始祖鸟在喜马拉雅搞出大动作之后，全网都在问：这是怎么通过审核的？真的就看不出问题吗？ Emmmm……别说公众，公关也是同款疑惑，疑惑程度只深不浅。 9月22日，央视《东方时空》去现场探访，实拍到了一堆谁看了都想骂几句的画面，采访的环保专家、动物专家也说后果严重。 因为与主办方之前"没什么影响"的说法出入很大，始祖鸟和蔡国强"说谎"的词条又上热搜，要求"严惩"的呼声也挺大。 聊聊怎么当时就没人拦一下始祖鸟呢？ 对于高溢价的品牌，这种彰显咖位和手笔的活动，是标配，也是常态。谁家不弄几个，出门遇到同行都不好意思打招呼。 我们并不否认这类活动的价值。肯定有，而且还是不小的价值。这篇文章想要讨论的是：精准营销和闭环沟通，为什么会更容易导致危机公关，以及有没 有改善的余地。 02 喜马拉雅放烟花这种天花板级别的"大型创意活动"，必然需要经过一道又一道的流程审批。 我们能够通过始祖鸟的官方直播看到放烟花画面，意味着整个链路上的人，都按下了"同意"。 有2种可能性： 其一，公司里上上下下左左右右，有一个算一个，都没看出来。 01 在喜马拉雅放烟花，请蔡国强亲自操刀，搞出"龙"这种气势，连炸4波，我不知道具体费用，因为没有搞过 ...

始祖鸟和蔡国强在喜马拉雅山搞的烟花秀引爆了舆论。 很多人指责蔡国强和始祖鸟市场部的员工，甚至当地审批通过的相关机构也难逃其咎。 但大家忽略了一个关键细节，那就是执行这场烟花秀的最终决定为什么会被拍板？ 换句话说，这场秀的最高决策人，也就是始祖鸟市场部的大老板，为什么没看出来有问题？ 参与其中的每一个人，我不相信全都会认为在喜马拉雅山上放烟花不会有风险。 但凡在网上查一下，翻看一下喜玛雅拉山环境相关的介绍，仔细看一下放烟花的行动方案，都会嗅出一 点不对劲。 但为什么没有人站出来说？ 因为当一件事情绑定了许多相关利益方群体的时候，所有人都会对其中的纰漏选择性失明。 尤其是重大事件，涉及的人员一旦多了，每个人都会出现一个奇怪的心理： 这个事情的负责人不是我，我只是执行上头的决定而已，上头喜欢就行了，我就是个打工的纯牛马。 答案很简单，因为大老板被关进了信息茧房，根本察觉不出来会有什么问题。 谁把他关进去的？答案是和这个项目相关的所有人。 现在品牌找蔡国强合作一场烟花秀的市场价都是千万起步，无论对于哪个品牌来说都是年度重大项目。 而重大项目在甲方内部一定是要经过层层上报，层层审批的。 就像这次炸山事件一样，提案的广告 ...

用"深度思考"破"信息茧房"。算法推送的"信息茧房"，让受众陷入观点同质化困境，评论的一个重要价 值正在于打破这种封闭性，这是人工智能依赖数据拼接难以实现的"思想穿透力"。用"情感共鸣"补"技 术冰冷"。好的评论既能"讲道理"，也能"通人心"，而人工智能恰恰缺乏人类独有的温情。用"跨界融 合"拓"传播边界"。智能互联网时代的评论，不再局限于文字载体，而是走向"全媒体融合"，评论的形 式和内容会发生一些还无法预料的嬗变，我们必须做好准备。 人工智能可以成为评论工作的"助手"，却无法替代人类对时代的深刻洞察、对人性的细腻感知。当评论 工作者既能驾驭新技术、适应新场景，又能坚守角色定位、保持人文温度，便能让观点的力量穿越技术 更迭，成为推动社会进步的动力。 智能互联网的浪潮正在重塑舆论场。用人工智能写评论，具有写作效率高、表达方式活、数据能力强等 优势。面对机遇与挑战，评论写作既要坚守思想内核，又要突破形式桎梏，在守正创新中寻找突围路 径。 《 人民日报 》（ 2025年09月18日 05 版） (责编：牛镛、袁勃) ...

Core Insights - The wave of smart internet is reshaping the public opinion landscape, with artificial intelligence (AI) enhancing writing efficiency, expression diversity, and data capabilities [1] - Comment writing must balance core ideological values with innovative forms, seeking breakthroughs through a combination of adherence to principles and creative approaches [1] Group 1: Breaking Information Silos - AI can help break the "information cocoon" created by algorithmic content delivery, which leads to homogeneous viewpoints among audiences [1] - The value of commentary lies in its ability to penetrate this closed-off environment, a capability that AI struggles to achieve due to its reliance on data synthesis [1] Group 2: Emotional Resonance - Effective commentary should not only present logical arguments but also resonate emotionally with the audience, an area where AI lacks the unique warmth of human expression [1] Group 3: Cross-Disciplinary Integration - In the era of smart internet, commentary is evolving beyond traditional text formats into a "full media integration" approach, leading to unpredictable changes in both form and content [1] - The industry must prepare for these transformations as commentary adapts to new technologies and platforms [1] Group 4: The Role of AI - AI can serve as an assistant in commentary work but cannot replace human insights into the times and nuanced understanding of human nature [1] - Commentators who can leverage new technologies while maintaining their humanistic perspective will enable their viewpoints to transcend technological changes and drive social progress [1]

【林岳：#西贝贾国龙为啥觉得自己被虐了# ？】多年以后，贾国龙一定会想起那段因为冲动而让西贝 陷入困境的日子。没人能想到，一场由预制菜引发的超级风暴在全网蔓延开来，仅需一位食客的随意吐 槽，外加一位企业家的"执着"。 2025年9月10日，罗永浩发布微博"西贝菜品几乎全是预制菜，价格昂贵且恶心"，引发了一场远超预期 的舆论风波，贾国龙随即宣布起诉罗永浩，并以"生意可以不做，是非必须得辨"的姿态全面应战。 很明显，罗永浩低估了自己的随意吐槽，而贾国龙高估了这条微博的伤害。 西贝本以为强调国家预制菜标准、开放后厨直播能够扭转舆论风向，但不出意外的"意外"暴露了无鸡的 鸡汤、一岁的冷冻羊腿、两年的西兰花等难以自圆其说的问题。更致命的是，贾国龙强大的朋友圈帮了 倒忙，将罗永浩称为"网络黑嘴、网络黑社会"的聊天截图流出，彻底激化了矛盾。 至于道歉信里那句"顾客虐我千百遍，我待顾客如初恋"，我相信贾国龙的初衷只是想用一句烂俗的网络 梗强调后半句——他对顾客深沉的包容的爱。然而不出意外的"意外"是，这句话又给对手递了刀子，招 来了罗永浩的火速回应："顾客虐你什么了？" 正是这种熟人圈"信息茧房"，让贾国龙在面对舆论风波时， ...

【文/观察者网专栏作者 林岳】 多年以后，贾国龙一定会想起那段因为冲动而让西贝陷入困境的日子。没人能想到，一场由预制菜引发 的超级风暴在全网蔓延开来，仅需一位食客的随意吐槽，外加一位企业家的"执着"。 2025年9月10日，罗永浩发布微博"西贝菜品几乎全是预制菜，价格昂贵且恶心"，引发了一场远超预期 的舆论风波，贾国龙随即宣布起诉罗永浩，并以"生意可以不做，是非必须得辨"的姿态全面应战。 很明显，罗永浩低估了自己的随意吐槽，而贾国龙高估了这条微博的伤害。 西贝本以为强调国家预制菜标准、开放后厨直播能够扭转舆论风向，但不出意外的"意外"暴露了无鸡的 鸡汤、一岁的冷冻羊腿、两年的西兰花等难以自圆其说的问题。更致命的是，贾总强大的朋友圈帮了倒 忙，将罗永浩称为"网络黑嘴、网络黑社会"的聊天截图流出，彻底激化了矛盾。 至于道歉信里那句"顾客虐我千百遍，我待顾客如初恋"，我相信贾总的初衷只是想用一句烂俗的网络梗 强调后半句——他对顾客深沉的包容的爱。然而不出意外的"意外"是，这句话又给对手递了刀子，招来 了罗永浩的火速回应："顾客虐你什么了？" 也许是西贝贾总性格中的傲慢成分导致了"受虐心态"，将企业危机转化为个人荣辱 ...

Group 1 - The article discusses the concepts of "information cocoon," "filter bubble," and "echo chamber," suggesting that these terms oversimplify the complexities of individual existence in the digital space, reducing it to a binary of "closed" and "isolated" [1][2][6] - It introduces Peter Sloterdijk's "sphere three states," categorizing human coexistence into bubbles, spheres, and foam, highlighting the interwoven nature of these forms in modern society [2][4][5] - The article emphasizes that the digital community's nature is not merely a "closed cocoon" but rather a "foam aggregation," which reflects the dynamic and interconnected nature of individual bubbles [6][7] Group 2 - The concept of "algorithmic pampering space" is introduced, where algorithms create a comfortable information environment for users, but also entrap them within a data capitalism framework [8][9] - The mechanisms of filtering, bonding, and cycling are described as ways algorithms reinforce user preferences while isolating them from diverse viewpoints, leading to a "self-consuming cycle" within groups [11][13] - The article argues that the challenge is not just breaking free from information cocoons but addressing the deeper issue of cognitive rigidity, which is more difficult to overcome [14][16] Group 3 - The notion of "bubble community" is presented as a complex system of interconnected information bubbles, where isolation and connection coexist, and emphasizes the need for optimizing this structure [25][26] - It suggests that improving the bubble community requires algorithmic interventions, promoting the flow of heterogeneous information, and establishing a social contract among users, platforms, and governments [20][22][23] - The article concludes that the goal is not to dismantle these bubbles but to create valuable connections among them, transforming fragmented pieces into a cohesive digital ecosystem [27][29]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the concept of "bubble community" as a complex and dynamic structure in the digital age, emphasizing the coexistence of isolation and connection among individual information bubbles, challenging the traditional narrative of "information cocoons" [31][22]. Group 1: Conceptual Framework - The terms "information cocoon," "filter bubble," and "echo chamber" attempt to describe a shared experiential space, which can be categorized into three forms: bubbles, spheres, and foams, as proposed by philosopher Peter Sloterdijk [3][5]. - Bubbles represent the smallest unit of coexistence, symbolizing intimate relationships, while spheres denote larger, closed communities that provide safety from external threats [3][5][6]. - Foams consist of interconnected bubbles, representing an open yet fragile social structure, where individual bubbles maintain their independence while influencing one another [6][8]. Group 2: Algorithmic Influence - Algorithms create a "pampered space" for users by filtering out uncomfortable information and reinforcing cognitive biases, leading to a "cognitive immune space" [10][12]. - The filtering mechanism passively constructs boundaries, while the "adhesion mechanism" actively strengthens these boundaries through user interactions, such as likes and shares [11][12]. - This results in a parasitic structure where users become laborers in data capitalism, trading their data for a comfortable cognitive environment [12][13]. Group 3: Challenges of Digital Interaction - The article highlights the shift from emotional resonance to adversarial stimuli as the glue that binds groups together, leading to polarization and a lack of diverse viewpoints [13][15]. - Individual fluidity is constrained within algorithmic pampered spaces, where users appear to have freedom but are actually confined to predetermined cognitive frameworks [14][15]. - The self-consuming cycle of information within these bubbles leads to a gradual loss of vitality and diversity, as members become increasingly homogeneous in their views [15][16]. Group 4: Cognitive Navigation - The concept of "cognitive cocoon" is introduced, emphasizing that the real challenge lies in cognitive rigidity rather than mere information isolation [19][20]. - Individuals often reject opposing viewpoints due to confirmation bias and the fear of cognitive dissonance, reinforcing their existing beliefs [19][20]. - The article argues that breaking free from cognitive cocoons requires more than just exposure to diverse information; it necessitates a shift in mindset and the ability to engage with differing perspectives [16][19]. Group 5: Optimizing Bubble Communities - The article proposes three strategies for optimizing bubble communities: algorithmic intervention, sphere re-gasification, and social engineering [24][25][27]. - Algorithmic intervention involves injecting "heterogeneous bacteria" into recommendation systems to enhance cognitive diversity [24]. - Sphere re-gasification aims to make rigid boundaries more permeable, facilitating interaction between different bubbles [25]. - Social engineering emphasizes the need for a collective social contract among users, platforms, and governments to foster a healthier information ecosystem [27][28].

Group 1 - The negative sentiment towards Huawei online contrasts with its strong sales offline, indicating a disconnect between public perception and market performance [1][3] - The phenomenon of information bubbles is highlighted, where users are exposed to content that reinforces their existing views, leading to polarized opinions about Huawei [2][12] - Competition among brands, particularly between domestic and foreign products, contributes to negative perceptions of Huawei, as fans of rival brands may express disdain based on personal experiences or brand loyalty [3][5] Group 2 - The influence of fan culture is evident, where groups of consumers rally around their preferred brands, creating a social dynamic similar to fandoms in entertainment [7] - There are external factors at play, including potential organized efforts by certain countries or companies to undermine Huawei's reputation, possibly through paid campaigns or social media manipulation [9][11] - The impact of social media algorithms is significant, as repeated exposure to negative content can shape user perceptions and lead to collective negative sentiment towards Huawei [12][14]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses how the internet, while intended to connect people, has instead created divisions and misunderstandings through algorithm-driven content that reinforces biases and promotes conflict among different generations and social groups [2][3][12]. Group 1: Impact of Algorithms - Algorithms create "information cocoons" that limit individuals' perspectives by only showing content that aligns with their existing beliefs, leading to a distorted view of reality [3][12]. - The content pushed by algorithms can exacerbate generational divides, as seen in the contrasting views of young people and their parents regarding financial responsibilities and values [3][4]. Group 2: Social Dynamics - The article highlights the disconnect between family members and colleagues, where individuals perceive each other as adversaries due to the influence of algorithmically curated content [2][3]. - It emphasizes that the essence of relationships, such as familial love, is often overlooked in favor of superficial judgments based on materialism or societal expectations [3][12]. Group 3: Individual Responsibility - The tendency to follow popular opinions without critical thinking is described as "cognitive laziness," which leads to a loss of personal judgment and values [4][7]. - The article advocates for maintaining one's own pace and values in life, rather than succumbing to external pressures and trends dictated by the internet [10][12]. Group 4: The Role of Education - The discussion includes how the portrayal of education in media can lead to oversimplified narratives that ignore the complexities and individual differences in educational experiences [5][6]. - It points out that while some may criticize traditional education methods, many individuals have benefited from them, highlighting the need for a balanced perspective [6][12].