每经编辑｜程鹏 陈星 向江林 五个从百度文库《10000中国普通人名大全》里"复制粘贴"出来的名字——张吉惟、林国瑞、林玟书、林雅南、江奕云，正在全网进行一场荒诞的巡演。 他们是政府采购的"评审专家"，是书法大赛的"特等奖得主"，是羽毛球赛的"运动健将"，还是行政处罚的"当事人"……人们戏称其为"全网最忙五人组"。 一种技术含量趋近于零的造假方式，在多个领域畅通无阻，在光天化日之下大行其道。这早已超越了工作失误或偷懒的范畴，而是一次相关规则与监 管"双重摆烂"的集中示众，令人瞠目结舌，也令人脊背发凉。 造假者连基本的伪装都不屑为之，他们吃透了流程形式化的漏洞，笃定"只要名单看起来像那么回事，就没人会深究"。这种对规则的蔑视、对公共利益的 漠视，比造假本身更令人感到恐怖。 根源是监督机制的全链失守。湖北竹溪县住建局3000多万元的采购项目，评审小组5人名字照搬百度人名大全；辽宁抚顺新抚区住建局的行政处罚公示， 李现、金晨、胡歌、鹿晗、陈赫等明星的名字，竟与"占道经营"等词语绑定；杭州师范大学45万元福彩公益金项目，为凑齐受益人数直接照搬网络名单； 辽宁2024年非公有制高级职称评审公示，58人中48人名字源自人 ...

群众的眼睛终究是雪亮的。"最忙五人组"的荒诞剧得以揭穿，是网络监督力量的鲜活例证。 五个从百度文库《10000中国普通人名大全》里"复制粘贴"出来的名字——张吉惟、林国瑞、林玟书、 林雅南、江奕云，正在全网进行一场荒诞的巡演。 他们是政府采购的"评审专家"，是书法大赛的"特等奖得主"，是羽毛球赛的"运动健将"，还是行政处罚 的"当事人"……人们戏称其为"全网最忙五人组"。 一种技术含量趋近于零的造假方式，在多个领域畅通无阻，在光天化日之下大行其道。这早已超越了工 作失误或偷懒的范畴，而是一次相关规则与监管"双重摆烂"的集中示众，令人瞠目结舌，也令人脊背发 凉。 造假者连基本的伪装都不屑为之，他们吃透了流程形式化的漏洞，笃定"只要名单看起来像那么回事， 就没人会深究"。这种对规则的蔑视、对公共利益的漠视，比造假本身更令人感到恐怖。 根源是监督机制的全链失守。湖北竹溪县住建局3000 多万元的采购项目，评审小组5人名字照搬百度人 名大全；辽宁抚顺新抚区住建局的行政处罚公示，李现、金晨、胡歌、鹿晗、陈赫等明星的名字，竟 与"占道经营"等词语绑定；杭州师范大学45万元福彩公益金项目，为凑齐受益人数直接照搬网络名单； ...

Core Viewpoint - The lack of legal boundaries and rules in online supervision can lead to unintended consequences, potentially harming justice and triggering negative chain reactions [2][3] Group 1: Online Supervision and Its Impact - Online supervision serves as an extension of public expression, informed consent, and complaint reporting in the digital age, leveraging the effects of network platforms to monitor public behavior and corporate conduct [1][2] - The positive role of online supervision in addressing societal issues is acknowledged, but it must be balanced with the rights of individuals and businesses to prevent reputational harm [2][3] Group 2: Legal Risks of Online Supervision - The primary legal risks associated with online supervision include: - Infringement of individual and corporate rights, particularly regarding defamation and reputation [3][4] - Violation of privacy rights and personal information protections, as excessive scrutiny may lead to the disclosure of irrelevant personal details [4][5] - Disruption of market competition, where misleading information can be used as a tool for unfair competition [5][6] Group 3: Challenges to Social Order - Online violence can arise from the amplification of criticism, leading to harassment and toxic online environments [6][7] - The potential for public opinion to interfere with judicial authority, pressuring legal entities to act prematurely [7] Group 4: Risk Prevention Framework - A multi-layered legal framework is necessary to delineate boundaries for online supervision rather than simply restricting it [8][9] - Key principles for determining whether online supervision has overstepped include: - Distinguishing between fact and opinion, ensuring that criticisms are based on accurate information [9] - Ensuring that comments relate to public interest, focusing on issues that affect consumer rights [9] - Maintaining legitimate purposes for exercising supervisory rights, such as promoting public welfare [9] Group 5: Institutional Support for Risk Prevention - Strengthening the application and interpretation of existing laws to provide clearer guidelines for acceptable online behavior [10] - Enhancing the responsibilities of online platforms to manage content effectively and ensure timely responses to complaints [10] - Promoting legal literacy and awareness among online users to foster responsible behavior in online supervision [11] Group 6: Addressing Secondary Risks - The handling of online supervision must avoid excessive restrictions that could stifle legitimate public discourse [13] - Encouraging companies to respond rationally to criticism and to utilize legal avenues for protection against defamation [14][15] - Companies should avoid retaliatory actions that could lead to further rights abuses, maintaining a balance in their responses [15]