot form a "spiral of silence", and cannot annihilate a balanced and rational voice, so that it is overly entertaining, and even forms cyberviolence. This also reminds that the "cyber judge" has the right not to be capricious, and should make more factual judgments and less emotional judgments, try not to gag on some things, and don't turn the "dojo of right and wrong" into a "field of point of view".
The rapid rise of the "cyber judge" model remains to be tested by the market whether it can form a long-term mechanism, but this has pointed out a direction for the innovative management of the network: the development of the Internet needs dialogue rather than quarrel, and the harmonious ecology needs "chivalry" instead of "coaxing". (Zhengguan commentator Han Jing).
Yellow River Comment Mailbox: zghhpl@163com）
Co-ordinator: Chen Ruosong.
Editor: Ren Sining.