On the first day of becoming a reviewer of the "Xiaomei Jury", Liu Zheng "opened the door to a new world" - judging "whether a bad review should be displayed in the comment area of the business" has become his "side hustle" without salary.
At present, on online platforms such as takeaway and second-hand trading, tens of thousands of people have the same experience as Liu Zheng: due to the disagreement between buyers and sellers, they become "cyber judges" (public judges who are invited to judge the reasonableness of comments and transaction disputes on some online platforms - reporter's note), 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".
Happy product
The first time I learned about this model, I swiped it by chance on social platforms. Wang Ke recalled his first experience as a "cyber judge", "I just thought it was interesting at the time, so I thought I would give it a try, but I didn't expect it to be 'out of control'."
Taking advantage of the minutes spent waiting for the subway on the way to work, clicking on the "jury" or "small court" function of some platforms, and "judging" the seller or buyer in the form of online voting has become Wang Ke's daily Xi. "When I have nothing to do, I think it's interesting to watch their 'pulling' process. In her opinion, being a "cyber judge" is a way to dispel boredom on her own.
Cyber Judge" has become a way for young people to socialize. On the platform, in addition to the debate between merchants and customers, the reviewers can also make comments. In the comment area, the "red and blue sides" went their separate ways and unfolded their rhetoric;Outside the venue, many "cyber judges" will also bring the "case" to their real social circle and discuss and share it with friends.
Not only that, "Cyber Judge" is also popular on major social platforms. According to Chen Wu, an associate professor at the Institute of Developmental and Educational Psychology at Wuhan University, this is a kind of collective participation, which has more social attributes and social significance than individual participation.
Why is the takeaway judge so funny" on Weibo, a case that caused controversy because "a customer ordered Guilin rice noodles, but remarked that he wanted snail noodles", aroused Zhang Xiaoxiao's curiosity. She passed the test to become a judge and began her journey as a "cyber judge".
Some businesses pretend to be confused and "dump" riders, and some customers have sharp evaluations and express the voices of the majority of users, which can be called the ...... of "Internet mouth".According to Zhang Xiaoxiao, she usually rarely gives bad reviews to merchants and riders, fearing that it will cause them trouble. In the process of participating in the review, her perception of bad reviews has changed: "I found that no one will blame you for giving a bad review, what do you say, bravely give a true review, but will give effective advice to other consumers." ”
It's fun, and it's also a good way to critique. Participating in the review has become the "flavoring" of Liu Zheng's daily life. After completing the limited number of review tasks each day, he will still be unsatisfied and set an alarm clock for the next day to remind himself to complete the task. He treated this incident as a game, and with the mentality of being idle and joining in the fun, he was amused by all kinds of "comment memes" and "Internet mouth substitutes".
However, occasionally, Liu Zheng will encounter times when he is not sure, and it will take several minutes to make a "verdict" after thinking about it. "Sometimes I come across comments that speak my heart, déjà vu;Sometimes I also feel that customers are unreasonable and feel sorry for the business. In his view, the "Cyber Judge" is a product of the modern lifestyle of young people.
An act of justice
Wang Ke introduced that the platform will give feedback immediately after her vote, telling users whether their choice is consistent with most "judges", which is one of the reasons why she joined the jury. "When I encounter some cases that are difficult to judge, I often turn to the people around me for advice. She mentioned that although she was going to be happy, she still cared about whether her vote was fair and objective, "Empathy, if I was wronged, I would also hope that someone would stand up for justice and get a fair result."
Young people are often judged by others, but they often don't listen to their own evaluations of others, and this feeling that talking and evaluation can count is very much needed by young people. Chen Wu said that this is the embodiment of a sense of participation, presence and value.
Wang Ke enjoys this process of "judging others". "Even if what I get every day is trivial things like 'no coriander but green onions' and 'is Kung Pao chicken sweet and sour or spicy', as long as the interests of the 'justice' side are safeguarded, it will also give me a sense of satisfaction. In this regard, many people jokingly said that they "experienced a contemporary Bao Qingtian".
*Dan is a veteran user of Xianyu. The first time she learned about this function was when she was sued "in court". When she was ** cake card, she was suddenly applied for a return and refund by the buyer. Since she had already told the other party the password of the card, she refused the buyer's request. The buyer filed a complaint with the "small court", but due to the sufficient evidence and the clarity of the facts, **Dan won easily.
Since then, Dan has participated in the "small court" review many times. Because she had received a fair verdict, she thought twice about it in every review. In her opinion, it is very important to make the right and careful choice, "Every second-hand transaction is related to money, and one of my choices may determine the ownership of this money."
Cai Lixin, who is still in college, has completed about 30 review tasks every week since he joined the "Xianyu Small Court" for one year. As a photography enthusiast, he knows all kinds of cameras.
Cai Lixin often encounters the problem of sellers hiding flaws in the "small court", and some reviewers lack professional knowledge of the camera, which makes it difficult for buyers to protect their rights in the later stage. He took a second-hand film camera as an example, "There is no problem before the seller ships the goods, but in fact there is a problem with the functionality of the film camera, and some reviewers do not understand this, which leads to misjudgment."
In response to this situation, Cai Lixin focused on the evaluation of rights protection on electronic product transactions in the review, and learned how to improve the chain of evidence Xi. "I will also tell others how to appeal during this process, give them advice, and help them protect their legal rights and interests in a timely and effective manner. ”
In Wang Ke's view, although consumers are often in a weak position in the public consensus, in the process of participating in the review, he found some malicious bad reviews from buyers: "Whether it is to help consumers protect their rights or to avoid a conscientious merchant being wronged, it will help the healthy operation of the platform." ”
Miao Mingyu, deputy dean of the Law School of the University of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said that according to the second paragraph of Article 39 of China's "E-Commerce Law", e-commerce platform operators shall not delete consumers' evaluations of the goods sold or services provided on their platforms. "This means that if a 'bad review' is displayed or published directly once it is issued, the platform no longer has control over the bad review, and can only be deleted by the consumer himself or by a court decision. As a result, some platforms now set up a pre-judgment procedure for 'display' for negative reviews, and invite netizens to make judgments, and the platforms have not illegally deleted the reviews, but also achieved the goal of not letting inappropriate negative reviews appear in the public eye. ”
In Miao Mingyu's view, the participation of netizens in judging transactions or bad reviews can improve the transparency of transactions, help judge relevant disputes from a neutral perspective, and maintain the fairness and objectivity of the platform's internal evaluation system. Netizens' participation in judging can also enhance users' understanding of the platform, increase participation and sense of belonging, and improve users' loyalty and stickiness to the platform.
Treat it objectively
In Chen Wu's view, the emergence of "Cyber Judge" has made up for the shortcomings of the previous platform in the evaluation mechanism to a certain extent, but its effect remains to be observed and tested in practice.
Chen Xinrui, from a university in Jiangxi, has reservations about the operation of the "Cyber Judge". "Take the jury model of a certain platform as an example. When a business receives a negative review from a customer, they can apply to a 'cyber court' and invite a reviewer to decide whether the review is biased. In his opinion, such a setting is more beneficial to the merchant, "In the face of the user's bad review, the merchant can file an appeal and show the reason for the defense, but the user does not have a second chance to defend." ”
In Chen Xinrui's view, the rapid popularity of "Cyber Judge" is more like a marketing campaign by some platforms or merchants. "The dramatic conflict between merchants and consumers often attracts a large number of online users to 'onlooker', and the platform can get a lot of traffic and popularity. He said: "When I experienced the reviewer function, I found that the communication between the existing merchants and users was a little detached from reality, like deliberately funny, and some of them would 'collide' with the current hot spots on the Internet." This made Chen Xinrui begin to wonder whether some of these seemingly "deliberate" dialogues were real, "Many netizens are involved in it with the psychology of 'fighting injustice', if such a nonsensical plot is allowed to intensify, it will only make more and more 'Internet coaxing' and fewer and fewer 'Internet heroes', then it will be out of the original intention of this model." He said that the operation of the "Cyber Judge" model should be a long stream. "If the big wave recedes in the end, the platform gets traffic, the merchants take advantage of the loopholes, and the netizens have fun, then what do consumers get?Chen Xinrui said.
*Dan agrees that the mechanism of "whether or not to show bad reviews" is biased. One case shows that a customer gave a bad review to a cat café, saying that the cat is not a relative, and the cat café refutes the nature of the cat. She and her family discussed this for more than ten minutes. "I can understand the views of both sides, and it is difficult for me to give an answer under the current mechanism. If the objective or non-objective of the negative review is the criterion, she believes that the negative review is not valid;If the criterion is whether the comment is displayed or not, she believes that the comment has reference value for other users and should be displayed.
Everyone has a different voice about one thing. As a consumer, I want to hear different voices and see different points of view, and the real evaluation on both sides is worth referencing. "Even if I encounter a bad review that doesn't hold up logically, I have the ability to filter it myself." ”
Some people may prefer to express their opinions, but I hope that this kind of opinion will not form a 'spiral of silence', which will drown out those balanced voices, so that those who disagree are afraid to speak out or even suffer from cyberbullying, and the harmonious development of the Internet requires dialogue rather than quarrels. Chen Beibei, who often uses takeaway, second-hand trading and other platforms, combined with his own experience, suggested that users should uphold fairness first in the process of participating in the review, "not only to exercise the pleasure of voting in 'click', but should have a certain space to state reasons, and improve their literacy in 'debate' and '**)." ”
Chen Wu also made a suggestion to young people, saying that he hoped that the "judges" would cherish the "power" in their hands, that they should not be capricious, that they should embody the principle of fairness, and that they should exercise their powers prudently. At the same time, make more factual judgments, less value judgments, and try to be less affected by emotions and emotions.
At the request of the interviewees, in addition to Cai Lixin and Wang Ke, the interviewed public judges and netizens are pseudonyms. Cheng Si also contributed to this article).
*: China Youth Daily.