In recent days, the Zhengzhou "Xumian" scandal has become a hot topic that continues to ferment online. The cause of this incident was a dispute between a noodle shop and customers during the "unlimited noodle" service segment. Afterwards, the shop owner posted positive videos of customers and several children online, stating that "7 people only ordered one bowl of noodles". This statement quickly sparked a lot of "onlookers", and many netizens stood in line to criticize customers, believing that their "continuation" was an attempt to "take advantage". However, as more details were revealed, the event gradually turned around. The customer presented the payment voucher for that evening, proving that they actually ordered other dishes with a total consumption of over 140 yuan, which is clearly inconsistent with the statement of "only ordering one bowl of noodles". After the dispute, both parties reached a consensus: the shop owner deleted the video and apologized, and the customer deleted the negative review. Unexpectedly, a few days later, the shop owner posted new content online and used insulting terms such as "Seven Wolves" to stir up emotions, further escalating the controversy. Although the process of this incident was full of twists and turns, it is not difficult to judge who is right or wrong. The shop owner publicly released videos of customers and minors without consent, suspected of infringing on personal rights and interests; Using insulting language to attack the other party again after agreeing to delete the video is untenable both legally and morally. The customer's understanding of "unlimited noodles" essentially belongs to the interpretation of contract terms. Leaving negative reviews by customers is a legitimate right of consumers, and as long as it is based on facts, it is considered a reasonable expression. Compared to the right and wrong of the "Continuation of the Face" incident itself, being wary of "public opinion trials" where the truth is unclear is a more important insight we can gain from it. In just a few days, the event "reversed", emotions rose and fell, and public judgment was constantly being pulled. The initial video and accompanying text quickly created the impression of "customers taking advantage" among people; After the new evidence was exposed, many people felt that the shop owner maliciously manipulated the pace. This vivid "online communication class" reminds us that many times, the truth is more complex than what we see online. Whether it's one-sided narratives, accusations, or seemingly convincing photos, recordings, or videos, they cannot automatically equate to the full picture of the facts. In the current online public opinion arena, information dissemination has some characteristics. Firstly, what people obtain online is often only fragments of information, rather than the entire process of the event. These fragments often amplify emotions of anger or sympathy. At the same time, the immediacy of the internet will make many people accustomed to standing in line at the first time, afraid of missing out on participating in event discussions. Under the superposition of these elements, the "public opinion trial" initiated by netizens themselves can easily become a "case of disorderly judgment by gourd monks" and even a breeding ground for online violence. The fact does not automatically become clear with an increase in the volume of discussion. The more in a noisy environment, the more it is necessary to maintain necessary restraint. Netizens may want to think more: Have we already obtained complete information when we are eager to "condemn" a certain party in the comment section? Have we considered the possible editing behind the camera when making conclusions based on a video? Is it possible for us to unintentionally become a part of online violence when we participate in forwarding and commenting? These issues are worth our serious consideration. Many times, the sense of justice we generate while surfing the internet is sincere. However, if patience and judgment are lacking, a sense of justice can also harm innocent people. Justice is never achieved through cyberbullying, but needs to be built on facts and rules. For ordinary netizens, improving media literacy means learning to slow down the pace: don't hastily take sides just because of one-sided statements, don't jump to conclusions based on emotions, and don't use insults and ridicule as a way to "uphold justice". In a complex public opinion environment, people should maintain a sense of clarity and goodwill. Being clear headed means realizing that 'seeing may not necessarily be believing', and knowing how to leave space for observation and waiting; Goodwill refers to restraining the impulse to attack others as much as possible when the whole picture is unclear, being more tolerant in the heart, and giving more time to the truth. The Internet makes it easy for everyone to express, but it also makes information dissemination more complicated. The more we are in this environment, the more we need to be cautious and less blindly follow; Be more patient and less aggressive. Such restraint and goodwill not only protect others, but also maintain a healthy and clear public opinion space on one side. (New Society)