Recently, a investigative video by The Paper’s Shadow Investigation Team was “blocked” on Tencent Video, sparking renewed doubts about the platform’s content review mechanism.
The commentary article “Why has Tencent become the ‘Chief Editor’ of the Media by Arbitrarily Blocking News Reports” published on November 14 by The Paper delves into the deep-seated contradictions of platform power, press freedom, and content governance through the lens of “portrait rights disputes” and “blocking” actions.
On November 13, The Paper’s Shadow Investigation Team released a news report investigating a well-known brand of infant formula that was suspected of altering data and a live streamer who violated regulations by engaging in “promotional heightening.” Shortly after the video was posted, it was deemed to have “infringed on portrait rights” due to a complaint from an unknown source and was “blocked” (visible only to the publisher), making it impossible to spread, effectively tantamount to deletion.
The article cites regulations from the Civil Code stating that the “unavoidable” use of public images in news reports does not constitute infringement and does not require the individual’s consent. Therefore, Tencent’s blocking of the news report under the pretext of “portrait rights” is considered to lack any legal basis. Moreover, The Paper’s Shadow Investigation Team’s video account has been certified by Tencent’s red V organization, demonstrating its qualifications in news gathering and editing.
The article from The Paper points out that this is already the second time the account has been blocked by the platform, raising concerns that the platform’s complaint mechanism is turning into a tool for “soft censorship.” “Does the platform have the right to directly delete or block news content upon receiving a unilateral complaint?” With complaint sources being unidentified, platforms are not verifying the authenticity of content or reviewing its reasonableness. By employing technical means to make news “disappear,” the complaint mechanism is being abused and used as a tool for certain interest groups to evade public scrutiny.
In this incident, while the issue of false advertising for infant formula persists, the news report that exposed the problem has been “handled,” leading to the weakening of journalistic professionalism and an overreach of technological power.
The article emphasizes that behind every investigative report lies the on-the-ground research of journalists and the responsibility shouldered by institutions. As information infrastructure, platforms should bear platform responsibility rather than acting as editors or regulators, determining the existence of news. News agencies must shoulder news responsibilities, and platforms should bear platform responsibilities. Platforms are not the “chief editors” of news media, nor should they become “chief editors.”