美国小哥手撕西方媒体涉港报道，结果竟然被……_风闻

来源：中国日报

视频网站巨头优兔（YouTube）终于对这个美国普通人下狠手了。

近日，中国日报记者深度访谈了手撕西方媒体的老外内森·里奇（@NathanRich火锅大王）。在中国的一些问题上，他说出一些人不想听到的声音，被美国视频平台频频打压。 

内森·里奇是优兔上的一位视频博主，长期生活在中国的美国人。2018年底，他因拍摄评论视频而走红。

采访中，内森·里奇坦言自己在海外视频网站优兔上的视频被越来越频繁地降权、限流，几万的关注量和点赞数也经常神秘“失踪”。

内森·里奇告诉中国日报记者，“他们承认在打压我的账号，一切都是有意为之。****”

我联系了优兔，我们一来一回写了很多邮件。他们承认在打压我的账号，一切都是有意为之。

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.

据悉，优兔明明知道内森·里奇账号下的粉丝都是真真实实的活粉，但还是找借口移除了这些粉丝。 

在优兔上，我大概有四十五万粉丝。

On YouTube, I have about 450,000 subscribers.

但在前端，由于某些原因，只显示约三十万粉丝。优兔故意隐藏我的粉丝数，他们还有其他一系列针对我的行径。

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.

我给他们提供了大量证据，我的粉丝可以填验证码、可以发邮件、可以跟优兔聊，不管你们想怎么验证他们是活粉。他们也很清楚我的粉丝是真人，但他们还是要移除这些粉丝。

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.

更让内森·里奇愤怒的是，优兔平台提升了支持中国分裂视频的权重。

这是可以证实的。如果在优兔上搜索香港这个关键字，按时间顺序排列结果我看到的应该是关于香港的最新的视频，然后倒序一直到发布时间最久远的视频。

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.

但我看到的情况是，前五个视频是最新发布的，第六个视频是两个月之前的，是由一个网上的反华种族主义者发布的，而且浏览量不如我两个月前发布支持中国的视频。

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.

内森·里奇做“错”了什么？因为说了优兔不想听到的真话，所以他们想捂上他们的嘴。 

内森·里奇满腔愤怒，在优兔平台，可以高呼“移民应该被枪指着赶出美国”，可以叫嚣“白人至上”，他们都听之任之。但是，他们独独不能接受我关于香港的讨论。

对此他发了一封邮件质问对方：

我给优兔直接发了一封邮件。质问那“那这段处处体现白人至上主义的视频呢？里面说黑人应该从美国驱逐出境，移民应该被枪指着赶出美国，若敢反抗就打死他们。那段视频却有广告有收益，你们认可这段视频里的哪些观点？”

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? 

他们说“我们允许任何人做任何他们想做的事”，但事实并不是这样的，

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

内森·里奇告诉中国日报记者：“非常明显的是，优兔想要传递一种带有政治倾向的信息。”

优兔想给人们灌输一种思想，那就是，香港正在为“民主”奋斗，我们是“民主”的，所以我们要站在香港一边。香港抗议者是“正义”的，他们所做的一切都是“正确”的，我们必须支持他们。

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.

我认为优兔这种行为这是有问题的，他们明显压制了一些自己不想听的言论，同时也想不让别人听到。

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.

在内森·里奇看来，优兔很喜欢把自己塑造成一副“人畜无害”的样子，包装成一个所谓中立或者独立的平台。藏在面具下是怎样一副嘴脸呢？

有些人可能会吃惊，因为他们不知道优兔其实对于内容是有筛选的。

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

优兔企图两个便宜都占了，他们在控制内容却不对内容负责。

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.

让内森·里奇最崩溃的是，巨头优兔形成垄断后就开始不断打压新平台。这就意味着，@火锅大王 别无选择。

优兔最大的问题其实在于它这样做的也在消灭竞争，在西方媒体平台上完成了垄断。

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.

这就意味着，像我这样的博主如果想获得西方网友的关注，除了优兔别无选择。

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. 

新的平台出现以后，优兔就会消灭它，所以这里存在潜在的反垄断问题。他们扫清竞争、消灭反对的声音，但也没有履行自己的言论自由的承诺。

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.

很多人会说，他们是一家商业公司，他们允许什么、禁止什么，都是他们的自由。这种论调其实站不住脚，因为他们并不对那些言论负责。

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.

为何要手撕西方媒体

在访问@火锅大王 前，CD君在微博上发了一个网友问题征集帖，其中有网友好奇，内森·里奇作为一个美国人，为何要在香港问题上手撕西方媒体呢？

内森·里奇直言，2012年，内森·里奇来到美国工作，当时是一家视觉特效公司的技术总监。那家公司因为某种原因想要和一家中国公司合并。他被派到中国来做技术评估，看看我们正在研发的技术能不能在美国应用。其实他就是希望大家做足功课再来讨论，摒除偏见，把各方观点展现出来。但是西方媒体一再片面报道，不愿意让另一方声音见光。

如果你要在一个大平台上公开地谈论中国，你就需要做足功课运用事实。你需要尽可能地摒除偏见，把各方的观点都展示出来。

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，西方媒体充斥着关于香港的片面报道。

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

我认为香港是个有意思的话题，我研究中国的历史已经研究了一段时间，尤其是最近几百年的历史，那段历史有很大一部分涉及到英国和香港。

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.

内森·里奇认为，如果是正常的抗议，那抗议是奔着目的去的。可是香港暴徒的很多行径是有破坏性的。

就在昨天，我看到一位美国参议员发了一条推特，显然他是只掌握了片面信息。“这些抗议者多么和平，为什么会有人觉得他们在做错事…”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.” 

我看过抗议者把人从车里拽出来当街殴打的视频，他们往警察总局扔燃烧瓶，还有一系列其他的暴力行径。

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.

我更倾向于要是你想抗议，你就应该自己在抗议什么，你应该有明确的目标并且努力实现这些目标。所以我不想让他们再继续这样下去，因为总体上来说抗议是破坏性的。

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. 

我想说的是媒体要保持公平，理解局势并坦诚地报道局势。But my message really is to be fair, to understand the situation and to be honest about the situation.

西方媒体认为在中国问题上骗人相对容易

内森·里奇表示，如果认真分析了西方的主流媒体谈及中国时会用到几种策略，就会发现很有趣。

➤“西方媒体仰仗着发生在中国的事情远，不好核实，所以为所欲为。”

其实很有趣但也令人不安，因为有那么多事情正在发生，但他们会制造出一个幻象。因为他们知道没人会质疑他们，所以在报道的时候就会非常不严谨。

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.

如果他们用报道香港的方式在美国或英国进行报道活动，是绝对不被允许的，因为他们所说的事实很容易核实，只要核实就会发现，他们说的是完全错的，然而（香港新闻）并没有人去核实。

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.

**➤**他们会采取的一种报道方法，只专注警方的执法反击而忽略暴徒的行径。

我们看见暴徒往大楼扔燃烧瓶，然后警方投掷催泪弹。CNN的报道会说，警方向抗议者投掷催泪弹。

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

然后在文章某个隐蔽的地方提一句燃烧瓶，但整篇报道大标题是警方对无辜的抗议者施暴，这就是他们报道手法的一个例子。

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. 

但从技术层面讲，他们报道的似乎是“事实”，但显然他们刻意忽略某些方面，从而达到强调其他方面的效果。

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