The Power of Words: Refuting the Misleading 'YouTube Supremacy' and Adhering to Serious Media

In the interview about Teacher Li issuing the LI coin, Wang Zhian kept hinting that if you want to spread ideas, you should do YouTube, that YouTube's algorithm is fantastic, and that if you cannot make money, it is due to lacking ability and the choice of the market. He was just short of saying that all trades are base, only YouTube is high. Moreover, he said he was already familiar with how to avoid yellow tags. I think his view is wrong and selfish! Viewership and revenue can never be equated with news quality. Currently, the most serious Western media are still print media, and almost only print media have in-depth investigative reports, although people who watch TV and videos are much more numerous and much more profitable. But text media can never be replaced!

This is why I insist on writing articles on X, even though the number of people watching is not as many as videos, and X has almost no money. I have accumulated tens of millions of reads in a year, which is probably just over two hundred dollars in income. After deducting the X subscription fee, there is only a little over one hundred dollars left. Tens of millions of traffic would have made a fortune on YouTube long ago. Video platforms easily intersperse advertisements, which is difficult for text. This is also why video media is naturally more profitable than text.

However, in the video field, the public often likes sensational things, and sometimes the more nonsense there is, the more traffic and money it makes. The reading crowd is more serious. My target group is the serious reading audience. And precisely because writing text does not make much money, our goals are very pure, more serious and objective.

Say it again, text media cannot be replaced. What is more, YouTube's algorithm and speech censorship are very problematic. These two points precisely illustrate the importance of Musk buying X at a loss, which has a major contribution to freedom of speech in the United States and even the whole world. If Wang Zhian is right, then Musk is simply an idiot and should have used the money to buy Google stock to begin with. However, not everyone is so short-sighted and profit-first.

Of course I do not exclude video, many people will invite me to be a guest on YouTube, and I will sometimes help make some programs. But these programs almost all do not care about viewership and yellow tags, and several channels simply do not turn on advertisements, because if they still have to worry about not being yellow-tagged and losing advertising revenue, then many truths cannot be spoken.

So I think Wang Zhian's idea is very problematic. His meaning is that if you want to spread ideas and need money, then do YouTube, and if you do not do it, it is your problem. Of course I can not care that X has no income, but many people really need income, and ideals cannot go hungry. So I completely understand that these people need donations and help. Of course I think issuing coins is inappropriate, but I even more disagree with Wang Zhian's hint of YouTube supremacy. I think this is very one-sided and easy for him to say while standing on the sidelines.

I used to like Wang Zhian's programs very much. The stories were told vividly, and I believe that as a professional media person, he had conscientiously verified the facts. It was not until he made a few programs, different programs, involving Li Nanyang and several other good friends of mine, that I discovered that all of these programs had many basic and public information errors. He failed to achieve the most basic rigor and the most superficial verification work, causing trouble to the parties involved. Even the fans in his own comment section pointed out that he was wrong, but he did not clarify. So since then, my discount on the credibility of his program has been greatly reduced.

Of course I also know that many friends' YouTube programs are doing very well, and their income is also good. But Wang Zhian's kind of hint of YouTube supremacy—that if you do not do well and do not make money, it is your problem and the market's choice—is very wrong. Many things that make money and have high traffic might just be talking nonsense. And YouTube is not the only choice, nor should it be the only choice.

I am not against YouTube, and I will be invited as a guest, and in the future I might also turn my articles into videos and put them on different channels. But for me and the host who invites me, viewership and income are not the most important things. I do not take a single penny as a guest, and we will see if I turn my articles into programs myself one day. My friends also hold the mentality that income is best, and they are not afraid of being yellow-tagged; some directly turned off the ads. Play counts and revenue cannot represent quality at all. Wang Zhian's market choice theory is extremely absurd.

On Wang Zhian's Implicit Advocacy for YouTube Supremacy: A Flawed and Selfish Perspective

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 accuracy and objectivity.

Let me reiterate: text-based media is irreplaceable. Moreover, YouTube's algorithm and content moderation raise significant concerns. These flaws highlight the importance of Elon Musk’s decision to acquire X at a loss, a move with profound implications for global freedom of speech. If Wang Zhian were correct, then Musk would appear foolish, better off investing in Google stock. Yet, not everyone is shortsighted or driven solely by profit.

I don’t oppose video content. Many invite me to appear as a guest on their YouTube channels, and I occasionally assist with shows. These programs are often unconcerned with viewership metrics or demonetization, with some channels opting to forgo ads entirely to avoid self-censorship for fear of losing ad revenue. The pursuit of truth cannot be constrained by financial concerns.

I find Wang Zhian’s ideology problematic. He implies that if you seek to spread ideas while needing income, YouTube is the only viable path. Not pursuing this avenue is framed as a personal failing. While I can accept that X generates no revenue for me, others genuinely require income—ideals cannot sustain a hungry stomach. I fully understand why some people rely on donations and financial support. Though I find cryptocurrency fundraising questionable, I disagree even more with Wang Zhian's YouTube-centric perspective. His view is overly simplistic and detached from reality.

I used to admire Wang Zhian’s programs for their vivid storytelling, trusting that, as a professional journalist, he diligently fact-checked his content. However, several of his shows, particularly those involving Li Nanyang and other acquaintances, revealed numerous fundamental and publicly available inaccuracies. These errors caused distress to those involved. Even when fans in his comment sections pointed out his mistakes, he failed to clarify them. Since then, my trust in the integrity of his programs has significantly diminished.

I am aware that many friends run excellent YouTube channels and earn good income. But Wang Zhian’s insinuation that success or failure on YouTube reflects one’s competence and market validation is absurd. Many highly profitable and widely viewed channels thrive on misinformation. YouTube is not, and should not be, the sole platform.

While I do not oppose YouTube and may one day adapt my articles into videos on different platforms, viewership and revenue remain secondary for me and the hosts who invite me. I never charge for guest appearances, and any future monetization of my articles will depend on circumstances. Some friends even turn off ads on their channels altogether. Play counts and revenue are poor indicators of quality. Wang Zhian’s market-choice argument is fundamentally flawed.