"The girl was killed because Qvod was blocked" is pure conjecture

Using the murder of a girl as a basis for judging and shutting down Kuaibo is not only unfounded, but may also divert the focus of the problem and squander the opportunity for reflection and introspection.

In recent days, news of female college students going missing or being killed has come one after another. On the Internet, there is also a popular argument that "the increase in female victimization cases is related to the closure of Qvod." Recently, some media have published articles to refute this.

It is undoubtedly heartbreaking that female college students have been missing or assaulted one after another. The frequent occurrence of such tragedies has triggered social reflection, such as how to prevent impulsive crimes and reduce the possibility of strangers committing crimes. It is also necessary. Rational attribution and in-depth tracing of the problem may also help avoid the recurrence of tragedies.

Even so, it is still biased to attribute the frequent murders of girls to the closure of Qvod and the crackdown on pornography and illegal publications. Although many jokes that "mix" Qvod and the victimization of girls are just jokes, such as "Remove the ban on Qvod and save female college students" and "The only way to save your life is to bring a USB flash drive to the street", they follow the spoof style of "implied posts" and should not be taken seriously. However, it should be noted that many people are engaged in logical deduction and serious reasoning. For example, they use the interpretation framework analysis of "demand management-channel control" to draw conclusions such as "banning Qvod has increased the probability of girls being harmed". This kind of paper deduction also makes many people "deeply agree" and express "seconding".

But if we look closely, it is hard to stand up to scrutiny: First, it is difficult to tell from the individual cases disclosed by the media whether the "surge in female victims" is a result of the recent high incidence of such crimes or an illusion caused by concentrated exposure. Furthermore, there are several cases related to sexual assault, and there is no clear statistics. It is even more impossible to verify how many of them were affected by the "closure of Qvod". In this regard, saying that "female victims were victimized because of the closure of Qvod" is more like a false proposition, and the causal relationship it contains is actually a "false correlation" in statistics.

There is always a "seemingly correct" logic behind the fallacy. For example, the "increase in female victimization cases is related to the closure of Qvod" probably implies that the crackdown on pornographic websites has directly led to some people's physiological repression, so reaching out to female college students has become an inevitable way to "vent". "Libido theory" and criminal psychology are put into a "taken for granted" basket here.

It is true that people have physiological needs, and "alternative sexual satisfaction" is also a common psychological condition. But the girl's murder was exaggerated because of the blocking of Qvod. The loophole is there: you say that closing those pornographic websites is "destroying human desires", but you can say "it was the pornographic websites that harmed me" after someone was involved in a sexual crime. It remains to be verified which of the "needs guidance" function and the "pornographic" function of Qvod is more obvious, but there is a data worth pondering: according to the investigation of the public security department, about 70% of sexual assault cases are related to obscene and pornographic information. Because of this, cracking down on obscene and pornographic information is also regarded by many as an important protection measure for women.

In the final analysis, nutritious thinking always depends on rationality. If we extend the discussion from the ban of Qvod to the discussion of "image classification"; and discuss the risk intervention of victimization based on the incident of the girl being killed, then the significance is self-evident. However, it is a bit nonsensical to use the girl's murder as the basis for judging the ban of Qvod. Not only does it lack basis, it may also cause a bias in value cognition: it is easy to shift the focus from the evil act of "targeting the weak" itself to irrelevant issues. In the end, it is a waste of opportunities for reflection and review.

As a winner of Toutiao's Qingyun Plan and Baijiahao's Bai+ Plan, the 2019 Baidu Digital Author of the Year, the Baijiahao's Most Popular Author in the Technology Field, the 2019 Sogou Technology and Culture Author, and the 2021 Baijiahao Quarterly Influential Creator, he has won many awards, including the 2013 Sohu Best Industry Media Person, the 2015 China New Media Entrepreneurship Competition Beijing Third Place, the 2015 Guangmang Experience Award, the 2015 China New Media Entrepreneurship Competition Finals Third Place, and the 2018 Baidu Dynamic Annual Powerful Celebrity.