The focus of attention on such incidents, including how market administrators and regulatory authorities handle such reports, should not be fixated on the identity of the "anti-counterfeiting crusaders" or "whistleblowers," but rather on whether the chaos they expose and report is actually true.

On the morning of May 25, internet blogger @Tiequan Chuji posted a video claiming that a gold recycling shop in Wuhu used rigged scales, with a gold necklace of about 31 grams weighing in at less than 16 grams on the shop staff's scale, leading to a dispute between the two parties. According to reports, local police and market regulatory authorities conducted a joint investigation, and the Jinghu District Market Supervision Administration has opened a case. The Wuhu 12345 citizen hotline responded that the matter has been transferred to the relevant departments, and the handling results will be announced in due course.

Recently, a number of incidents across the country in which anti-counterfeiting bloggers exposed "rigged scales" have drawn attention. This time, because the gold involved is high-priced per unit and the "shortweighting" almost reached the level of halving the weight, netizens' enthusiasm for watching has naturally been even higher. At present, the local relevant departments have opened an investigation into the report, and an authoritative conclusion on what really happened needs to be given as soon as possible.

In the news comment section, some people said, don't you know how much gold you have yourself? Why sell it if the difference is so big? — implicitly suggesting the blogger acted deliberately. It cannot be denied that, whether it is the "professional anti-counterfeiting fighters" of earlier years or the "anti-counterfeiting bloggers" that have emerged on the internet in recent years, their participation in "anti-counterfeiting" has always been accompanied by controversy. In particular, the process of internet-famous anti-counterfeiting bloggers "cracking down on fakes" in front of cameras has been labeled as "clout-chasing." But objectively, this kind of "anti-counterfeiting" exposes market chaos including "rigged scales," and in essence it remains a form of social supervision. Therefore, the focus of attention on such incidents, including how market administrators and regulatory authorities handle such reports, should not be fixated on the identity of the "anti-counterfeiting crusaders" or "whistleblowers," but rather on whether the chaos they expose and report is actually true.

Take this incident as an example. If even gold recycling shops cannot eliminate "rigged scales," this clearly directly challenges many people's everyday assumptions — have the gold items they sold themselves encountered the same "trap"? More importantly, without full audio and video recording, can ordinary consumers still effectively defend their rights even if they encounter "rigged scales"? It is worth noting that although the investigation results of this incident have not yet been released, the phenomenon of "rigged scales" in gold recycling shops has in fact long been exposed.

For example, on May 17, Taishan District in Tai'an City uncovered a case of measurement fraud in gold recycling. Law enforcement officers seized four electronic scales used for measurement in a gold recycling shop. On-site measurement tests found that the electronic scales could be adjusted by pressing keys, causing the weighed weight to be lower than the actual weight of the gold jewelry to varying degrees, and the merchant profited illegally in this way. Earlier this year, Gongshu District in Hangzhou reported an incident of "a gold shop using rigged scales": after appraisal by a technical institution, the electronic scale involved was found to be substandard and illegally modified. The relevant department confiscated the electronic scale and imposed a fine of 22,000 yuan on the merchant.

With relevant cases preceding it, the truth of this incident is all the more necessary to be investigated thoroughly and in full detail, because it may involve everyone's understanding of the entire gold recycling market: Have "rigged scales" really become an "unspoken rule" of this industry, as some netizens suspect? If "rigged scales" are indeed no longer isolated cases, how should market regulatory authorities exercise more effective supervision over the industry? These issues should attract greater attention in more places. Of course, if there are no "rigged scales" and the matter involves false accusation, malicious whistleblowers should also be made to pay the price in accordance with the law.

It should be noted that, regarding the increasingly common phenomenon of internet-famous "anti-counterfeiting," some places always seem inevitably to have excessive concerns in handling it, which easily leads them into missteps in disposal and response. For example, they treat internet-famous bloggers' exposure of market chaos as "airing a place's dirty laundry," and even act as if facing a major threat, shifting the focus of their response to guarding against anti-counterfeiting bloggers.

Obviously, this is erroneous thinking. The degree of market standardization in a place is indeed part of a city's image, but the exposure of problems is also an opportunity to advance market standardization. If regulatory patches can be applied and loopholes plugged accordingly, this is actually a good thing for the long-term development of the place. After all, problems need to be solved, and covering up problems cannot really make a place "better." Moreover, after problems are exposed, the attitude and process of handling them are themselves a process of displaying the city's image and the level of social governance. Handling all kinds of reports in accordance with laws and regulations, openly and efficiently, can precisely add to the city's image.

In short, internet-famous bloggers' anti-counterfeiting efforts, as a more flexible form of market supervision that often releases greater public-opinion influence, indeed place higher demands on the degree of market standardization and the level of market supervision in various places. How to properly "take up" this new force of social supervision and transform it into an external driving force for improving market supervision and urban governance — every city will be a "test-taker."