二是低成本的规模扩张。无需依托实体店铺，仅用一个账号就能链接全国市场——这让一家小作坊生产 的假奶粉得以轻松覆盖全国。这种低成本、广覆盖的扩张效率远非传统售假模式所能企及。 央视近期的一则调查报道揭开了假奶粉产业链的丑陋面纱。 2024年8月，在河南省中牟县一处脏乱差的出租屋内，三个大澡盆、一台搅拌机就构成了"生产线"，植 脂末、麦芽糊精与固体饮料按比例勾兑，再添上工业香精，便摇身变成"进口牛奶粉""高端驼奶粉"。 这些号称富含蛋白质、适合老人小孩的奶制品，经检测后脂肪、蛋白质含量几乎为零，所谓的奶香不过 是香精伪造的假象，"牛奶""羊奶""驼奶"都是噱头和"狠活"，唯独没有真奶。这起案件涉案金额超650 万元，6000余箱假奶粉通过电商和视频号流向全国各个省份，让众多消费者上当受骗。 2008年的三聚氰胺事件为我国食品安全领域敲响了警钟，留下了极为深刻的教训。10多年来，我国奶粉 安全防线越来越牢固，假奶粉案近乎绝迹。正因如此，这一突然冒出来的造假事件才备受关注、令人震 惊。 据报道，造假者的利润率超过10倍，成本仅2至4元的假奶粉，包装后在电商平台售价高达30~88元，暴 利让不法分子无视法律与良知。然而 ...

每经编辑｜金冥羽 黄博文 央视近期的一则调查报道揭开了假奶粉产业链的丑陋面纱。 2024年8月，在河南省中牟县一处脏乱差的出租屋内，三个大澡盆、一台搅拌机就构成了"生产线"，植脂末、麦芽糊精与固体饮料按比例勾兑，再添上工 业香精，便摇身变成"进口牛奶粉""高端驼奶粉"。 这些号称富含蛋白质、适合老人小孩的奶制品，经检测后脂肪、蛋白质含量几乎为零，所谓的奶香不过是香精伪造的假象，"牛奶""羊奶""驼奶"都是噱头 和"狠活"，唯独没有真奶。这起案件涉案金额超650万元，6000余箱假奶粉通过电商和视频号流向全国各个省份，让众多消费者上当受骗。 2008年的三聚氰胺事件为我国食品安全领域敲响了警钟，留下了极为深刻的教训。10多年来，我国奶粉安全防线越来越牢固，假奶粉案近乎绝迹。正因如 此，这一突然冒出来的假奶粉案才备受关注、令人震惊。 一是算法的精准推送。平台通过用户画像分析，可将"进口奶源""营养丰富"等营销信息精准触达关注健康的中老年群体和婴幼儿家长，或推送给对价格敏 感的群体。 二是低成本的规模扩张。无需依托实体店铺，仅用一个账号就能链接全国市场——这让河南一家小作坊生产的假奶粉得以轻松覆盖全国各省。这种低成 ...

2024年8月，在河南省中牟县一处脏乱差的出租屋内，三个大澡盆、一台搅拌机就构成了"生产线"，植 脂末、麦芽糊精与固体饮料按比例勾兑，再添上工业香精，便摇身变成"进口牛奶粉""高端驼奶粉"。 2008年的三聚氰胺事件为我国食品安全领域敲响了警钟，留下了极为深刻的教训。10多年来，我国奶粉 安全防线越来越牢固，假奶粉案近乎绝迹。正因如此，这一突然冒出来的假奶粉案才备受关注、令人震 惊。 据报道，造假者的利润率超过10倍，成本仅2至4元的假奶粉，包装后在电商平台售价高达30至88元，暴 利让不法分子无视法律与良知。然而，他们又是如何销售出去的？流通环节的电商平台与社交媒体平台 （以下统称"平台"）难辞其咎。 在上述案例中，平台成为假货流通的渠道，原因有三： 央视近期的一则调查报道揭开了假奶粉产业链的丑陋面纱。 这些号称富含蛋白质、适合老人小孩的奶制品，经检测后脂肪、蛋白质含量几乎为零，所谓的奶香不过 是香精伪造的假象，"牛奶""羊奶""驼奶"都是噱头和"狠活"，唯独没有真奶。这起案件涉案金额超650 万元，6000余箱假奶粉通过电商和视频号流向全国各个省份，让众多消费者上当受骗。 由此可见，一旦假货趁平台监管空隙 ...

腾讯刚刚发完振奋人心的三季度财报，澎湃就给了腾讯一巴掌。 11月14日，澎湃发文炮轰腾讯《随意屏蔽新闻报道，腾讯何以成了媒体的"总编辑"》。 很多人都转了，而且普遍都站在了澎湃这边。 事情的起因是，澎湃调查队视频号发了一条带货主播违规宣称能增高的新闻报道，在报道发布一个多小时后，便遭到了不明来源的投诉，最终腾讯方面认为 该新闻报道侵犯了肖像权，对该视频新闻报道进行了"屏蔽"处理。 这已是影子调查队视频号上线以来，第二次遭到腾讯方面的屏蔽。所谓的"屏蔽"，会导致该则新闻报道仅自己可见，无法转发传播，其实和"删除"几乎无 异。 澎湃从《民法典》和《互联网新闻信息服务管理规定》论述了新闻报道的合理性和媒体的应尽义务，并发问 为什么一个信息聚合平台可以仅凭一方投诉，就把新闻媒体的报道直接"处理掉"？这背后，平台到底扮演了什么角色？ 澎湃给腾讯此举的评价是： 说轻了，就是让一些违法违规者滥用投诉机制，借机干预新闻信息呈现；说重了，就是商业平台对意识形态领域的粗暴干涉。故意营造"信息茧房"不能由信 息聚合平台来独断。 并大声疾呼：新闻机构要承担新闻责任，平台也应承担平台责任。平台不是新闻媒体的"总编辑"，也不应该成为"总 ...

Core Viewpoint - The incident involving actress Wen Zhengrong highlights the urgent need for legal and regulatory intervention regarding the unauthorized use of AI-generated images for commercial purposes, raising questions about platform accountability [2][4][6] Group 1: Celebrity Rights Protection - Celebrities must follow a structured approach to protect their rights, starting with evidence collection, such as saving screenshots of AI broadcasts and links to infringing products [2][3] - Legal actions can be taken against merchants for infringing on portrait rights and name rights, with the Civil Code providing a solid legal basis for such claims [3][4] Group 2: Platform Responsibilities - Platforms cannot evade responsibility and must implement preemptive measures, such as using technology to identify AI-generated content and verifying identities in live broadcasts [4][6] - Upon receiving reports of infringement, platforms are required to act within 24 hours to remove infringing content, as stipulated by the E-commerce Law [4][6] Group 3: Legal Framework and Enforcement - The Civil Code and E-commerce Law provide a clear legal framework for rights holders to notify platforms and enforce their rights against unauthorized use of AI [4][5] - Regulatory bodies need to increase penalties for violations, as demonstrated by past cases where companies were fined for impersonating public figures [5][6] Group 4: Challenges and Solutions - The covert nature of AI fraud complicates enforcement, but proactive monitoring and technological upgrades are essential for platforms to prevent misuse [5][6] - Collective action among celebrities, platforms, and regulatory authorities is necessary to effectively combat the misuse of AI technology [6]

Core Viewpoint - The introduction of a dual evaluation mechanism for food delivery services aims to balance the power dynamics between riders and customers, allowing riders to block problematic customers and enhancing their rights as workers [1][2][3] Group 1: Evaluation Mechanism - The new feature allows riders to select "do not deliver to this customer" for up to 365 days if they face abusive behavior, thus correcting the previous one-sided evaluation system [1][2] - This dual evaluation system empowers riders to refuse unreasonable demands from customers, potentially improving service quality and fostering a more harmonious relationship between riders and customers [2][3] Group 2: Challenges and Concerns - There are concerns regarding the protection of user rights in cases where riders block customers, especially in difficult delivery scenarios, and how to ensure fair treatment of customers who may be unjustly blocked [2][3] - The platform's role as a neutral rule-maker raises questions about its responsibility in managing the relationship between riders and customers, as it may avoid its obligations as the primary organizer [3][4] Group 3: Recommendations for Improvement - To address the underlying issues, the platform should consider implementing differentiated pricing based on order difficulty, ensuring fair compensation for riders and preventing mass blocking of customers [4][5] - Establishing formal employment relationships for riders would compel the platform to create effective complaint channels and support systems, enhancing riders' dignity and promoting a healthier ecosystem [4][5]

Core Viewpoint - The newly revised Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China, effective from October 15, aims to address new challenges in market competition, particularly in the digital economy, by targeting new forms of unfair competition and enhancing regulatory measures [2][3]. Group 1: New Market Characteristics - The rapid development of platform and sharing economies has led to significant changes in market competition, with data becoming a key element and technologies like algorithms and artificial intelligence being widely applied [2]. - Increased market concentration and scale effects have made it easier for leading platforms to establish dominant market positions, presenting new challenges for anti-unfair competition [2]. Group 2: Key Provisions of the New Law - The law specifically targets false transactions, aiming to dismantle the gray industrial chain of fake reviews and sales, which mislead consumers and create a vicious cycle of poor quality [3]. - It emphasizes the protection of data rights, prohibiting illegal data acquisition and interference with others' data products, thus ensuring safe and regulated data utilization [3][4]. - The law clarifies the responsibilities of platform operators, requiring them to provide a fair competitive environment and not to exploit their advantages to engage in monopolistic practices [4]. Group 3: Implementation Challenges - Effective implementation of the law requires enhanced regulatory enforcement to detect hidden violations, utilizing technologies like big data and artificial intelligence for real-time monitoring [4]. - There is a need for mechanisms that encourage consumers and businesses to assert their rights, addressing the high costs and difficulties associated with legal recourse [5].

Core Viewpoint - The article emphasizes the need for a regulatory framework to address the chaotic state of online stock recommendations, highlighting the blurred boundaries of administrative regulation, weak deterrent effects of penalties, and unclear collaboration among regulatory bodies [5][9][17]. Summary by Sections Online Stock Recommendation Chaos - Since late September 2024, a surge in retail investor accounts has been observed, driven by a new ecosystem in the A-share market, significantly influenced by online stock recommendations [5]. - The current landscape of online stock recommendations is mixed, involving licensed securities consulting firms and unlicensed influential online figures, with methods ranging from factual analysis to spreading false information for profit [6]. Regulatory Dilemmas - The article identifies three main regulatory challenges: 1. **Ambiguity in Administrative Regulation**: The distinction between securities investment consulting activities and businesses is unclear, leading to regulatory gaps [10][11]. 2. **Weak Deterrent Effect of Penalties**: Many licensed investment consulting firms continue to violate regulations, with low penalties for misconduct, resulting in a culture of non-compliance [12][13]. 3. **Unclear Collaboration Among Regulatory Bodies**: Multiple agencies are involved in regulating online stock recommendations, but lack clear coordination, making comprehensive oversight difficult [15][16]. Platform Responsibility - The article argues for recognizing the dual role of large online platforms as both market competitors and self-regulatory managers, suggesting that effective regulation of online stock recommendations requires a focus on platform responsibility within a framework that includes administrative bodies and recommendation entities [17][19]. - It advocates for adaptive regulation that allows for flexibility and innovation in regulatory approaches, emphasizing the importance of self-regulation by platforms to balance efficiency and safety in the financial market [19][20].