On October 10th, Meituan posted a notice on its rider community official account “Kangaroo Jun,” detailing the “optimization progress” in September. Among these, the functions of “Rider Evaluation of Customers” and “Rider Blocking Users” are the most eye-catching.
Meituan pilot launched the rider evaluation of users and rider blocking users functions in seven cities including Jinjiang, Fujian, and Shaoxing, Zhejiang, granting riders the option to block users. Under this feature, within 48 hours after an order is completed, riders can anonymously evaluate users on the order page. If they encounter scenarios such as customer insults, threats, or intimidation, riders can also quickly block the user by checking “Do not deliver to this customer” on the evaluation page, or choose to block the customer in the “Order Acceptance Settings - Order Acceptance Tools Module - Block Customer” section of the rider app.
Once this policy was implemented, online comments flooded in. Some believe that with this function, riders and customers are now equals, and riders no longer have to suffer from selfish customers. Others oppose, thinking that riders are not so-called “vulnerable groups,” have their own group chats, and can easily pressure customers, who are inherently “fighting alone”; thus, this policy is unfair to customers.
美团试点“骑手屏蔽顾客”功能，双向评价时代来临？
This article will briefly evaluate the trial implementation of this policy and the various opinions in society from the perspective of an online food delivery rider.
In fact, this regulation is merely a show of “benevolence” from the “lord,” not only useless but also insidiously malicious.
From a technical standpoint, the so-called rights granted to riders by Meituan are fundamentally unequal. Blocking a customer does not affect the customer in any meaningful way; it simply means the rider will no longer deliver to them.
According to the current trial, riders must provide evidence of threats or insults, and pass platform review, to successfully block a customer. Each rider can block up to two users at the same time, with a blocking period of 365 days, after which it automatically lifts. Can such “rights” change the oppressed situation of riders in any way? Can it bring any sense of equality? If there really is a customer who gets blocked for threatening or insulting a rider, they would just laugh: “If you don’t deliver, there are others who will!”
On the other hand, what about the “rights” of customers? If customers complain or leave negative reviews about riders, the riders can easily face penalties, fines, deduction of points, or even account suspension. If a rider is blacklisted by the platform, it’s not just about not delivering to one or two customers anymore. The number of domestic and international delivery riders continues to grow, especially the large number of part-time riders, which clearly reflects the worsening unemployment situation. The fact that platforms can arbitrarily punish or dismiss riders proves that riders cannot gain any real rights from such laughable policies.
In reality, such seemingly benevolent efforts to improve riders’ conditions have long existed, merely creating the illusion that riders are equal to or even can pressure customers. The most typical example is various short videos online: delivery riders encountering rude customers, wrong location tags, inaccessible neighborhoods… making unreasonable demands and cursing. The usual result is: riders add extra items, which is satisfying to watch. Not to mention how many of these videos are actually made by real riders (look at their pale faces), is this phenomenon truly widespread? From my own experience, riders are always at a disadvantage in “conflicts with customers.” I now take at least two photos per order: one of the receipt and goods, and another of the goods with the doorplate; I must call before delivery, and report issues if the call fails. According to Meituan, this is to protect our rights in case of disputes. But who doesn’t see the real reason? It’s because if the goods are lost or a selfish customer claims they didn’t receive the order, and the rider has no evidence, the platform will quickly blame us. Even if evidence is retained, Meituan often rules the rider’s appeal invalid. The punishment falls on the rider, and the review of appeals is also handled by the platform. Isn’t this the clearest answer?
“Knight of the Delivery World” Chen Guojiang once commented on such platform behavior: “You can’t be both policeman and judge, that’s unreasonable.” Having evidence doesn’t guarantee rights; not keeping evidence makes rights vulnerable to infringement (fines, point deductions, etc.). Does retaining evidence really constitute a right? It’s just increasing labor intensity. The so-called evaluation and blocking functions introduced by Meituan are nothing special.
This policy, and Meituan’s propaganda around it, are entirely about shifting the focus of conflict, covering up the contradictions between riders and capitalists, portraying the latter as benevolent protectors of “rider brothers’” rights, while framing customers (mostly petite bourgeoisie) as enemies of riders—an insidious trick. The first time I saw this policy was on my own rider app, and honestly, I thought it was useless. I deliver 30-40 orders a day, about 1,000 a month. Among those 1,000 customers, how many threaten me with “if you don’t do XXX, I’ll complain or leave a bad review,” or curse? Not even three. In reality, I’ve never encountered such customers. But the big three platforms are all ruthlessly exploiting and oppressing riders—lowering order prices, shortening delivery times, increasing punishments in various forms.
Of course, there are extremely selfish customers who side with capitalists to oppress riders, but they are definitely a minority. Most customers I see are mostly petite bourgeoisie and are not unaware of riders’ situations; they generally show sympathy. As for that small fraction who are truly nasty, where do they get their confidence to bully riders? “Setting aside facts,” I can add extra items, harass them later, even know where they live, and bother them daily if I want. But the reality is different. These extremely selfish customers help capitalists oppress riders, and it’s the capitalists who give these arrogant bullies their backing. Who can still be fooled by Meituan’s “benevolent” facade of reform?
