First of all, I also think Tan Duck Blood is really not so good. It's really a dog revealing the privacy of guests, and it's worth never going to his house for dinner again. But what is even more disgusting is that Weibo's comment on Qingshui is that he is looking at passers-by with illegitimate powder? I'm confused. Everyone watching the video heard how loud the background screams were when xz came out, right? You told me that most of them were body double and passers-by? I have no problem with you. Why do you take me for a fool? In addition, if you now claim to be a real fan rather than a private fan, when you know that your brother is eating in a restaurant not far from you, will you go and take pictures and join in the fun?
There are also photos of fans cleaning in the theater or somewhere, indicating that fans have gone to clean up after the performance. Makes me more confused? Paying for a performance was originally a pleasure, but after watching the performance, you still work for free? Of course, the fans said yes and told me to mind my own business. Ok, ok, I want to ask one more question: Have you swept your floor? Come here to file a lawsuit? In short, Sean Shaw brain powder is nothing to look at. Hide, the power of crazy shrimp crawlers should still be respected.
Catering, accommodation and travel in the star's itinerary have always been the hardest hit areas for privacy leaks. In addition to the privacy leakage caused by "paparazzi", the pursuit of extreme fans and the occasional encounter of passers-by, the "carelessness" of industry staff has also become a source that cannot be ignored. "Inadvertently" to some extent stems from some people's subjective misunderstanding of celebrity privacy, and they have the misunderstanding that "if you want to wear a crown, you have to bear it". Curiosity and onlookers of stars are human nature; Seeing stars, taking photos, booking rooms and sending friends to Weibo are all natural reactions. Stars themselves have their own needs in the public eye, and exposure is positively related to their worth in most cases. So in the eyes of some people, it has become a potential tacit understanding to "transfer" some privacy rights between stars and the public. However, it is undeniable that stars are citizens first, and legally speaking, they should enjoy the right to privacy like the general public.
"You can't eat hot tofu in a hurry", but if you want to eat hot tofu, you will inevitably burn your mouth. Judging from the reaction of public opinion, this wave of operation can be called a textbook-level case of "smashing good cards": it could have been used to improve the image score, but the result was negative. For customers, this is tantamount to a "persuasion guide"-after all, businesses that don't take user privacy seriously have also destroyed the minimum trust foundation.