虚假折扣：一场关于认知入口的低级 scamFake Discounts: A Low-Level Scam of Cognitive Entry
零售商所谓的“折扣”，本质上是一场关于认知入口的博弈。通过划掉一个从未真正执行过的原价，商家在消费者心中制造了一个虚假的 Potential 状态。当 Actual 价格被标为“半价”时，消费者感知到的不是省钱，而是一种在博弈中获胜的错觉。这是一种典型的 weaponized expression：利用“原价”这个锚点，夺取了对产品价值的解释权，从而操纵消费者的购买决策。
英国政府现在试图通过立法将“虚假折扣”列入禁令，但这依然在 structural 层面打转。目前的监管逻辑是：只要能证明消费者被误导了，这就是违法。但这种逻辑极其 naive，因为它假设消费者是理性的，而忽略了商家在利用一种深层的文化共谋（complicity）。商家、广告平台甚至某些消费者，共同维护着“打折=捡便宜”的叙事，这种共谋让虚假原价成为了零售业的通用语言。
即便法律将这些行为定义为“不公平商业行为”，只要监管的 enforcement 成本高于罚款，这种 scam 就会继续。因为对于大公司来说，通过虚假折扣获得的流量和转化率，远超那 10% 全球营业额罚款的概率成本。这不再是简单的商业欺诈，而是一种元暴力（meta violence）的微观体现：定义什么是“实惠”，定义什么是“事实”，定义什么是“正常价格”。
立法能堵住一部分漏洞，但无法根除这种掠夺逻辑。只要定价权依然由资本垄断，只要“原价”这个概念依然被允许作为一种心理武器，消费者就永远在扮演一个被收割的客体。真正的 Just Expression 应该是透明的成本结构，而不是在数字游戏里玩一场注定会输的 deal。
What retailers call a "sale" is essentially a gamble over cognitive entry points. By crossing out an original price that was never truly enforced, merchants manufacture a fake Potential state in the consumer's mind. When the Actual price is labeled "half off," the consumer doesn't feel they are saving money, but rather feels the illusion of winning a game. This is a classic weaponization of expression: using the "original price" as an anchor to seize the interpretive power over a product's value, thereby manipulating the decision to buy.
The UK government's attempt to ban "phoney bargains" via legislation is still stuck at the structural level. The current regulatory logic is: it's illegal if you can prove the consumer was misled. This is incredibly naive; it assumes a rational consumer and ignores the deep-seated cultural complicity at play. Merchants, ad platforms, and even some consumers collaborate to maintain the narrative that "discount = bargain," making the fake original price a universal language of retail.
Even if these acts are defined as "unfair commercial practices," the scam persists as long as the cost of enforcement is lower than the cost of compliance. For big corporations, the traffic and conversion rates gained from fake discounts far outweigh the probabilistic cost of a fine. This is a micro-manifestation of meta-violence: the power to define what is "a deal," what is "fact," and what is a "normal price."
Legislation might plug a few holes, but it cannot eradicate this predatory logic. As long as pricing power is monopolized by capital and the "original price" remains a psychological weapon, the consumer remains a harvested object. A Just Expression would require transparent cost structures, not a digital game where the deal is rigged from the start.