Produced | Sanyan Finance author | Di Li Lengba
A few days ago, NetEase CEO Ding Lei proposed that the unified charging port should cause heated discussions. Yu Ping, author of the self-media "Fisheye Observation", questioned this. After that, Yu Ping posted again that he received a legal letter from the legal department of NetEase, asking it to delete the draft and apologize.
On the afternoon of January 14, Ding Lei issued a response to Yu Ping's controversy over whether the unified charging port standard would hinder industry innovation and the deletion letter incident.
Ding Lei said that after internal communication and understanding, it was found that the manuscript letter was indeed not done by temporary workers, and the regular employees of the team did have the problem of improper consideration and improper operation. Ding Lei apologized to Yu Ping on this matter and said that he had withdrawn the relevant letters that could be withdrawn.
Ding Lei said that the team did a lot of research before the proposal and found that the charging port problem was indeed a pain point for many people, so it made relevant proposals at the CPPCC meeting.
In addition, Ding Lei also said that he agreed with Yu Ping's discussion on the market and competition. However, after the technology is gradually formed, certain specifications need to be formulated. In Ding Lei's view, real innovation is unstoppable.
This morning, Yu Ping again posted that he had received an apology letter from Ding Lei, in which Ding Lei apologized twice and announced the withdrawal of the previous legal letter.
Previously, Ding Lei submitted a proposal on "unified standard port for chargers for smart electronic devices". On January 10, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology publicly responded to this matter and said that the next step will continue to promote the formulation of relevant national standards and promote the integration of charging interfaces and technologies.
On January 12, Yu Ping, author of "Fisheye Observation", wrote an article titled "Why Ding Lei is Wrong", questioning Ding Lei's suggestion to unify the charging interface of smart electronic devices.
Yu Ping said in the article that it is nothing more than whether the charging interface is unified, which should be handed over to the enterprise and the market, and realized through cooperation and game. In a rapidly changing industry like smartphones, premature harmonization of technical standards can stifle the impetus for enterprise innovation.
On January 14, Yu Ping posted again that his article annoyed Ding Lei and NetEase. NetEase first contacted Yu Ping to ask for its deletion, but Yu Ping refused. Subsequently, NetEase complained about its infringement through the WeChat platform. Subsequently, the legal department of NetEase sent a legal letter to Yu Ping, asking him to delete the draft and apologize.
What are the means by which businesses deter the media that you don't know
This morning, many media groups are discussing Ding Lei's apology reply letter, Quarting Lei's reply is very level, there is a temperature, with communication to resolve the confrontation, but also shows the mind of Boss Ding, for NetEase to pull back a wave of goodwill.
In fact, this incident itself is not a problem of unified charging port, but a communication problem between enterprises and media self-media, should it be communicated equally? Or should it be domineering, aggressive, and forcefully threatening to make the media delete the article and shut up?
However, how many bosses like Ding Lei personally apologized? Don't talk about the boss, how many people apologize in the name of the company?
If the media does not delete the manuscript, divided into two situations, there are factual errors, then after communication, most of the media should be corrected, do not correct the complaint, the response to the response; there is no factual error, or generously admit that there is also art, such as saying that the layoffs are optimized, or remain silent. Of course, it is also possible to communicate friendly and express the views of the company's position.
But there are also some companies (some big and some small) that use various means to deter the media in order to achieve the effect of making the other party delete the manuscript or "shut up from now on".
Here are a few examples you might not know:
1. Launch a DDOS attack, causing the website to be paralyzed
Many media have websites, and some companies will use hacking methods to carry out DDOS attacks and retaliate against them after seeking deletion through various means, including legal means, which is illegal in itself and constitutes the crime of damaging computer information systems. The media should report the case in a timely manner.
Second, the legal department is staring at you
Generally, the communication between enterprises and the media is that the PR department communicates, and the legal department sends a letter after the communication is fruitless; and if there is no result, the cooperative law firm sends a lawyer's letter to warn, "If it is not xxxx, the legal action will be taken."
There are also those who communicate directly across the PR department and send lawyer letters directly. This is all common.
What is rare is that the legal department of a company (such as a globally renowned company) opens a microblog to pay special attention to you, and when you open the watchlist, it may follow only a few people, three or two of whom have reported on the company's media self-media.
This creates a feeling that God is watching you, and if you write again, the legal department will act and sue.
The legal department will also warn in private messages, and most of the self-media are still very afraid of this, because after being prosecuted, the lawyer's fees cannot be borne. Simply don't write it later.
3. Directly receive a summons from the court
The manuscript itself is fine, but some companies will threaten to sue. Simple and crude.
It also helps you weigh: you see, more is better than less, as long as you delete, I will withdraw the lawsuit.
Many self-media do not want to spend effort, nor do they have money to hire a lawyer, and delete the matter.
There are also some companies that do not need to communicate and send letters at all, directly sue, and then the court issues a summons and notifies the time of the trial.
The amount of prosecution claims is often millions, tens of millions, and whether that bit of reading really causes millions of losses or not, the numbers scare you to death.
Here is a detail, it is possible to inform the trial time is a week or ten days later, in other words, the trial time is only known a week before the trial. Hit you off guard.
Then go to the law firm, maybe many of them are the company's cooperative law firms, can not pick up, so it is difficult to find a law firm.
After other media peers know about it, they do not dare to write about this company, for fear of provoking lawsuits, large companies cannot afford to provoke, factual dare not write, let alone critical commentary articles. Everyone was silent, and even the circle of friends did not dare to send it.
Everyone is mentioning that capital controls public opinion, and we should pay more attention to the phenomenon of "using legal means to control public opinion, deter the media, and seal the mouth of the media."
The media should respect the facts and report objectively, but when confronted with unequal dialogue, unreasonable and high claims, and arrogant threats, someone should speak for them.