“避雷”难倒小红书

Core Viewpoint - The incident involving the "avoidance posts" on Xiaohongshu has raised significant concerns regarding the platform's responsibility in content moderation and the impact of user-generated content (UGC) on businesses in the tourism sector [1][2][3]. Group 1: Incident Overview - The Cultural and Tourism Bureau of Lijiang City publicly requested Xiaohongshu to enhance its information auditing and monitoring in the wedding photography sector, citing inadequate platform responsibility [1]. - The bureau reported that over 1 million yuan in refunds and indirect losses exceeding 5 million yuan were incurred by businesses due to false avoidance posts [1][3]. - The Lijiang Wedding Photography Industry Association has refused further negotiations with Xiaohongshu and is preparing for a collective public lawsuit against the platform [3]. Group 2: User Reactions and Content Types - The discussion around "avoidance posts" has polarized users, with some viewing them as necessary consumer protection while others fear excessive regulation may stifle genuine sharing [2]. - "Avoidance posts" on Xiaohongshu can be categorized into three types: service-related complaints, experience discrepancies, and clickbait posts [4][5]. - The first type focuses on service irregularities, the second on the gap between expectations and reality, and the third aims to attract attention but often misrepresents the content [4][5]. Group 3: Platform Dynamics and Challenges - Xiaohongshu's community is built on UGC, which has fostered a high level of trust among its 350 million monthly active users, but the line between genuine feedback and marketing content has blurred [5][6]. - The platform faces challenges in distinguishing between legitimate user feedback and malicious posts, leading to potential reputational damage for businesses [9][11]. - The legal implications of "avoidance posts" are significant, as they can lead to accusations of defamation or malicious intent if they lack factual basis [12][13][16]. Group 4: Legal and Ethical Considerations - Legal experts emphasize that distinguishing between genuine avoidance and malicious defamation hinges on factual accuracy and intent [13][16]. - Platforms like Xiaohongshu may not be liable for all content but have a responsibility to act on complaints and evidence of false information [16][17]. - The ongoing conflict highlights the need for clearer guidelines and mechanisms for content moderation to protect both consumers and businesses [17][18].