文字的力量：反駁“油管至上”的誤導與對嚴肅傳媒的堅持

在採訪李老師發行LI幣的節目，中王志安一直暗示，想要傳播思想就做油管，油管演算法好棒棒，如果賺不到錢就是能力欠佳，市場的選擇。就差說，萬般皆下品，唯有油管高。而且他說他已熟悉了怎樣避開黃標。我覺得他的觀念錯誤且自私！觀看量、收入根本不能和新聞質量劃等號。目前西方最嚴肅的媒體還是紙媒，也幾乎只有紙媒才有深度調查報告，雖然看電視和影片的人多的多，也更賺錢的多。但文字傳媒永遠不能被取代！

這就是我堅持在X上寫文章的原因，即使看的人沒有影片多，X也幾乎沒有錢。我一年累計有幾千萬的閱讀量，不過也就是大概兩百多刀的收入，扣掉X訂閱費，也就剩一百多刀。幾千萬流量如果在油管上早就賺大發了。影片平臺很容易插播廣告，文字很難，這也是天生影片傳媒比文字更賺錢的原因。

但在影片領域，大眾往往喜歡譁眾取寵的東西，有時候越胡說八道越有流量，越賺錢。而閱讀的人群是更嚴肅的。我的目標人群就是嚴肅的閱讀群體。而且正因為寫文字不怎麼賺錢，所以我們的目標也很單純，更嚴肅和客觀。

再說一遍，文字傳媒不可被取代。更何況油管的演算法和言論審查都很有問題。這兩點恰恰說明了馬斯克虧本買下X的重要性，對美國乃至全世界的言論自由都具有重大貢獻。如果王志安是對的，那馬斯克簡直就是個蠢貨，應該把買X的錢去買Google的股票。然而並不是每一個人都這麼短視和利益至上。

當然我不排斥影片，好多人也會請我在油管上當嘉賓，我有時候也會幫忙做一些節目。但這些節目幾乎都是不在乎觀看量和黃標的，有好幾個頻道乾脆不開廣告，因為如果還要惦記著不要被黃標，會損失廣告費的話，那很多真話都不能講了。

所以我認為王志安的想法很有問題，他的意思就是如果想傳播思想又需要錢的話就做油管，不做就是你的問題。我當然可以不在乎X沒有收入，但是很多人確實需要收入，理想不能餓肚子。所以我完全理解這些人需要捐助和幫助。當然我覺得發幣欠妥，但我更不認同王志安的油管至上的暗示。我覺得他這是非常片面的，且站著說話不腰疼。

我以前也很喜歡王志安的節目，故事講得繪聲繪色，我相信他作為職業媒體人，都是盡職核查過事實的。直到他做了幾個節目，不同的節目，涉及到了李南央和其他的幾位我的好友，才發現這幾個節目中全部都有很多最基本、公開的資訊都是錯誤的。沒有做到最基本的嚴謹以及最淺顯的核對工作，給當事人造成困擾。連他自己評論區的粉絲都指出來他錯了，他也不澄清。所以從此以後我對他的節目的誠信大大打了折扣。

當然我也知道很多朋友的油管節目做的很不錯的，收入也不錯。但是王志安這種暗示油管至上，你做不好不賺錢就是你的問題，市場的選擇，這是非常錯誤的。很多賺錢以及流量大的，可能在胡說八道。而且油管也不是唯一的選擇，也不應該是唯一的選擇。

我不反對油管，我也會被人邀請當嘉賓，日後可能我也會把我的文章做成影片放在不同的頻道上。但是對於我以及邀請我的主播來講，觀看量和收入都不是最重要的。我做嘉賓不拿一分錢，我如果有朝一日自己把文章做成節目的話再說。我的朋友們也是抱著有收入最好，被黃標也不怕的心態，有些直接把廣告都關掉了。播放量和收入根本不能代表質量。王志安的市場選擇說非常的荒謬。

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.