Summary of Key Points
This news article highlights the current situation where the courier industry has become "kidnapped" by algorithms: in pursuit of efficiency, courier companies use strict delivery acceptance rate metrics and hefty fines to pressure couriers, leading to a widespread practice of false deliveries becoming an accepted norm within the industry. Under these pressures, couriers not only sacrifice their integrity but also transmit their anxiety into public spaces (such as rushing into elevators). While consumers benefit from the convenience of logistics services, they are also affected by issues like false deliveries, facing a dilemma of choosing between speed and quality of service. The article ultimately explores how to find a balance between algorithm-driven efficiency and humanistic values.
I. False Deliveries: A "Survival Strategy" Forced by Algorithms
Why do couriers dare to mark deliveries as received before the actual delivery? The root cause lies in the stringent delivery acceptance rate requirements imposed by headquarters, which are checked multiple times throughout the day (at 2 PM, 5 PM, and 7 PM), with fines for non-compliance. These fines can be severe—up to 1000 yuan for false deliveries and 300 yuan for lost parcels.
Couriers simply do not have enough time to meet these demands: they deliver an average of 150-220 parcels per day, spending about 3 hours just on phone calls per order, not to mention the additional time spent climbing stairs and waiting for elevators. Moreover, their earnings are decreasing (around 1 yuan per order in most areas), while the cost of last-mile delivery has risen (for example, from 46% to 57% at YTO Express). As a result, couriers resort to a strategy of marking deliveries as received in advance, hoping that customers will withdraw their complaints if they discover the discrepancy. Integrity becomes a trade-off, with consumer expectations becoming a casualty in the optimization process.
II. Couriers: "Prisoners" Trapped by Algorithms
Couriers face a classic "prisoner's dilemma"—if they follow the rules, they cannot meet their targets; if they try to complete the tasks, they break the rules.
One courier stated, "Deliveries must be accepted on the same day, with at most a 2% allowance for the next day," and some even pay out of their own pocket to have customers sign for the deliveries in advance. A Peking University doctoral student who worked as a courier observed that couriers generally adopt a strategy of making false deliveries and then apologizing if complaints arise, as failing to do so would result in financial penalties or incomplete workloads, making it impossible to survive. Algorithms have turned couriers into "time-driven robots," with immense pressure (late deliveries being mentioned 79 times in the article). It's not that they don't want to follow the rules; the system forces them to choose between integrity and making a living.
III. The Collapse of Elevator Etiquette: Algorithm-Induced Anxiety Spreading to Public Morality
The pressure from algorithms not only leads to rule-breaking by couriers but also affects public behavior. For instance, in elevators, couriers rush in as soon as the doors open, regardless of whether people are inside. This phenomenon reflects a "bad money driving out good" situation—couriers who follow the rules miss out on using the elevator, while those who do not break the rules can deliver more deliveries. Over time, even basic etiquette (like waiting for others to exit before entering) is neglected. The French sociologist's concept of "social anomie" (the breakdown of old norms without new ones established) is evident here, with couriers' anxiety manifesting in various interactions, such as jaywalking at intersections and impatience on the phone.
IV. Consumers: The "Silent Majority" Held Hostage by Convenience
We enjoy the convenience of "order today, delivered tomorrow" and free shipping, but there are consequences. False deliveries make returns difficult (for example, if the system shows the delivery was made 3 days earlier than actual), and increased complaints further stress couriers, creating a vicious cycle. Consumers are also caught in a lose-lose situation: if they demand door-to-door delivery and confirm each order, delivery efficiency is halved, increasing costs by 2 yuan (which may be passed on to consumers); if false deliveries are allowed, service quality declines. We have become "greedy" users who expect speed, low prices, and good service, but we lack real choices—either accepting faster but problematic deliveries or slower but compliant ones.
V. A Way Out: Finding a Balance Between Efficiency and Civilization
The problem is not entirely the fault of algorithms; they are part of a competitive system that exacerbates existing tensions. Solutions include:
1. Not treating courier services as purely efficiency-driven: Deliveries involve human dignity and social trust; couriers should not be treated as mere tools.
2. Adjusting cost structures: Low delivery fees cannot come at the expense of couriers' well-being; the industry needs to redistribute profits more fairly.
3. **Making algorithms more "friendly": Give couriers some autonomy (e.g., allowing flexible delivery times) and avoid using strict time limits and fines that drive them to the brink.
4. Consumers showing more kindness: Allowing couriers 5 minutes more, giving way in elevators, and calling before complaining—using human warmth to counter the coldness of algorithms.
The final example of a courier yielding to an elderly person illustrates the hope that exists for a balance between efficiency and humanity: acts of kindness that algorithms cannot predict may be the key to preserving civilization.
This news article raises the question of how we can prevent technology from overshadowing human values when it develops too rapidly. The answer may lie in the small acts of kindness that algorithms cannot account for—the warmth and compassion that exist between people.