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].