A "sweet" became a closed business: after the Chinese filed a complaint and video was dropped, the netizens pushed a joke into a public event.

It started out as a bamboo toy.

The turn-on is a continuous “whoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

At the end of July, a fellow netizens found that the sound was quite similar to the excavation of the scene following the announcement of the “best SUV within 10 million” by the Chinese executive at the 2023 launch.

Someone cut two voices together.

The video was added to the video, "The best toys in 10 million."

More people started imitating.

The events of 11 August, which were collated by Human Life Watch, showed that the shivering platform alone had over 3,000 relevant items on a day during the peak of the dissemination. The original communication logic was very simple: harmonics, imitations and web-based infarction.

Things changed their course.

In late July and early August, China filed complaints to various web platforms for damage to business goodwill, and a large number of “know-how” videos were dropped.

A joke starts to have a restricted area.

When the user found the video deleted, instead of stopping production, the discussion started on why the enterprise could not accept the switch. Some re-upposted, some continue to spread their transformation, and more users who were unaware of “the truth” were first aware of the matter because of the dispute.

The typical “strryson effect” thus emerged: it sought to reduce the visibility of a particular content, but instead to spread it more.

The incident then broke through the general online blogosphere.

The official Zhejiang Public Information Unit of the Ministry of Information of the Zhejiang Province also published articles on the controversy, which raised the view that “the more powerful the firm, the more open the discussion”, “highly expressed, the better it will always be tested”.

This has created a situation where the Internet in China is not common.

For the first time, a company with enormous market influence and long-standing official symbolism in national technology faced a massive public rebound because of a cyber-joke with little substance.

The protection of goodwill by China is not a problem in itself. Businesses can certainly complain about fabrications of facts, commercial defamation and malicious fabrications.

The question is where the boundary of “damage to goodwill” is.

Cutting off the sound of bamboo toys and a public presentation, and making up the quality of products is clearly not the same expression. If large enterprises can use platform complaints mechanisms to quickly eliminate the malice, irony or even inimical abuse, then the right to express is naturally vulnerable to the legal, platform and public relations resources that the enterprise has.

The “know” eventually became a public event precisely because the power gap was felt by the netizens.

A person cannot compete with the legal system of large enterprises.

But tens of thousands of people can shake together.

The Chinese Internet has undergone increasingly rigorous political scrutiny over the past decade, with a large number of content governance responsibilities being shared by business platforms. Once political censorship, commercial complaints and platform algorithms are superimposed, it becomes increasingly difficult for the public to see whether the expression of ordinary people disappears because of a violation of the law or because a powerful subject “does not like”.

So this storm has finally been left out of a few bucks toy.

It raises the extremely real question of the Internet in China:

How much freedom to joke is left when a common man confronts a huge enterprise?