In order to satisfy the curiosity of "vulgarity", I deliberately searched out this live video and wanted to see how the Coconut Tree platform "plays the edge ball", what kind of vulgarity has hurt, and what kind of vulgarity has defeated.
However, the result was disappointed.
The so-called "vulgar" live broadcast, which was cut off several times in the middle, was nothing more than a few beauties with fair skin, beautiful legs, long and thin waists, wearing bright tights, black shorts, holding coconut tree drinks, and dancing a few radio gymnastics -style dances.
...even if it's "playing the edge ball"?
... Why is this "injustice"?
Sorry, with my limited imagination, I really can't see anything that goes against public order and good customs .
Perhaps, the kind of person who can think of hybrids when seeing white arms can indeed see some "not suitable for children" from it.
But, for a person with such a "rich" imagination, what can he not "immoral"?
As you know, on today's short video platforms, many women with light makeup, sexy clothes, coquettish voices, and poses are doing well.
To be honest, many of them have much larger standards of language, actions, sexual suggestion and sexual provocation than Coconut Tree Live. There is no way to see the platform ban them on the grounds of "playing the edge ball" and "immorality". The public is not surprised. Why did the moral demands suddenly rise when they get to Coconut Tree Group?
In addition to accusing the Coconut Tree Group of "playing the edge", there are also people who question that the Coconut Tree Group uses "vulgar" means to "gain eyeballs". I think this is a more ridiculous logic.
Live broadcast is a way of advertising and marketing. You actually require that other people’s advertising and marketing cannot “gain eyeballs”?
Are you so polite? May I ask?
In fact, what you should question is whether others have committed fraud, whether they have illegal additives, whether they have evaded taxes, whether they have forced buying and selling, etc. Instead of wearing tinted glasses, they should examine whether they are "vulgar" or "elegant", and they should not ask others to stick to the dogma of "the smell of wine is not afraid of deep alleys" and not to "gain eyeballs".
However, the above doubts and criticisms are just the statements of ordinary netizens, and they are not worthy of training.
. The comments that are truly in-depth and not vulgar must be experts:
are not innovative enough to "take old capital".
So, what exactly is the innovation?
The expert didn't say it, we don't understand, and we dare not ask.
In any case, in the opinion of experts, using the Internet to engage in live streaming to sell goods is just a formal innovation, which is definitely a "deficiency".
Does that need a little bit of "technology is very active" to be considered innovative enough?
I believe that experts are not so cruel!
Finally, let me tell you my personal opinion.
First of all, I think the scale of Coconut Tree Group's live broadcast this time is far from the point of "playing the edge ball" and "immorality".
Secondly, even if really "plays the edge" for marketing purposes, it is understandable.
After all, sex is beautiful, not evil; beauty is pleasing to the eye, not disgusting.
What's more, "playing the edge ball" is not a violation, nor is it an illegal one.
If the Coconut Tree Group violates the rules and regulations, then it deserves punishment; just don’t always stand at the moral high ground and just use the ambiguous concept of “playing the edge ball” to talk about things.
