美國小哥手撕西方媒體涉港報道，結果竟然被……_風聞

來源：中國日報

視頻網站巨頭優兔（YouTube）終於對這個美國普通人下狠手了。

近日，中國日報記者深度訪談了手撕西方媒體的老外內森·裏奇（@NathanRich火鍋大王）。在中國的一些問題上，他説出一些人不想聽到的聲音，被美國視頻平台頻頻打壓。 

內森·裏奇是優兔上的一位視頻博主，長期生活在中國的美國人。2018年底，他因拍攝評論視頻而走紅。

採訪中，內森·裏奇坦言自己在海外視頻網站優兔上的視頻被越來越頻繁地降權、限流，幾萬的關注量和點贊數也經常神秘“失蹤”。

內森·裏奇告訴中國日報記者，“他們承認在打壓我的賬號，一切都是有意為之。****”

我聯繫了優兔，我們一來一回寫了很多郵件。他們承認在打壓我的賬號，一切都是有意為之。

I have contacted YouTube. We’ve had a very long back and forth with email, and they’ve admitted that they are aware that they’re doing it and that everything is working as intended.

據悉，優兔明明知道內森·裏奇賬號下的粉絲都是真真實實的活粉，但還是找藉口移除了這些粉絲。 

在優兔上，我大概有四十五萬粉絲。

On YouTube, I have about 450,000 subscribers.

但在前端，由於某些原因，只顯示約三十萬粉絲。優兔故意隱藏我的粉絲數，他們還有其他一系列針對我的行徑。

But on the front end, they only show you about 300,000 due to some issues, where they’re intentionally hiding my subscriber count and other things that they’re doing.

我給他們提供了大量證據，我的粉絲可以填驗證碼、可以發郵件、可以跟優兔聊，不管你們想怎麼驗證他們是活粉。他們也很清楚我的粉絲是真人，但他們還是要移除這些粉絲。

And so I’ve offered them a very large amount of evidence, including saying, my subscribers will do captchas, they’ll write you emails, they’ll talk to you, anything you want to verify that these are real people. And they made it clear that they know that they’re real people, but they’re just going to remove their count anyway.

更讓內森·裏奇憤怒的是，優兔平台提升了支持中國分裂視頻的權重。

這是可以證實的。如果在優兔上搜索香港這個關鍵字，按時間順序排列結果我看到的應該是關於香港的最新的視頻，然後倒序一直到發佈時間最久遠的視頻。

And then just to, as if they want to rub salt into the wound. Another thing that they do is they boost particularly pro-separatist videos in their ranks, and so this is provable. So if I, for example, search for the words “Hong Kong” in YouTube and sort it by the date, what I should be seeing is the most recent Hong Kong videos, and then working backwards to the oldest.

但我看到的情況是，前五個視頻是最新發布的，第六個視頻是兩個月之前的，是由一個網上的反華種族主義者發佈的，而且瀏覽量不如我兩個月前發佈支持中國的視頻。

But instead, what I find is the first top five are the most recent, and then the sixth one is one from two months ago by a known racist person against Chinese people with less views than my video from two months ago, that’s actually, of a comparable stature, but with more videos and pro-China.

內森·裏奇做“錯”了什麼？因為説了優兔不想聽到的真話，所以他們想捂上他們的嘴。 

內森·裏奇滿腔憤怒，在優兔平台，可以高呼“移民應該被槍指着趕出美國”，可以叫囂“白人至上”，他們都聽之任之。但是，他們獨獨不能接受我關於香港的討論。

對此他發了一封郵件質問對方：

我給優兔直接發了一封郵件。質問那“那這段處處體現白人至上主義的視頻呢？裏面説黑人應該從美國驅逐出境，移民應該被槍指着趕出美國，若敢反抗就打死他們。那段視頻卻有廣告有收益，你們認可這段視頻裏的哪些觀點？”

I sent an email directly to YouTube, saying, what about this video about white supremacy and how black people should be deported from America and how immigrants should be taken out of the country at the barrel of a gun or killed if they resist? That video is monetized. So what’s the part of that that you agree with the most? 

他們説“我們允許任何人做任何他們想做的事”，但事實並不是這樣的，

They’re not liable because they just say, well, we just allow anyone to do whatever they want. But they don’t.

內森·裏奇告訴中國日報記者：“非常明顯的是，優兔想要傳遞一種帶有政治傾向的信息。”

優兔想給人們灌輸一種思想，那就是，香港正在為“民主”奮鬥，我們是“民主”的，所以我們要站在香港一邊。香港抗議者是“正義”的，他們所做的一切都是“正確”的，我們必須支持他們。

The message that they’re trying to cultivate is that they are on the side of Hong Kong, because Hong Kong is fighting for democracy and we have democracy and we want them to have a democracy, and so therefore they are the righteous ones and everything that they’re doing is right, we need to support them.

我認為優兔這種行為這是有問題的，他們明顯壓制了一些自己不想聽的言論，同時也想不讓別人聽到。

And I think there are several problems with that narrative and they don’t want to hear it, and they don’t want others to hear it.

在內森·裏奇看來，優兔很喜歡把自己塑造成一副“人畜無害”的樣子，包裝成一個所謂中立或者獨立的平台。藏在面具下是怎樣一副嘴臉呢？

有些人可能會吃驚，因為他們不知道優兔其實對於內容是有篩選的。

I think it surprises some people that YouTube is actually active in the content. 

優兔企圖兩個便宜都佔了，他們在控制內容卻不對內容負責。

What YouTube is doing is they’re trying to get the best of both of those worlds. What they’re doing is they’re controlling the content, but not taking responsibility for the content.

讓內森·裏奇最崩潰的是，巨頭優兔形成壟斷後就開始不斷打壓新平台。這就意味着，@火鍋大王 別無選擇。

優兔最大的問題其實在於它這樣做的也在消滅競爭，在西方媒體平台上完成了壟斷。

The biggest problem with YouTube is that it does all this while it also tries to proactively crush all competition. So it’s established a monopoly on the Western media platforms.

這就意味着，像我這樣的博主如果想獲得西方網友的關注，除了優兔別無選擇。

So what that means is that somebody like myself, if I want to reach people in the West, I don’t have any other options. 

新的平台出現以後，優兔就會消滅它，所以這裏存在潛在的反壟斷問題。他們掃清競爭、消滅反對的聲音，但也沒有履行自己的言論自由的承諾。

And if another platform comes, they just crush it. And so what that means is that there’s potential antitrust issues, where they are removing competition and then they’re crushing dissenting voices. They’re also not practicing their own freedom of speech.

很多人會説，他們是一家商業公司，他們允許什麼、禁止什麼，都是他們的自由。這種論調其實站不住腳，因為他們並不對那些言論負責。

As many people say, because people will say well, they’re their own company.They can allow or not allow whatever they want. That’s actually not a real argument, because the thing is, they are not liable for that speech.

為何要手撕西方媒體

在訪問@火鍋大王 前，CD君在微博上發了一個網友問題徵集帖，其中有網友好奇，內森·裏奇作為一個美國人，為何要在香港問題上手撕西方媒體呢？

內森·裏奇直言，2012年，內森·裏奇來到美國工作，當時是一家視覺特效公司的技術總監。那家公司因為某種原因想要和一家中國公司合併。他被派到中國來做技術評估，看看我們正在研發的技術能不能在美國應用。其實他就是希望大家做足功課再來討論，摒除偏見，把各方觀點展現出來。但是西方媒體一再片面報道，不願意讓另一方聲音見光。

如果你要在一個大平台上公開地談論中國，你就需要做足功課運用事實。你需要儘可能地摒除偏見，把各方的觀點都展示出來。

If you’re going to talk about China in a public way and you have a big platform, you need to be doing your research, you need to be using facts, you need to be as unbiased as possible, and you need to be showing all sides of the arguments.

但我看到是，西方媒體充斥着關於香港的片面報道。

What I see from the West is overwhelmingly only one side of the Hong Kong issue.

我認為香港是個有意思的話題，我研究中國的歷史已經研究了一段時間，尤其是最近幾百年的歷史，那段歷史有很大一部分涉及到英國和香港。

It’s an interesting issue for me because I’ve been studying the history of China for quite some time now, especially the last few hundred years. And a lot of that history, of course, involves the UK and Hong Kong and other things.

內森·裏奇認為，如果是正常的抗議，那抗議是奔着目的去的。可是香港暴徒的很多行徑是有破壞性的。

就在昨天，我看到一位美國參議員發了一條推特，顯然他是隻掌握了片面信息。“這些抗議者多麼和平，為什麼會有人覺得他們在做錯事…”等等。

To this day, even yesterday I saw a senator in America posted a tweet that was quite obviously coming from a point of only having half of the information. “All these protesters are so peaceful, why would anyone think that they’re doing anything wrong.” 

我看過抗議者把人從車裏拽出來當街毆打的視頻，他們往警察總局扔燃燒瓶，還有一系列其他的暴力行徑。

I’ve seen videos of them dragging people out of cars and beating them on the street, throwing Molotov cocktails into police headquarters and all kinds of other violent actions.

我更傾向於要是你想抗議，你就應該自己在抗議什麼，你應該有明確的目標並且努力實現這些目標。所以我不想讓他們再繼續這樣下去，因為總體上來説抗議是破壞性的。

If you’re going to protest, you should probably know what you’re protesting. You should probably have a clear goal and work to achieve those goals. So I tend to not want them to continue what they’re doing. I think overall it’s damaging. 

我想説的是媒體要保持公平，理解局勢並坦誠地報道局勢。But my message really is to be fair, to understand the situation and to be honest about the situation.

西方媒體認為在中國問題上騙人相對容易

內森·裏奇表示，如果認真分析了西方的主流媒體談及中國時會用到幾種策略，就會發現很有趣。

➤“西方媒體仰仗着發生在中國的事情遠，不好核實，所以為所欲為。”

其實很有趣但也令人不安，因為有那麼多事情正在發生，但他們會製造出一個幻象。因為他們知道沒人會質疑他們，所以在報道的時候就會非常不嚴謹。

It’s quite interesting and disturbing to see because there’s so much of it going on that they actually create this bubble, where they know that no one’s going to challenge them. And so they get very sloppy and loose with their reporting.

如果他們用報道香港的方式在美國或英國進行報道活動，是絕對不被允許的，因為他們所説的事實很容易核實，只要核實就會發現，他們説的是完全錯的，然而（香港新聞）並沒有人去核實。

And they report in ways that they would never be allowed to report about American or British activities or news. So they’ll say things that are very easy to fact-check and see that’s totally wrong, and yet no one will check them.

**➤**他們會採取的一種報道方法，只專注警方的執法反擊而忽略暴徒的行徑。

我們看見暴徒往大樓扔燃燒瓶，然後警方投擲催淚彈。CNN的報道會説，警方向抗議者投擲催淚彈。

When we see rioters throwing Molotov cocktails into buildings and then getting tear-gassed, the reports from CNN will say police tear gas protesters. 

然後在文章某個隱蔽的地方提一句燃燒瓶，但整篇報道大標題是警方對無辜的抗議者施暴，這就是他們報道手法的一個例子。

And then buried somewhere in the article, maybe they’ll say ‘petrol bomb’ somewhere in there. But the point of the article, the headline, is that the police did something bad to these innocent protesters. And so that’s one example of how they’ll do things. 

但從技術層面講，他們報道的似乎是“事實”，但顯然他們刻意忽略某些方面，從而達到強調其他方面的效果。

Technically they’re telling the “truth”, but they’re quite obviously emphasizing something in a way to deemphasize something else.