According to media reports, a food delivery platform has recently launched a new feature in seven cities including Jinjiang in Fujian and Shaoxing in Zhejiang. Riders can anonymously evaluate users within 48 hours after the end of an order, block inappropriate customer reviews, or simply check "no longer deliver food to this customer" on the evaluation page. After setting, they will not receive orders from this user again for 365 days. The platform stated that this feature will gradually expand nationwide in the future. After more than ten years of operation, food delivery riders finally have the right to choose a small number of customers, which is a response to the dignity of workers in the new economic ecosystem. Starting from this subtle adjustment, the imbalance between platform users and riders is also expected to be corrected. For a long time, due to the high weight of consumer evaluations, food delivery riders have almost lost the right to say 'no'. Faced with various types of evaluations, even malicious negative ones, they often have no choice but to accept them all. Refusing service and maintaining dignity often mean a double decline in personal ratings and income. 'One negative review for a day' is not an exaggeration, but a common reality dilemma faced by this group. Data shows that the number of food delivery riders in China has reached 13 million, and their labor rights are increasingly becoming a social focus. From labor remuneration, labor safety, welfare protection, to the recently discussed right to rest and personal dignity, a series of basic rights are gradually being included in the agenda of institutional discussions and platform rule reconstruction. From a deeper perspective, allowing riders to "speak out" is a confirmation of equal discourse rights for workers on a humanistic level. Some people are concerned that some user rights may be compromised as a result, such as orders for "high-rise buildings without elevators" being collectively blocked. But upon closer inspection of the rules, the "blacklist" function is not used arbitrarily, and riders need to upload relevant evidence to ensure that their refusal behavior is reasonable and justified. Meanwhile, the anonymity mechanism also helps riders avoid potential pressure to protect their rights. At present, in the pilot stage, each rider can only block up to two users, and unlimited "negative review rights" have not been opened. Of course, it will take time to observe what kind of market ripples this mechanism will trigger. From a global perspective of data flow, this is just a starting point. How will the platform analyze and process massive amounts of 'blocked' data? The key is whether this can promote the optimization and upgrading of dispatch logic, regional operations, and even abnormal scenario response mechanisms. For example, how will orders be redistributed after a rider blocks a user? Can the platform establish a warning and coordination mechanism for frequently blocked users or regions? Previously, a residential area in Shanghai had frequent orders exceeding the time limit due to riders taking shuttle buses, which led to collective "blacklisting" by riders. Such systemic problems need to be truly recorded and presented through rider feedback data, in order to promote the platform to design solutions from the root. Furthermore, the platform allows for "reverse negative reviews", which also helps to foster more "rider friendly" rules and atmosphere at the social level, allowing all parties to have a fair share and form a digital lifestyle that is both efficient and humane. Technology should be 'for the good'. The premise of technology for good is to enable the voice of the weaker party in the system to be heard and respected. With the rider's "no" becoming a part of system optimization, the platform economy will also enter a new stage of refined development. (New Society)