Why do you need to "promise not to report" when reporting spam messages?

At the beginning of the year, Mr. Zhou of Chengdu found that he could not receive the notification message from the bank and the verification code message from some software. After searching for a third-party SMS sending service provider, I was told that its mobile phone number was blacklisted for repeatedly reporting spam messages to 1232 1. If you want to unseal it, you need to make sure you don't report it again.

The unsealing requirement of "promise not to report again" seems to be threatening the whistleblower. Regardless of the purpose of the service provider, reporting spam messages is the right of users and should not be unduly restricted under any circumstances.

Reporting spam messages is the right of users. This kind of short message often annoys users, and there will be some bad content that runs counter to the mainstream values of society, such as "Macau casinos earn millions a month" and "young women earn millions a month". In this case, reporting spam messages is not only to protect their own rights and interests, but also to reflect the sense of social justice.

When a user submits a report, what the service provider should do is to determine whether the user's report is valid through investigation and evidence collection. Even if users submit inaccurate reports, service providers can only reject these specific reports and should not deprive users of their reporting rights. The service provider repeatedly ruled that Mr. Zhou's report was invalid and asked Mr. Zhou to "guarantee not to report again", which was an unreasonable violation of his freedom to report.

From the technical specification, it is also illegal for local operators to ban Mr. Zhou's bank SMS notification service. In response to this matter, reporter Yang Guang from Voice of China interviewed Hao Zhichao, director of 1232 1 Network Bad and Spam Reporting Acceptance Center. Hao Zhichao said: Mr. Zhou found that the bank messages and verification code messages that he could not receive belonged to business management and service messages, which were completely different from commercial messages. According to Article 19 of the Regulations on the Management of Communication Short Message Service, two types of short messages cannot be sent from the same port. On the other hand, Mr. Zhou's reporting of commercial short messages will only affect his receiving of commercial short messages at most, and there is no reason to influence other ports to send short messages to Mr. Zhou.

It stands to reason that the process of reporting should be a benign communication between the service provider and the reporting user, and the user's reporting is also a help for the service provider to standardize the content of short messages, which should be advocated and encouraged. Service providers should actively communicate with users to report the survey results, instead of forcing them to "promise not to report again" when they come to consult.

It is undeniable that there are indeed some "professional whistleblowers" who use reporting methods to seek personal gain by extreme means. However, in view of this "professional reporting" phenomenon, what operators should do is to plug the loopholes in the reporting mechanism and prevent the reporting mechanism from continuing to be abused, instead of "blocking" users who report frequently and damaging their compliance rights and interests.

The service provider failed to report the user's report well, which is a wrong operation; It is even more wrong to ask Mr. Zhou to "guarantee not to report again" before unsealing. Only by strictly following laws and regulations can operators effectively identify normal users and professional whistleblowers, reduce the illegal use of the right to report, and do no wrong to anyone. The abuse of "shielding" means will only hurt more innocent users.

Black interests of operators. It needs to be checked.