“Consumption Approval” mini-programs become popular, experts believe
Privacy and content governance test how far platforms can go
The rapid development of technology has made shopping and payment easy and convenient. A reporter from the "Rule of Law Daily" observed that now, a type of small program appears on the market that "does the opposite" and is actively lengthening people's decision-making time from selecting goods to placing an order and paying.
Recently, a number of "consumption approval" mini-programs such as "Do you really want to buy it?" "Wallet please wait" have quietly become popular: users anonymously submit consumption applications to the platform, and stranger netizens vote for "approval", and the number of votes determines "pass" or "rejection." According to public reports, one of the mini programs had over 10,000 users within 9 hours of its launch.
In this regard, interviewed experts believe that the popularity of this type of "consumption approval" mini-programs reflects some consumers' expectations for rational consumption. However, as a product that collects financial data and opens up a public discussion space, such mini-programs must also first "pass review" in terms of personal information protection, community content management, and long-term operations.
"Submit for approval" before placing an order
On the evening of October 29, the reporter opened a mini program called "Do you really want to buy it?" What attracts the most attention are the several statistical items on the "data dashboard" on the homepage: consumption savings, total number of applications, under approval, passed, and failed. The “consumption savings” item refers to the total amount corresponding to rejected consumption applications.
Below the "Data Kanban" is the button "Initiate Application". After clicking, in the general approval process, you need to fill in the product name, price and reason for purchase. The developer of the mini program has also set up a required field of "Why do I want to buy it". The prompt reads "Tell me how it will improve your life." Up to 3 pictures of the product can be uploaded.
After filling in the product information, it’s “who will approve it”: you can manually invite designated friends, or you can have “enthusiastic citizens” you have never met to approve it. You can also post the application to the "Community Square" and give it to strangers to vote; users can set a target number of people for approval, and the result will be issued when the number of people is reached. The default is "more than half agree", and they can also receive notification of the result through WeChat.
The reporter checked the "enthusiastic citizen" mode. After the application was issued, the number of votes did not increase quickly, but messages came in one after another: most of them encouraged placing orders, and some reminded that similar products had lower prices in previous sales, and advised them to wait. While waiting, the reporter tried several other similar mini-programs - "Wallet Please Wait" will ask in addition to the price and reason, "Is there any replacement?"; some mini-programs also have tools for converting working hours. Users can convert the price of the goods they want to buy into working hours by filling in their monthly salary. Some users left a message saying that when they thought about having to work for more than a month before getting a new mobile phone, they immediately didn’t want to buy it. Reporters observed that many people calmed themselves down and withdrew their shopping applications while waiting to vote.
During the experience, the reporter also noticed that in order to make the approval valuable, users often have to write down information such as products, prices, their own economic status and even monthly salary, and publish the information publicly.
"The most sensitive financial data of users is precisely the 'raw material' necessary for the operation of such mini programs." Chen Yanhong, associate professor and director of the New Financial Law Center of North China Electric Power University (Beijing), said. In her view, for such small programs, personal information protection is the top priority and the basis for survival.
Chen Hongyu, a lawyer at Beijing Huizhong Law Firm who has long observed the consumer field, pointed out that the purpose of such small programs is to help users manage their "money bags." Therefore, in terms of information collection, the principle of minimum necessity must be adhered to. A screenshot tool with default desensitization can be provided on the product side to automatically code sensitive information before uploading. Information storage should be based on encryption.
Sometimes it’s easy to “go off track”
"Consumption approval" is sometimes prone to "deviation".
The reporter noticed during the experience that since stranger netizens are not responsible for consumption, "approval" sometimes slips into entertainment: milk tea is always approved, but large purchases may lead to ridicule. Combined with practice, Chen Hongyan reminded that the original intention of helping rational consumption may be alienated by some people, and "approval" can easily become a "trial" of other people's consumption concepts.
"The legal essence of this type of small program is an online information content service platform." Chen Hongyan said that the "Internet Information Content Ecological Governance Regulations" clearly expresses its review and disposal obligations. Developers cannot "just set up the stage and ignore the show." They should clearly define the speech standards and prohibit personal attacks. Content that clearly violates the rules should be intercepted before being released. At the same time, the reporting portal and manual review will be used to limit or ban accounts that repeatedly violate the rules. She specifically reminded that the platform must have means to identify and deal with abnormal accounts and centralized voting behavior, and prevent manipulation of votes, vote-swiping, etc. from destroying the product foundation of "collective rationality."
Chen Yanhong believes that the difficulty in governance lies in making rational discussion the default atmosphere of the community. She suggested that "treating consumers not treating people" should be written into community conventions, and positive designs such as credit points could be used to incentivize users who carefully analyze cost-effectiveness. “In addition, only when the voting data is credible can we have ‘collective rationality’.” Chen Yanhong further pointed out that the algorithm should not be allowed to push the most controversial approval matters to the highest traffic and rely on amplifying confrontation in exchange for activity, but should have a good sense of proportion between fun and order.
Construction should be standardized
According to the experts interviewed, whether the life cycle of such small programs can withstand the test depends on whether a set of rules can be left to continue to operate after the popularity subsides.
Chen Hongyan believes that complaints and rights protection are hard targets: the entrance must be prominently placed, and at least one clear channel for customer service, online complaints, and telephone calls must be left; the processing must be time-limited, and the results must be available; if consumer disputes are involved, they should be connected with "12315" and the market supervision department. “Users should be able to find people, ask questions and be held accountable at any time.”
She also reminded that attention should be paid to qualifications, registration, privacy policy, and protection of minors. These basic tasks may seem trivial, but they are the bottom line for whether a product can gain a long-term foothold.
In Chen Yanhong’s view, if emerging products want to operate for a long time, they must neither grow wildly—data and content are undefended, nor should they have “compliance anxiety”—the fun disappears, and users will also be lost. The two extremes lead to the same goal, and will eventually make the product lose its vitality.
Chen Yanhong suggested that a compliance person or person in charge of personal information protection can be set up to check data, content, consumer rights, etc., and that new functions must pass a compliance review before they are launched, so as to "let the system follow the business instead of chasing the business."
Zheng Ning, director of the Law Department of the School of Cultural Industry Management of Communication University of China, pointed out that developers must adhere to the bottom line of compliance and should abide by the Personal Information Protection Law, collect financial information, capture only the fields required for approval of bills and income and expenses, automatically desensitize and hide sensitive content such as income details, set a short retention period, and not share financial data externally without separate consent. Platforms should establish channels for complaints and appeals, handle illegal comments, privacy leaks and personal information leaks in a timely manner. At the same time, they should publicize rules and risk warnings, and distinguish between entertainment and social functions and professional advice.
Chen Yanhong reminded that whether this type of "consumption approval" mini program can transform from a temporarily popular "Internet celebrity" mini program into a consumer decision-making aid tool trusted by consumers mainly depends on whether it can lay a solid foundation for compliance. Developers should implement regular user rights and interests protection mechanisms, improve process management, and truly transform short-term popularity into long-term, trustworthy consumption reference carriers.
Reporter Han Dandong
