news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

why is "big data killing mature people" repeatedly banned?

"i checked the air ticket information twice the night before, and then the next day, the price suddenly increased by 400 yuan." "three friends went to the same place together, and checked the air tickets at the same time. when they posted it to the group, they found that the prices were all the same. it’s different”… the national day golden week is approaching, and many people are already gearing up and planning long-distance travel in advance. however, reporters have seen on multiple social platforms that in the process of buying air tickets and booking hotels, the familiar "big data killing" frequently occurs, making consumers miserable.

during the interview, the reporter found that although my country has introduced relevant laws to regulate "big data killing", due to the large number of internet platforms involving multiple departments, supervision is difficult; at the same time, platforms often adopt dynamic pricing strategies and complex and hidden algorithms. , it is difficult and costly for consumers to provide evidence and defend their rights. despite repeated bans from regulatory authorities, "big data killing of familiarity" is still prohibited repeatedly.

the mainstream view is that due to their dominant market position, platform merchants abuse data rights and algorithmic power, obtain excessive profits through "killing familiarity", and infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of consumers. however, some people in the industry pointed out that consumers see different prices every time they search, which may be caused by "price caching" or dynamic price adjustment, and not all of them are "killed". during the investigation, the reporter found that the platforms have their own pricing strategies and often launch endless offers and discounts. the different prices presented after superimposing coupons and discounts can easily make consumers feel "being cooked". because of the strong concealment and ambiguity, there are only a handful of related legal cases on rights protection. as a phenomenon that everyone "feels to be common but cannot find evidence", "big data killing familiarity" is an important issue in the internet society. governance difficulties.

internet platforms have many tricks to “kill familiarity”

the so-called "big data killing" means that enterprises collect, screen, mine and share user information, use big data technology, and provide goods and services at the same time based on the user's browsing history, economic status, price comparison time, etc., and target different users. users’ formulation of different pricing strategies is essentially a form of price discrimination. because the platform often adopts a low-price discount strategy to attract new users, and old users have formed a certain degree of platform stickiness and consumption habits, the platform often charges higher fees to old users, so there is a saying of "killing familiar users."

the "survey report on the protection of online consumers' right to know" released by the sichuan provincial consumer council on september 18 showed that 49.28% of the respondents "have gradually increased their prices after purchasing the same product or service multiple times", and 45.1% of the respondents "after canceling or delaying the purchase, the price of the product changed when checking again", and 35.79% of the respondents encountered "different users purchasing the same product or service at the same merchant at the same time at different prices." on platforms where consumers consume frequently, such as food delivery, online travel, and online shopping, the phenomenon of "big data killing familiarity" is more frequent.

in fact, the problem of "big data killing familiarity" has existed since the birth of internet platforms and is nothing new. moreover, tourism services are the hardest hit area by "big data", and related complaints will increase every time before the spring festival, national day and other long holidays. reporters saw on black cat complaints, a consumer service platform owned by sina, that there have been more than 15,000 related complaints with the keyword "kill familiarity", among which complaints about air tickets are still the hardest hit area. some consumers reported that they booked air tickets because they saw that the air tickets on september 29 were cheaper than those on the 28th. after placing the order for the 29th, they found that the price of the air tickets on the 28th was immediately reduced; some consumers said that they bought the air tickets two days later and then purchased the tickets. look, the price reduction has reached 20%, which is "unacceptable."

combing through these complaint posts, we can find that in addition to common forms of "killing familiarity" such as air tickets and hotel products differing from person to person, and price discrimination between members and non-members, new ways of playing on some internet platforms have also given rise to new routines, making "big data "exploitation" has become more hidden, making it more difficult to effectively provide evidence and protect rights.

for example, "killing familiarity" in the field of food delivery has become an increasingly frequent area of ​​complaints, which is related to the "magic food coupons" promoted by food delivery platforms in recent years. compared with previous takeout red envelopes, the basic amount of the coupons is 5 yuan, but the coupons can be randomly expanded, and each coupon can be expanded to a different and larger discount amount. ms. jiang from beijing is a senior takeout platform user. she told a reporter from the securities times that takeout coupons often require a one-time purchase of 5, 10 or 20 coupons. the discount is very strong when used initially, and one coupon can often expand into for eight or nine yuan, buying two orders can offset the price of buying five divine coupons. "but the coupons are shrinking now. i have placed orders in the past few days, and each time they only cost 6 yuan." ms. jiang said that because she usually relies heavily on the food delivery platform, even if she feels that she is "killed" by the platform, she still there is nothing we can do.

on the black cat complaint platform, reporters saw many similar complaints. some consumers also said that the expansion of magic coupons is getting less and less. "from the beginning, it cost 10 yuan, to 9 yuan, 8 yuan, 7 yuan, and now it can only expand to 6 yuan at most." some users said that the coupons have increased continuously by 6 yuan. if you place an order in a month, the red envelope will be the lowest. if you don't use it for a while, the amount will be higher when you buy again. "consult customer service, they said it was random, and they don't admit it is 'killing'."

such cases of "random killing of mature people" also occur on some e-commerce platforms. for example, some e-commerce platforms have launched activities such as the "cash carousel". users can "draw people's heads" and invite friends to click on links to get lottery opportunities. by spinning the carousel, they can randomly obtain different red envelopes and gift packages. after completing the corresponding tasks, they can finally get cash withdrawal rewards. however, some consumers pointed out that “long-term users cannot withdraw cash no matter how many people they invite, while users who use it infrequently can withdraw multiple times by inviting a few people.” generally speaking, under the fancy marketing model of the internet platform, "big data killing familiarity" also shows the characteristics of more tricks and deeper routines.

highly concealed and difficult to supervise

for most consumers, “big data killing familiarity” has become a common experience. an algorithm engineer who did not want to be named told a reporter from the securities times that unlike in offline consumption scenarios where prices are disclosed, each consumer now has an independent device in his hand. in this "one-to-one" scenario, , it is difficult for consumers to detect whether they are being "calculated". "when designing algorithms, the platform relies on data including browsing history, search keywords, stay and payment times, etc., to determine the user's economic situation, consumption preferences, price sensitivity, etc., and formulate corresponding pricing strategies." said the algorithm engineer.

the essence of "big data killing" is a price discrimination behavior that takes advantage of information asymmetry. the reasons behind repeated prohibitions are jointly determined by the complexity of supervision, the concealment of algorithms, the ambiguity of boundaries, and the difficulty of safeguarding rights. of.

from a regulatory perspective, yao yanfeng, a lawyer at beijing jingshi (changsha) law firm, believes that the regulatory entities for “big data marketing” include different departments such as the market supervision department, the ministry of industry and information technology, and the cyberspace administration of china, and their powers are not clearly divided. , in practice, the embarrassing situation of no supervision or repeated supervision may occur. on the other hand, there are many internet manufacturers, various new platforms and services are constantly emerging, and regulatory power is relatively limited, which also brings many difficulties to actual supervision.

from the perspective of the platform, the platform algorithm is complex and hidden, including complicated mathematical rules and computer technology, and the regulatory authorities do not have the back-end authority of the platform companies. it is difficult to determine whether there is "exploitation" behavior through consumer front-end data. . "generally speaking, platforms will treat algorithms as trade secrets and will not disclose them. therefore, it is almost impossible for consumers to check the algorithms." yao yanfeng said.

in addition, platform prices are not static, they are real-time and dynamic, and need to be dynamically adjusted based on market supply and demand, promotional activities and other factors, which is a normal business operation strategy. at the same time, compared with the "obvious" methods of "killing familiarity" such as price differences between new and old users, different prices for different accounts and geographical locations, today's different marketing models such as coupons and cash gifts are often random, even if the amounts are different , and it cannot all be judged as "killed".

an industry insider from an online travel platform revealed that consumers often report that the problem of searching for a flight becomes more expensive when refreshing again. this may be mainly caused by dynamic price adjustments and "price caching", and is not necessarily caused by the platform's "killing familiarity". " caused by. according to reports, tickets released by airlines will first be unified into the global distribution system. when users search for tickets, the platform needs to first retrieve ticket inventory and price information. since the cost of retrieving data for each search is too high, the retrieved data will be cached, which leads to inconsistencies in the data users see before and after, or inconsistencies in the actual prices when querying and paying, etc.

when the algorithm is highly concealed and the boundaries of infringement determination are blurred, it is very difficult for consumers to provide evidence and defend their rights. deng zhisong, a senior partner at beijing dacheng law firm, believes that since the data and algorithm rules are controlled by the platform, even if the price increases after consumers inquire about air tickets, this will hardly constitute evidence of "rip-off", and "rip-off" is concentrated on the internet. in areas where the amount of money is small, such as shopping and travel booking, the time and economic cost of safeguarding rights are very high, so consumers often choose to give up.

how to judge and how to govern

on july 1 this year, the "regulations on the implementation of the consumer rights protection law of the people's republic of china" (hereinafter referred to as the "regulations") were officially implemented, clearly regulating differentiated pricing behavior. it mentioned that "operators shall not set different prices or charging standards for the same goods or services under the same transaction conditions without the knowledge of consumers."

for "big data killing", the reason why it is difficult to prove and defend rights is that it is difficult to determine the infringement. since operators enjoy independent pricing rights in accordance with the law, internet platforms can also conduct personalized recommendations and differentiated marketing based on user characteristics, and the boundaries between them are blurred. angel investor and artificial intelligence expert guo tao told reporters that some companies will also use new technologies such as machine learning and blockchain to implement more sophisticated differential pricing and avoid supervision.

how to determine whether it is differentiated marketing or differentiated pricing?industry insiders believe that we should mainly start from the two aspects of starting point and whether price discrimination has been implemented. guo tao said that although both need to analyze and utilize user data, the purpose of the former is to provide differentiated products and services, while the latter is to achieve higher profits. in addition, if the price difference is not caused by external factors such as market supply and demand, product quality, etc., but is solely based on the user's personal data, it should be judged as "big data mature".

regarding the governance of "big data killing", industry insiders have put forward many detailed suggestions, which mainly focus on promoting full market competition, ensuring consumers' right to know, increasing the cost of violating the law, and reducing the difficulty of proof. du yuwei, deputy director of the regional modernization research institute of the jiangsu academy of social sciences, believes that the first step in managing "big data maturity" is to fight against monopoly and promote market competition. "only when the merchant has monopoly power or market dominance, there is the possibility of 'killing the familiar'." du yuwei said, otherwise consumers will "vote with their feet", so we must insist on cracking down on market abuse based on the anti-monopoly law framework. regulate dominant behavior.

on the other hand, it is necessary to protect consumers’ right to know and enhance the transparency of pricing strategies for goods and services. industry insiders generally believe that "big data killing" is difficult to supervise and cure, and it is largely caused by the "algorithm black box". song yubo, an associate professor at the school of cyberspace security of southeast university, suggested that companies should disclose pricing algorithm models so that regulatory agencies can judge and verify whether companies have implemented price discrimination against different users.

in response to the problems of difficulty in proving and safeguarding rights for "big data killing", industry insiders proposed that the cost of illegal activities should be raised while lowering the threshold and cost of safeguarding rights. "the illegal costs of operators are far lower than the profits from infringement, which is the main reason for the popularization of 'big data killing', and the high cost of consumer rights protection is an important reason for the popularization of 'big data killing'." meng qinguo, a professor at wuhan university law school it is believed that the "details for the implementation of the consumer rights and interests protection law" should be promulgated as soon as possible, with a special section stipulating the infringement of algorithmic discrimination and "big data killing of familiarity", clarifying the value orientation, constituent elements, administrative penalties and other specific elements for the identification of algorithmic discrimination, and improving and improving the mechanism of "big data killing" illegal costs.

“in my country’s civil litigation, the usual principle of liability is fault liability. under fault liability, consumers need to prove that the platform has objective behavior of differentiated pricing and is subjectively at fault. as far as the consumer’s personal evidence is concerned, in terms of ability, it is almost impossible to meet this requirement. "yao yanfeng said that in terms of evidence, we can refer to the experience of eu legislation and stipulate that the burden of proof should be reversed in such cases, that is, the platform needs to provide evidence to prove its pricing. it is legitimate and reasonable, otherwise you will need to bear corresponding legal liability.