Strong
Rely on passersby to earn traffic?
"Live chatting" has caused serious concern.
Recently, online platforms have emerged as a "live chat" method of webcasting-anchors randomly pick up passers-by with various gimmicks and broadcast the whole process to the audience at the same time.
Once a street passerby is pointed at by the anchor’s camera, regardless of whether he agrees or not, his reaction after being hit up will be filmed and then broadcast live on video for thousands of netizens to “watch”.
Even when passers-by explicitly refuse, they will still be secretly photographed by the anchor, which becomes a "hot spot" for earning eyeballs in the live broadcast.
However, is this considered innovation?
Obviously not, but suspected of nuisance and infringement to passers-by.
Random interviews of passersby by the news media can be regarded as commonplace and do not fall into the category of strike-ups.
News interviews do not consume passersby, but report social phenomena and reflect social voices. They are an indispensable part of news reporting.
"Live chat" and news interviews are similar in format, but there is nothing more comparable.
The inspiration for "Catch up on live broadcast" may come from entertaining shows of funny passers-by.
This type of program is popular overseas, but it seems that it is not very common in China.
Different from "live chat", in this kind of funny entertainment show, passers-by may not know it at first, but when they learn the truth, they often just laugh off.
Most of these programs are professionally designed and have a main creative organization that can bear the corresponding legal responsibilities, but these are not available in "live chat".
In the current "traffic is king", some people do everything in order to harvest traffic.
"Live chat" put it bluntly, that is, artificially creating dramatic effects in public places to meet the needs of onlookers.
This kind of behavior of "talking up if you want to strike up a conversation, live broadcast if you want it live" lacks the awareness of rules and the spirit of boundary.
Those hit-ups who are treated harshly and rudely under the camera have become a tool for certain profitable anchors to realize their interests.
As for what "live chat" will bring to the person being hit, they don't even care if it violates the rights of others.
Ignoring and disregarding the subjective wishes and spiritual demands of the person who is hit by a conversation, consumers do not know the reputation and privacy of strangers, and anchors dare to act arbitrarily. The root cause is that the cost of violations is too low and the rights of the infringed are too difficult to defend.
For those who are accosted, if they are inevitably involved in this involuntary "live chat", it is often because the cost of defending rights is too high, and although they are willing to defend their rights, they are unable to do so. In the end, most of them have no choice but to choose.
We often say that the Internet is not a place outside the law, and the Internet should not be at the expense of innocent passers-by.
The "Personal Information Protection Law of the People's Republic of China" has been formally implemented, and individual rights cannot be violated.
"Live chatting" is not new, but it is a new social phenomenon. There are various social and legal issues behind it that need to be determined. We should not wait for the problems to become serious before we pay attention and regulate them.
The webcast platform urgently needs to formulate rules to strengthen autonomy, but it cannot fully expect business to consciously resolve it on its own. Industry norms and legal responsibilities should be taken first.