文字の力： 「YouTube至上主義」の誤解を論破し、真摯なメディアへのこだわりを貫く

In an interview about Li's LI Coin initiative, Wang Zhian repeatedly hinted that anyone seeking to spread ideas should turn to YouTube, praising its algorithm as outstanding. He implied that failing to earn money on YouTube is due to a lack of competence and market demand. He went as far as to suggest that YouTube stands supreme, demeaning other mediums in comparison. Furthermore, he claimed to have mastered how to avoid the "yellow-tag" demonetization. I find his views fundamentally flawed and selfish! Viewership and revenue do not equate to the quality of journalism. The most serious Western media outlets are still in print, where investigative reports are thoroughly conducted, even though TV and video formats attract far larger audiences and generate significantly more revenue. Text-based media remains irreplaceable!

This conviction is why I continue writing on X, even though fewer people read articles compared to watching videos, and the platform generates negligible income. Over the past year, I’ve accumulated millions of views, earning roughly $200—about $100 after deducting subscription fees. A comparable audience on YouTube would generate substantial revenue. The innate ability of video platforms to incorporate ads makes them far more profitable than text media.

However, the video space often thrives on sensationalism. Outrageous content frequently garners higher traffic and more profits. Conversely, readers tend to be more serious. My target audience comprises thoughtful and serious readers. Because writing generates minimal income, our goals remain pure, focusing on seriousness and objectivity.

I reiterate that text-based media is irreplaceable. Moreover, YouTube's algorithms and censorship practices are problematic. These very issues underscore the significance of Musk's acquisition of X, contributing greatly to freedom of speech in the United States and globally. If Wang Zhian were correct, Musk would be a fool for spending that money on X instead of Google stock. However, not everyone is so short-sighted and profit-driven.

Of course, I do not reject video content. Many people invite me as a guest on YouTube, and I occasionally participate in programs. However, these programs almost invariably disregard viewership and demonetization issues. Several channels even disable ads altogether, as the need to avoid demonetization to preserve ad revenue would compromise the ability to speak truthfully.

Therefore, I believe Wang Zhian's perspective is deeply flawed. His implication is that if one wishes to spread ideas and earn money, YouTube is the way to go; failure to do so is one's own problem. While I can afford to disregard the lack of income on X, many individuals require financial support; ideals cannot sustain an empty stomach. Thus, I fully understand the need for donations and assistance for such individuals. While I find the issuance of coins questionable, I disagree even more strongly with Wang Zhian's implicit advocacy for YouTube supremacy. I consider his view to be extremely one-sided and easy to say when one is not in that position.

I used to enjoy Wang Zhian's programs immensely. He narrated stories vividly, and as a professional journalist, I trusted that he fact-checked rigorously. However, after he produced several programs, distinct from each other, that involved Li Nanyang and several of my close friends, I discovered that these programs contained numerous errors in the most basic, publicly available information. He failed to exercise the most fundamental rigor and perform even the simplest verification, causing distress to the individuals involved. Even his own fans in the comments pointed out his mistakes, yet he offered no clarification. Consequently, my confidence in the integrity of his reporting has been significantly diminished.

Certainly, I am aware that many friends have successful YouTube channels with considerable income. However, Wang Zhian's implication of YouTube supremacy—that if you fail to succeed and earn money, it's your fault and a matter of market choice—is fundamentally incorrect. Much of what is profitable and garners high traffic may be based on outright falsehoods. Furthermore, YouTube is not the only option, nor should it be.

I do not oppose YouTube. I am often invited as a guest, and in the future, I may even adapt my articles into video format for various channels. However, for myself and the hosts who invite me, viewership and revenue are not the primary considerations. I appear as a guest without any remuneration. If, in the future, I were to produce my own programs based on my articles, that might be a different matter. My friends, too, operate with the mindset that income is welcome, but they are unafraid of demonetization; some have even disabled ads entirely. Playback volume and revenue simply do not equate to quality. Wang Zhian's market-selection argument is utterly absurd.

正確性と客観性について。

改めて強調したい。テキストベースのメディアは代替不可能である。さらに、YouTubeのアルゴリズムとコンテンツモデレーションは重大な懸念を引き起こしている。これらの欠点は、イーロン・マスク氏が損失覚悟でX（旧Twitter）を買収した決断の重要性を浮き彫りにしている。この買収は、世界の言論の自由にとって深遠な意味を持つ。もし王志安氏が正しかったとすれば、マスク氏は愚かで、Google株に投資した方がましということになる。しかし、誰もが近視眼的であったり、利益のみを追求したりするわけではない。

私はビデオコンテンツに反対しているわけではない。多くの人が私のYouTubeチャンネルへのゲスト出演に招待してくれ、私も時折番組に協力している。これらの番組は、視聴率や収益化をあまり気にしないことが多く、一部のチャンネルでは広告収入を失うことを恐れて自己検閲を避けるために、広告を完全に断っている。真実の追求は、金銭的な懸念によって制約されるべきではない。

私は王志安氏のイデオロギーに問題があると感じている。彼は、収入を必要としながらアイデアを広めようとするなら、YouTubeが唯一の実行可能な道だと示唆している。この道を選ばないことは、個人的な失敗として描かれている。Xが私に収益を生み出さないことは受け入れられるとしても、他の人々は実際に収入を必要としている――理想だけでは飢えた腹を満たすことはできない。なぜ一部の人々が寄付や経済的支援に頼るのかは、十分に理解できる。仮想通貨による資金調達は疑問があるものの、私は王志安氏のYouTube中心の視点にはさらに同意できない。彼の見方はあまりにも単純化されており、現実からかけ離れている。

かつて私は王志安氏の番組を、その鮮やかなストーリーテリングで称賛し、プロのジャーナリストである彼が、懸命に事実確認を行っていると信じていた。しかし、彼の番組のいくつか、特に李南陽や他の知人が関わるものは、基本的かつ公に入手可能な数多くの不正確さを露呈した。これらの誤りは、関係者に苦痛を与えた。コメント欄のファンが彼の間違いを指摘しても、彼はそれを訂正しなかった。それ以来、彼の番組の誠実さに対する私の信頼は著しく低下した。

多くの友人が優れたYouTubeチャンネルを運営し、良い収入を得ていることは知っている。しかし、YouTubeでの成功や失敗が、その人の能力や市場での評価を反映するという王志安氏の示唆は、ばかげている。非常に収益性が高く、広く視聴されているチャンネルの多くが、誤情報で繁栄している。YouTubeは、唯一のプラットフォームではなく、またそうあるべきでもない。

私はYouTubeに反対しているわけではなく、いつか私の記事を異なるプラットフォームのビデオに翻案するかもしれないが、視聴回数と収益は、私や私を招待してくれるホストにとって二次的なものである。私はゲスト出演料を請求したことはなく、将来私の記事が収益化されるかどうかは状況次第である。友人の何人かは、自分のチャンネルで広告を完全にオフにしている。再生回数や収益は、品質の悪い指標である。王志安氏の市場選択論は、根本的に欠陥がある。