流量与商业的洪流之下，小红书正经历一场前所未有的生态考验。 1月19日，小红书社区公约2.0正式上线。这款覆盖超3.5亿月活用户的平台，明确提出"反对制造对立"等25条新倡导。 这不是小红书第一次试图规范社区生态。从2019年KOL"大清洗"，到2021年系统性的社区公约1.0，再到如今倡导价值的2.0，小红书正面临着社区初心与 商业扩张间日益明显的拉扯。 经过这些年的发展，小红书从一个专为海淘爱好者分享购物清单的PDF文档，成长为日均发布900万篇笔记的内容社区，拥有2500个活跃圈层。 平台快速发展的背后，炫富、虚假种草、拉踩引战、AI虚构内容……乱象丛生不断消耗着小红书最宝贵的资产——真诚分享、友好互动的社区氛围。 本质上，是平台的商业属性与社区属性发生了冲突。一方面，繁荣的生态与活跃的交易是增长的引擎；另一方面，失控的内容与对立的氛围又在侵蚀增长 的根基。 治理从一个可选项变成了必选项。社区是小红书一切价值的土壤，治理是维护其核心资产的必然，但如何管则是一场高难度的平衡术。 这场关于"管与放"的探索，是所有内容社区都会面临的命题：当商业与社区形成深度绑定，如何通过治理守住核心资产，在约束乱象与激活生态 ...

Core Viewpoint - Douyin is committed to promoting healthy eating and lifestyle principles while cracking down on abnormal eating broadcasts that exploit curiosity and vulgarity for traffic [1] Group 1: Company Actions - Douyin has announced a strict crackdown on various abnormal eating broadcast behaviors that violate platform rules and could lead to negative guidance [1] - In the past month, Douyin has dealt with 19,000 pieces of non-compliant content related to abnormal eating broadcasts [1] - The platform has taken action against 5,020 non-compliant live streaming rooms and imposed penalties on 3,825 violating accounts, including removing growth in followers, suspending monetization rights, and banning accounts [1]

Core Viewpoint - The rise of misleading "avoidance posts" on social media platforms like Xiaohongshu has led to significant financial losses for businesses, highlighting the need for better content governance and consumer education [1][2]. Group 1: Impact on Businesses - Businesses have reported losses exceeding 500 million yuan due to unsubstantiated "avoidance posts," with over 100,000 yuan in direct refunds [1]. - Some merchants claim that none of the 30 exaggerated and malicious "avoidance posts" they reported on Xiaohongshu were successfully appealed [1]. - The tourism and related sectors are particularly vulnerable due to the subjective nature of services like wedding and travel photography, which can lead to disputes [1]. Group 2: Nature of "Avoidance Posts" - The term "avoidance posts" originated from a genuine need for transparent consumer information, but has been distorted by some users seeking attention [2]. - The overall viewership of "avoidance" tags on Xiaohongshu has surpassed 10.8 billion, with over 66.61 million discussions, often lacking specific evidence [2]. - The proliferation of emotional and exaggerated "avoidance posts" misleads public perception and harms local tourism industries [2]. Group 3: Platform Responsibility and Recommendations - The platform's algorithms tend to favor controversial and extreme content, creating a vicious cycle of negativity [2]. - If platforms prioritize traffic over content governance, it could undermine their credibility [2]. - There is a call for platforms to develop refined content evaluation and guidance mechanisms to help users discern information more rationally [2]. Group 4: Industry Self-Improvement - Local tourism departments and industry businesses are encouraged to self-assess and address shortcomings in service quality, complaint response, and integrity [2]. - Continuous service optimization and the establishment of effective dispute resolution mechanisms are essential to reduce negative experiences [2]. - The ultimate goal is to ensure that every shared experience is trustworthy and every journey is anticipated positively [3].

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].

Core Viewpoint - Douyin E-commerce has announced an upgrade to its content governance regulations regarding "improper profit from trending topics," aiming to create a clearer online environment and prevent accounts from exploiting hot topics for profit [1][3]. Group 1: New Regulations - The new regulations specify that accounts that publish content lacking factual basis under the guise of "anti-fraud," "evaluation," or "exposure" and receive multiple complaints will have their content promotion and commercial monetization features disabled [3][4]. - Creators must adhere to scientific evidence, industry standards, and objective facts when publishing "anti-fraud," "evaluation," or "exposure" content, promoting a respectful and factual discourse [3][4]. - Creators are prohibited from selling similar products or related paid knowledge courses in the same industry while publishing "anti-fraud," "evaluation," or "exposure" content to avoid conflicts of interest and accusations of "profit from exposure" [4][5]. Group 2: Accountability Measures - Accounts that generate widespread public doubt due to lack of scientific basis or industry standards, or that have multiple content pieces taken down for infringement, will be classified as "controversial accounts" if they engage in commercial monetization [5]. - The platform will close the content promotion and commercial monetization features for accounts or account matrices that are deemed controversial based on the established rules [5].