By Wind, Jointing.Media, in Shanghai , 2025-11-05
Recently, I stumbled upon an advertisement featuring the son of a certain domestic brand’s owner tearfully livestreaming. Recalling the group’s substantial donations during the pandemic, I impulsively placed an order. Upon receiving the product (a food item), I discovered it was damaged and promptly returned it. Later, I verified that this tactic of grabbing attention and boosting traffic had been debunked by the group itself ten months prior. Yet Douyin has allowed such fraudulent sales advertisements to persist for eight months, with no indication of removal.
Similar fabricated narratives proliferate in the age of self-media: staged ‘domestic violence’ scenes to elicit sympathy, false ‘poverty-stricken student’ personas to solicit donations, and staged ‘elderly abuse’ stories to attract attention. This tactic of exploiting emotions for false marketing is hardly novel. Over thirty years ago, streets were already littered with appeals for ‘medical aid’ from the terminally ill. The only difference is that the stage for these dramas has shifted from offline to online. Humanity’s most precious emotions – “compassion” and ‘trust’ – are being systematically eroded by meticulously algorithmically engineered narratives.
Algorithms function like intricate looms, silently enveloping us within a thick cocoon woven from our ‘preferences’ and ‘trending topics.’ When a wholly fabricated piece of AI-generated misinformation gains traction precisely because it aligns with societal hotspots and prevailing sentiments, we confront not merely falsehood, but an entirely new world where truth becomes contingent.
I. The ‘Cocoon Room’ Becomes the Norm, ‘Truth’ Becomes Probability
Upon opening an app each morning, the endless stream presents algorithmically curated content tailored to yesterday’s preferences. Views we’ve liked are endlessly amplified; videos we’ve lingered on spawn countless similar ones. Scholars term this experience the ‘information cocoon.’ Like silkworms spinning their own confinement, we are tightly wrapped in the threads of our preferences, our cognition steadily solidifying.
To capture traffic, voices clamour; to grab attention, facts are distorted. Algorithms and traffic collude, firmly locking users within comfortable yet closed ‘information cocoons,’ intensifying collective cognitive biases and divisions.
Fierce homogenisation competition among platforms drives creators to produce controversial, inflammatory content. Such material, lacking factual basis, gains algorithmic favour precisely because of its contentiousness. Under pressure from traffic competition, the professional gatekeeper function has largely been surrendered to algorithmic ranking systems guided by click-through rates and engagement metrics.
Today, with the proliferation of generative AI technology, we have entered an era of ‘probabilistic truth’. The authenticity of information is no longer a black-and-white certainty, but rather a matter of trustworthiness requiring dynamic assessment.
That moving video you watched may have been AI-generated; that expert analysis you read could originate from a fictional persona. A staggering 85% of AI-generated misinformation is entirely fabricated, capable of rapidly adapting to trending topics, primarily driven by economic incentives.
This creates a dual predicament: algorithms construct external ‘echo chambers’ for us, while AIGC technology internally dilutes information credibility. Individuals find themselves trapped within a vast information labyrinth, unable to escape or discern their direction.
II. From Self-Imposed Confinement to Emerging as ‘Bees’
Faced with this systemic dilemma, mere criticism proves inadequate. The concept of the ‘information hive,’ proposed in July this year by institutions such as Tencent Research Institute, centres on shifting from passive recipients to active explorers.
Kevin Kelly introduced the ‘swarm effect’ in his 1994 book Out of Control, describing how dispersed autonomous decisions and coordinated actions among individuals generate collective intelligence surpassing individual capabilities. This aligns with the vision pursued by the information hive.
The ‘information hive’ advocates a novel cognitive paradigm for the digital ecosystem: information flow should brim with diversity and vitality, fostering the collision of differing viewpoints to ultimately dissolve barriers and rebuild digital trust.
Within this ideal ecosystem, we ought not to be silkworms confined within cocoons, but rather bees actively foraging among diverse flowers to gather varied pollen.
This necessitates a fundamental shift in how we access information: moving from passively receiving algorithmically curated content to actively exploring through subscriptions, searches, and social sharing.
III. How Individuals Can Practise “Information Hive” Survival
Faced with an algorithm- and traffic-dominated self-media ecosystem, individuals often feel powerless. Yet when the entire system slows down, the most potent and immediate action one can take is to upgrade their “information recognition system”. This involves not merely learning techniques, but reshaping one’s cognitive habits to swiftly identify more credible “trust anchors” amidst the information clutter.
Transitioning from an ‘information cocoon’ to an ‘information hive’ requires building a personal defence and exploration system across at least three dimensions.
First, consciously adopt a proactive stance in information acquisition. This entails deliberately breaking free from the passive cycle of endless scrolling. Regularly visit several authoritative media outlets with distinct perspectives and styles. When a trending topic arises, actively search using keywords rather than merely consuming the single viewpoint pushed to you.
The UK’s Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals offers a concise action framework: ‘Pause-Verify-Adjust’. When emotions are stirred and fingers hover over share buttons, force a deliberate pause to assess whether the content aims to provoke anger or fear.
Secondly, master practical tools for debunking misinformation. Confronting complex falsehoods requires established analytical frameworks. For instance, the ‘5Ws approach’ involves questioning fundamental elements: who published it, when, and where.
More systematic methods like the ‘CRAAP test’ examine five dimensions: currency (timeliness), relevance, authority, accuracy, and purpose. For images and videos, using reverse image search engines to verify sources has become essential digital literacy.
Ultimately, become a co-builder of a healthy information ecosystem. The ‘information hive’ emphasises collaboration and co-creation. This means we are not merely consumers but active participants.
When encountering rumours, politely point them out and provide evidence. When verifying quality information, actively share it to become a reliable node for trustworthy sources online. These seemingly minor individual efforts, when pooled together, can counter the viral spread of misinformation.
IV. Establishing Personal “Information Order” Amidst the Clamour
Beyond specific methods, the more fundamental challenge lies in establishing and safeguarding one’s inner “information order” in an era of relentless attention competition. This demands cultivating a profound “metacognitive” ability – not merely consuming information, but constantly being aware of what information is shaping us, and how it moulds our emotions and perspectives.
We must remain vigilant: the content most readily consuming traffic often relies on simplistic narratives, emotional manipulation, and polarisation. A discerning individual should consciously “nourish” themselves with complex, profound material demanding patient comprehension.
When encountering self-media content, habitually question ‘who is speaking’ and ‘why are they saying this?’ Is it genuine expertise sharing insights, or clickbait chasing traffic? Is the purpose to stimulate thought, or to sell products, drive traffic, or stir emotions?
When confronted with information that may provoke strong emotions or an urge to share—particularly regarding social events, health advice, scientific discoveries, or sensational revelations—instinctively pose these five questions:
Who is the source? Is it transparent?
What is the evidence? Is it comprehensive?
Does the logic hold? Are there glaring flaws?
How emotionally charged is it?
What is the purpose of its dissemination?
Shift from passive reception to active questioning, cultivating core critical thinking habits. At emotional peaks, resist the impulse to immediately share or take sides. Let the information “fly for a while” – reversals often occur within hours or days.
Proactively seeking opposing viewpoints is the most effective step to break out of the “information bubble”. Deliberately search for rational challenges to your beliefs and examine the arguments presented by the opposing side (excluding non-emotional attacks).
Embrace probabilistic truth: In complex events, absolute truth is rarely immediately attainable. Accept that information may have multiple facets; base judgements on the probability of existing evidence, and remain prepared to update perceptions with new evidence. In this era of probabilistic truth, we must learn to coexist with uncertainty. Rather than fixating on finding an absolute, singular truth, establish your most reliable cognitive model of events through cross-verification, tracing sources, and focusing on processes within a dynamic framework.
Learn to distinguish between ‘opinion’ and ‘fact’: Self-media outlets predominantly disseminate opinions interwoven with facts. Practise separating the factual elements (verifiable data, events) from the opinionated elements (personal interpretations, evaluations).
Establish an ‘information coordinate system’ using authoritative sources. For health matters, anchor your understanding to official guidelines from bodies like the World Health Organisation or the National Health Commission. For technology news, use publications from authoritative academic journals, leading universities, and research institutions as your reference points. Employ these to gauge the deviation of self-media content.
Be wary of ‘pseudo-professional’ packaging. Titles like ‘PhD from X University’ or ‘Former Senior Executive at Y Company’ may be genuine, but are their views within their professional domain? Or are they crossing boundaries to make sensational claims for traffic?
The ‘information hive’ is not some future vision bestowed upon us by a platform, but a survival philosophy urgently requiring personal practice by every netizen. It begins with a deliberate search, solidifies through refusing to share rumours, and is fortified by sustained curiosity about our complex world.
Cultivating discernment takes time. Allow yourself occasional missteps, but reflect promptly. True information literacy centres on cognitive humility: recognising the limits of one’s understanding, maintaining scepticism towards certainties, and being willing to revise views in light of reliable evidence.
Before systemic change occurs, the rational and prudent information consumption of each individual, when aggregated, constitutes a powerful market signal and public pressure. Over time, this can influence the direction of platforms and content creators. Attention is each person’s most precious resource, and ‘trust’ is our vote for the future of the information world. In this era of information overload, every moment of rational pause and scrutiny is an act of guardianship for the authentic world we hold dear.
Translated by DeepL
Edited by Jas
![[Recruiting 2011] Jointing.Media](http://jointings.org/eng/wp-content/themes/news-magazine-theme-640/cropper.php?src=/cn/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/123.png&h=50&w=50&zc=1&q=95)
