On March 12th, someone posted a Weibo recounting that South Korean bourgeois celebrity Zhang Yuanying traveled back and forth on the day of the show, calling it a “devil’s schedule.” This statement provoked an objection from a netizen: “A 12-hour flight isn’t like she’s flying her own plane, sleeping in first class is so comfortable, and calling it a devil’s schedule—what nonsense are you talking about.” This remark angered a fan of Zhang Yuanying’s rich second-generation followers, who maliciously exposed the netizen’s name, phone number, address, and workplace, and after learning she was pregnant, cursed her to give birth to a deformity, and incited conflicts between her and her husband. Some netizens demanded an apology from the “unboxing” person, but soon those who supported the pregnant woman were also insulted and even had their photos edited into pornographic images.
If this incident were only described by bourgeois media as “an unboxing event caused by differing opinions on bourgeois celebrities,” the subsequent development further revealed that it essentially reflected the bourgeoisie’s oppression of the masses. The arrogant attitude of the “unboxing” person, who said “look where my IP is,” naturally incited public outrage. Soon, the public discovered that this wealthy second-generation individual in Canada named Xie Andy had previously attacked dozens of people using similar methods, claiming her father was a vice president at Baidu, and obtained unboxing data through her father’s backend account. Her father, Xie Guangjun, to avoid the impact on his position at Baidu, apologized on March 17th in his personal WeChat Moments, summarizing the incident as “my daughter arguing online,” without mentioning the psychological harm her daughter caused or any specific compensation plan. Baidu then issued an emergency public relations statement on March 20th, claiming that the leak of unboxing information from Baidu was a rumor, “excluding suspicion of Xie Guangjun’s involvement,” and revealed that the “unboxing” channel used by her daughter was through overseas search routes that quickly accessed the social engineering database. After shifting responsibility entirely onto Baidu, they also retaliated, announcing they would file a report to pursue the rumor-mongers, adopting an anti-unboxing stance, and establishing a “Special Fund to Combat Online Black Industry.”
Baidu attempted to suppress the discussion through these measures, avoiding public condemnation, but the victims still did not receive apologies or compensation. Even if someone later wins a lawsuit forcing Xie Guangjun or Xie Andy to apologize, it would not resolve issues like “unboxing.” For example, why did Xie Andy, at only 13 years old, use multiple accounts to unbox others, and attack victims with terms like “comfort women” and “Nanjing Massacre” using AI to strip clothes? Her father, Xie Guangjun, mentioned “lack of education” in his WeChat Moments, as if it were just a matter of some capitalists not strictly educating their children. In reality, Xie Andy’s extreme individualism was cultivated in the parasitic bourgeois lifestyle. She once boasted that her father’s monthly post-tax income was about 220,000 yuan, enabling her to indulge in anime and low-level hobbies like chasing stars in Canada, showing off an 800-yuan skirt on Weibo, and shamelessly telling netizens, “Your parents earn how much a month, I spend five times that in a month,” (some netizens also exposed her as a welfare girl on Twitter, with pictures matching Xie Andy’s, though she deleted the account, which is consistent with her parasitic mindset). Her father, Xie Guangjun, also holds a strict hierarchical view; former Baidu employees revealed that he demanded his staff call him “Jun Zuo.” Under such bourgeois education, parasitism and enjoyment at others’ expense are natural, exemplified by Xie Andy, who enjoys online abuse as entertainment, or the bourgeois child Beiji Cichlid, who insults ordinary Chinese as “little spiders” (i.e., “Zhina pig”).
Even “proper education” would only produce hypocritical Confucianists. For example, Baidu’s CEO, Robin Li, although not directly advocating “unboxing” others, also disregards the interests of the masses. In 2016, he was involved in the notorious Wei Zexi incident. In 2018, Robin Li stated, “Chinese people are more open about privacy issues and are less sensitive. If they can exchange privacy for convenience, safety, or efficiency, they are willing to do so,” emphasizing that Baidu’s data use follows the principle of “benefiting and voluntarily” from users. The public immediately countered that the so-called “voluntary” was a霸王条款 (tyrannical clause), and if they disagreed, they could not use the service; the so-called “convenience” was merely Baidu’s trap to exploit private hospitals. Later, under public pressure, China enacted the “Personal Information Protection Law” and the “Data Security Law.” Although Baidu used various means, it was difficult to explain why unboxing information included details like birth dates, star charts, marriage certificates, and menstrual cycles—information that ordinary people could hardly obtain. The bourgeois media’s claim that “all are false rumors from Baidu’s competitors” is just a cover-up.
It is clear that the occurrence of the Baidu vice president’s daughter’s unboxing incident is not simply a matter of fandom disputes, individual capitalists’ improper education, or other reasons, but a reflection of the bourgeoisie’s use of privilege to oppress the masses. This is also vividly demonstrated in the subsequent rights protection efforts of the victims. So far, only some of Xie Andy’s accomplices have apologized to a victim who reported the case, mainly because the victim’s brother is a lawyer with the time and resources to collect evidence, notarize, and demand an apology. Many other victims unboxed by Xie Andy, including those unboxed due to other incidents in 2024, are deterred by legal fees of 5,000 yuan, and whether they can jointly sue remains uncertain. Some bourgeois media promote the super-class perspective that no one benefits from unboxing, as if Xie Guangjun and other bourgeoisie members being unable to continue their arbitrary actions is a loss to them. These facts sharply reveal the class nature of the law: whoever has more money can win lawsuits, and the law serves the bourgeoisie.
The “Zhongxiu” (Chinese revisionist) fears that the public will recognize that the root of the emergence and impunity of people like Xie Andy is the capitalist system, so they shift the blame onto themselves, deleting related materials to suppress mass movements, and verbally claiming to crack down on “illegal elements” involved in unboxing, attempting to steer this incident toward reformism. To cover this up, “experts” even suggest lowering the threshold for minors to avoid punishment depending on circumstances. But after the enactment of laws like the “Personal Information Protection Law,” cases of domestic violence victims like Xiao Xie being unboxed are still frequent, indicating that the issue is not about age but about the system. Some victims sharply asked: “If unboxing costs nothing and there are no departments to handle these people, does that encourage us all to become unboxers? Many apps require real-name information—are they for our convenience in being unboxed?” In fact, real-name registration was originally designed to facilitate the bourgeois government’s dictatorship over the proletariat. It is clear that to completely eradicate people like Xie Andy who unbox others, it is not enough to hold her accountable alone. This is just one form of the bourgeoisie’s use of privilege to oppress the people. To eliminate this social relation of oppression, we must eradicate the soil that produces people like Xie Andy—namely, abolish the production relations under capitalism that allow people to oppress others. Achieving this requires the oppressed masses, workers exploited by Baidu and other bourgeoisie entities, to unite and overthrow the reactionary rule of the “Zhongxiu” (revisionist).