转自：北京日报客户端 随着社交平台的崛起，有些不良思潮似乎找到了新的传播阵地。一段时间以来，历史虚无主义、极端女 权主义、泛娱乐主义等不良思潮借机粉墨登场，宣扬"1644史观""男性必须无条件付出""躺平即正义"等 话题，在网上持续引发争议。 社交平台作为人们可以自由进入的公共空间，承担一定的社会责任、恪守一定的行为边界乃是应有之 义。如果任由不良思潮蔓延扩散，不仅会破坏网络生态环境，还会扰乱人心、侵蚀社会信任基础，必须 引起高度警惕。 一 这些不良思潮通过稀释理论色彩、肢解其原本易于辨识的形态，不仅可以掩盖深层的政治或社会意图， 而且可以轻松"逃过"平台初步审核，渗透进资讯、社交、娱乐甚至学习场景，无孔不入。 在这过程中，有些平台非但没有筑起堤坝，反而有意无意地为这股精心伪装过的"浑水"开了闸门，成为 不良思潮的"放大器"。平台的热搜榜、推荐流、评论区仿佛一只"看不见的手"，时常默许甚至推动那些 能挑动情绪、制造争议的内容。于是，歪曲历史的"奇谈"可能比正史科普获得更高流量权重，炫富猎奇 的视频往往比踏实奋斗的故事传播更广。 今年以来，有些平台因破坏网络生态被约谈，也反映其正在为内容管理失序付出代价。它们有 ...

（来源：经济日报） 转自：经济日报 近日有媒体报道，在部分城市的早晚高峰时段或阴雨天，一种矛盾的打车现象频频出现：一边是乘客对 着手机上数十人的排队提示望眼欲穿，即便加价也难叫来一辆车，另一边是网约车司机听着系统"订单 激增"的语音提醒，却无单可接。 从表面看，这似乎是高峰时段运力短缺的结果。但深入分析，平台基于算法的派单机制，才是加剧供需 矛盾的关键推手。 为追求整体匹配效率，算法会将订单优先派给评分高、响应快的司机。这在理论上或能提高整体效率， 但在现实场景中却制造了新的浪费：大量普通司机被系统"闲置"，海量乘客需求无法得到有效满足。 问题核心在于算法的"黑箱"属性。平台掌握着乘客出价、司机位置、实时路况等关键数据，可以通过不 透明的规则介入利益分配。乘客却难以掌握真实排队情况，只能陷入被动加价局面。这种信息不对称， 使平台既能利用乘客的"打车焦虑"试探价格上限，又能通过派单权调控司机的竞争与收益。 破解高峰时段司乘困局，需要打破算法"黑箱"。平台应向公众公开派单基本规则、优先级考量因素及动 态调价机制，接受社会监督。监管部门则应对算法的公平性、合理性进行常态化审查，坚决杜绝歧视性 派单行为。 平台还需优 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recent initiative by Huolala to address the concerns of drivers regarding algorithm transparency and labor rules through collective negotiation and the establishment of a special agreement [2][5]. Group 1: Algorithm and Labor Relations - The emergence of platform algorithms as a new form of employment is highlighted, with Huolala holding the first national algorithm negotiation meeting to clarify labor rules [2]. - The lack of traditional labor relations for over 200 million flexible workers in China has made establishing effective social security systems a pressing issue [3]. - The "black box" nature of algorithms has created a gap in understanding and potential conflicts between platforms and drivers, particularly regarding income distribution and accountability for order cancellations [3][5]. Group 2: Key Issues and Solutions - Six core areas of concern for drivers include service income, management of cargo owners, labor safety, and the impact of behavior scores on order eligibility [3]. - Huolala's special agreement outlines rules for commission, order distribution, and driver welfare, addressing issues like fatigue driving with a planned investment of 338 million yuan for improvements [5][6]. - The platform has introduced a new public interface to clarify the principles of order cancellation responsibility, stating that only 4% of canceled orders are attributed to drivers [5][6]. Group 3: Future Engagement - Huolala plans to hold regular negotiation meetings to ensure drivers' rights to information and participation, indicating that discussions around algorithms will become a new norm in labor relations [6].

Core Viewpoint - The report titled "Ideological Colonialism - The Means, Roots, and International Hazards of American Cognitive Warfare" reveals the historical and systematic approach of the U.S. in conducting cognitive warfare globally, introducing the term "ideological colonialism" to the public [2][15]. Group 1: Historical Context and Cognitive Warfare - The U.S. has historically viewed the "rest of the world" from a perspective of cultural superiority, engaging in activities such as ideological export, manipulation of international public opinion, and attempts to subvert foreign governments [2]. - The period from 1949 to 1972 is identified as the starting point for the formation of the U.S. cognitive model towards China, characterized by a binary opposition of communism and anti-communism, and a "mirror thinking" approach that projected Cold War perceptions onto China [7][5]. - The CIA's reliance on secretive and selective information sources has evolved, with a shift towards more human intelligence and open-source intelligence due to increased interactions between the U.S. and China [10][12]. Group 2: Current Dynamics and Challenges - Despite the historical complexities, the U.S. continues to exhibit a tendency towards confrontation and containment of China, driven by a historical inertia in its cognitive approach [9]. - The rise of artificial intelligence and social media has transformed the landscape of information dissemination, leading to concerns about the "algorithmic black box" and its potential to manipulate narratives in favor of U.S. interests [17][15]. - The CIA's role in cognitive warfare has become more covert, with a significant shift of resources towards hidden cognitive operations, reflecting a response to the perceived threats from China [14][13].

Core Viewpoint - The major food delivery platforms in China, including Meituan, Ele.me, and JD, have announced a cessation of "involutionary" competition and high subsidies, aiming to maintain a healthy industry ecosystem. However, some platforms continue to offer significant subsidies, leading to concerns about the long-term impact on the food delivery and restaurant industry [1][2][4]. Group 1: Industry Dynamics - Following the announcement to stop irrational high subsidies, food delivery orders have significantly decreased, with delivery personnel reporting a drop in daily earnings from around 700-800 yuan to about 400 yuan [2][4]. - Despite the reduction in subsidies, there remains a significant price imbalance between online and offline dining, with some meals priced at 20 yuan in-store being available for as low as 7-8 yuan online [2][3]. Group 2: Subsidy Mechanisms - Some platforms have left room for future high subsidies, indicating a potential for continued low-price promotions under certain conditions, despite the public commitment to avoid large-scale irrational promotions [3][4]. - The burden of subsidy costs is often shifted to small and medium-sized businesses, which face pressure to participate in promotional activities that ultimately reduce their profit margins [4][5]. Group 3: Regulatory Considerations - The ongoing price war has altered consumer perceptions, leading them to believe that extremely low prices are the norm, which is unsustainable for businesses in the long run [6][7]. - Regulatory measures are suggested to address the opacity of algorithms and the ambiguity of responsibility in subsidy distribution, including the establishment of a subsidy tracing mechanism and the implementation of algorithm transparency regulations [6][7].

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing legal case involving Tencent's "Honor of Kings" game has sparked significant public interest, focusing on the demand for transparency regarding the game's matchmaking algorithm, which is claimed to influence player experience and retention [2][3][4]. Group 1: Legal Case Overview - The case is referred to as "China's first game algorithm case," with the plaintiff, a seasoned player and lawyer, seeking the public disclosure of the matchmaking algorithm used in "Honor of Kings" [2]. - The court hearings have concluded, but the judgment date remains uncertain, leading to widespread media attention and discussions on social platforms [2][3]. - The plaintiff argues that the game’s matchmaking system is unfair, alleging that it manipulates player win rates to enhance retention [4][5]. Group 2: Arguments from Both Sides - Tencent presented evidence during the hearings showing that player win rates do not align with the plaintiff's claim of a controlled 50% win rate, citing specific player statistics to support their position [3][4]. - The company contends that the matchmaking mechanism is a trade secret and that disclosing it could lead to unfair competition and exploitation by malicious players [5][8]. - The plaintiff emphasizes the need for algorithm transparency, arguing that the public has a right to understand the rules governing their gaming experience [5][6]. Group 3: Industry Implications - The case raises broader questions about algorithm regulation in the gaming industry, as there are currently no clear legal precedents requiring game companies to disclose their matchmaking algorithms [7]. - Tencent has previously denied any intentional manipulation of player matchups, asserting that the matchmaking system aims to create balanced and fair gaming experiences [7][8]. - The potential negative consequences of disclosing matchmaking algorithms, such as exploitation by malicious players and the impact on fair play, are significant concerns raised by Tencent [8].