监控局势 #2：阿拉娜·纽豪斯

杂志业曾在某个时刻做出决定，认为其首要关注的受众是广告商，而读者群体只是接触广告商的途径，而非相反。滥用不再局限于24小时新闻周期。这是我们的新闻周期。是每天更新网站的现实。如今，完全有可能创建真正精英化的平台和受众群体——不是过去几十年那种平庸之辈的伪精英，而是真正的精英。

Magazines at some point made a decision that the primary audience they cared about were the advertisers, and the audience was the means to get to the advertisers as opposed to the other way around. Abuse is not twenty four hour news cycles anymore. It's our news cycles. It's every day updating the website. The idea of being able to create platforms and audiences that are truly elite, not the kind of elite of mediocrities that we've had in the last few decades, but a real elite, is very possible now.

2020年标志着美国媒体的转折点。传统机构正在萎缩，独立媒体正在崛起。在本期《监控局势》节目中，我们邀请到《Tablet》杂志创始人兼主编阿拉娜·德沃斯。我们将探讨媒体格局的重大重组、阿拉娜提出的传统媒体与独立媒体的双金字塔理论、向订阅制媒体黄金时代的转型，以及为何真正的机构能比新兴网络掠夺者更持久。杰伊的媒体世界比以往更加碎片化且有趣。

The 2020 marked a turning point in American media. Legacy institutions are shrinking and independents are rising. On this episode of Monitoring the Situation, we're joined by Tablet Magazine founder and editor in chief Alana Dewhouse. We cover the great media realignment, Alana's two pyramids of legacy versus independent media, the transition to a golden age of subscription based media, and why real institutions will outlast the new Internet pirates. Jay's media is more fragmented and interesting than ever.

让我们开始吧。欢迎回到《监控局势》第二期，特别嘉宾阿拉娜做客节目。阿拉娜，感谢参与播客录制。

Let's get into it. We're back for monitoring the situation episode two with very special guest, Alana. Alana, thanks for joining the podcast.

非常高兴能和大家

So great to be here with

一起。

you guys.

我们真的很荣幸迎来首位'裙带宝宝'——康泰纳仕集团著名的阿拉娜·纽豪斯。开个玩笑，其实没有血缘关系。但这恰好完美引出了本周的主要话题之一。当然，阿拉娜本人也是媒体巨头。

So we're really grateful to have our first Nepo baby, Alana Newhouse of Conde Nast fame. Just kidding. There's no relation. But that's actually a perfect segue to one of the main stories this week. Of course, Alana is also a media mogul.

你知道，在创办《Tablet》的过程中，媒体本身就是本周重大话题之一。我们还有《自由媒体》——有报道称它正被收购或处于收购进程中。你们两位都是自由媒体的董事会成员。显然你们不能透露具体细节，但我们不妨从更宏观的角度聊聊媒体现状。

You know, in writing tablet, and media is one of the big stories of the week. We have the free press. A report came out that it's being acquired or in the process of being acquired. You two are board members of the Free Press. Obviously, you can't comment on any of the specific details, but let's have a more meta conversation on the state of media.

阿兰娜，你对建制媒体与新兴媒体之间的关系有很多思考。能否谈谈你的总体看法？

Alana, you've thought a lot about the relationship between establishment media and the upstarts and new media. Why don't you sort of comment on your broad reflections?

我认为有一点非常不可思议：巴里从《纽约时报》辞职至今才不过五年零几个月。不仅是自由媒体经历了风起云涌的五年，整个美国媒体格局和舆论生态都发生了巨变。在我看来，过去存在一个我称之为'媒体金字塔'的体系：最底层是超本地印刷出版物，往上依次是村镇报纸、城市报纸、主要都市日报、全国性报纸、新闻杂志、大众杂志，而金字塔顶端则是思想领袖杂志。

I think that one of the things that's kind of incredible to realize is that it's only been five years in a couple months since Barry resigned from the New York Times. And it's not only the free press that's had a rollicking five years, but all of American media and the landscape of American public opinion. And the way that I see it is that there was basically a what I call a pyramid of media that at the very, very bottom had hyper local print publications. Then you go to, like, village papers. Then you have city papers, major metro dailies, national newspapers, news magazines, consumer magazines, and then the thought leader magazines at the top.

对吧？在这个金字塔的顶尖，那些出版物的读者数量最少，但声望最高。

Right? At the tippy top of that pyramid, those publications had the smallest numbers of readers. They were also the most prestigious.

嗯。

Mhmm.

底层拥有最多读者。这个印刷金字塔与后来叠加其上的广播电视媒体共同塑造了美国舆论，这种格局持续了约五十到七十年。而在过去十五到二十年间，这座金字塔逐渐被侵蚀，现在看起来就像瑞士奶酪般千疮百孔。与此同时发展起来的是第二座金字塔——独立媒体。

The bottom has the most number of readers. But together, this print pyramid and then radio and TV come and kind of layer themselves on top of it, The print pyramid basically creates American public opinion for, like, fifty to seventy years. Over the last fifteen to twenty years, that pyramid has been eaten away, and it kind of looks like Swiss cheese. Now, what's developed alongside it is a second pyramid. That second pyramid is independent media.

需要理解的是：传统媒体金字塔正在逐季萎缩，受众减少，作品吸引力下降；而独立媒体领域虽然鱼龙混杂——既有非常有趣的人物，也有彻头彻尾的疯子和怪人——但规模却在持续扩张。那么问题来了：面对当前并存的这两座金字塔，我们该如何应对？

And the thing to understand about those two pyramids is legacy media pyramid contracts by the quarter, gets smaller, the audience gets smaller, and the work gets less compelling, in my opinion. The independent space is filled with some very, very interesting people and also a bunch of absolute lunatics and not cases. Right? But it expands by the quarter. So now what are we gonna do with these two pyramids, basically, that are currently in existence and operation?

最近传出诸多收购传闻（不仅涉及自由媒体），我认为这实际上表明某些传统品牌正在蛙跳式进入独立领域。所以我不认为这是独立媒体在强行挤入传统领域，反而觉得这是传统媒体试图吸纳独立领域人才与机构的活力与精神特质。

And one of the things that I think that rumors of a bunch of acquisitions, not just the free press, are showing is actually that there are certain legacy brands that are leapfrogging into the independent space. So I don't see this as the independent media trying to horn their way in to the legacy space. I see it the other way, that this is an attempt by legacy media to absorb the energy and the ethos of people and outlets in the independent space.

是的，我非常同意这一点。我认为这也与世代差异有很大关系。比如，有很多事情我们可以讨论，我认为我们应该深入探讨过去五年间的背景故事。因为如果你要标记的话，从现在回溯五十年，我认为美国媒体的状况将会与我们任何人所能预测的截然不同。

Yeah. I very much agree with that. I think it's very generational as well. Like, there's a lot of things we could talk about, and I think we should go deep into sort of the lore of the last five years. Because if you are bookmarking if we're looking back fifty years from now, I think the state of American media is going to look drastically different than any of us can predict.

我们会将其标记为2020年夏天，2020年夏天发生了许多事情，但巴里的公开信是其中之一，这彻底改变了媒体的格局。实际上我认为我们的记忆有些模糊，好像把这五年的时间线压缩了。但即使回顾我自己在媒体的经历，2021年也是一个时期，如果你回去听旧的播客，仍然会有关于COVID的疫苗建议，任何谈论COVID的方式如果与美国医学会和疾控中心不一致就会受到警告。对吧？我们有点忘记了那整个几年，像是2020年7月到2022年11月之间的失落岁月，那时有各种声音涌现，人们在谈论这太糟糕了。

And we would bookmark it as summer twenty twenty, Number of things in summer twenty twenty, but Barry's letter being one of them, just a sea change for what was happening in media. I actually think you kind of memory hold, like we kind of collapse this five year timeline. But even as I go back through sort of my own experience in media and 2021 was sort of this time where if you go back to old podcasts, there's still the COVID vaccine advisory on anyone who's even talking about COVID in a way that wasn't aligned with the AMA and with the CDC. Right? We kind of forget that there were whole years, like lost years in that sort of July 2020 to November 2022 time where there was this kind of burgeoning of voices and people talking about this is terrible.

我们需要能够创造新事物。但我觉得它真正开始 cascading 和增长的方式，如果你从创业的角度来看，那算是种子阶段。但五年后的现在，我们真的达到了这些转折点，这非常令人兴奋。当你看到一些我认为是关键基石时刻的影响时，无论是《纽约时报》的解雇和辞职事件，比如巴里是以最大声的方式辞职的，但也有詹姆斯·贝内特被解雇。或者实际上不是被解雇，他在被解雇前辞职了，因为他让一位现任参议员谈论正在发生的骚乱或乔治·弗洛伊德事件，以及是否应该派军队介入。

We need to be able to create new things. But like it really started, I would say cascading and growing in the way that, you know, if you look at it from startup terms, that was sort of the seed stage. But like we're really hitting sort of these inflection points five years later, which are really exciting. And when you look at sort of the impact that, you know, a couple of really, I would say, sort of cornerstone moments happened, whether it's the firings and resignations at the New York Times, like Barry was the one who resigned with the loudest voice, but there's also the firing of James Bennett. Or actually wasn't a fire, and he resigned before he was fired because he platformed a sitting senator talking about the riots that were happening or George Floyd and whether it's appropriate to send in the troops.

标题是“派遣军队”。所以人们忘记了，媒体界发生了大规模取消事件，很多重组。但我们现在的处境是我认为真正的新媒体黄金时代。我认为阿兰娜描述得很美，媒体的形式多种多样。瑞士奶酪是一个很好的比喻，可能有很多缺失的部分，但媒体正在发生一种创业般的时刻，它是世代性的，有火炬传递，人们想要新鲜事物，但也有如何在这个新景观中导航的问题，比如某人在X上发布一个表情包就可以完全控制24小时新闻周期，这在五年前是没有的。

The title was sending the troops. So like people forget that, like, there were mass cancellations across media, a lot of sort of reshuffling. But where we are now is what I would consider to be a true golden age of new media. And I think Alana described it beautifully where there's variations in what that media looks like. Swiss cheese is, I think, a good metaphor for there's, like, probably a lot of missing parts, but there's this sort of, I don't know, startup like moment that's happening in media where it's, like, generational and there's passing of the torch in terms of people want new, fresh things, but there's also sort of this, you know, how do we now navigate this new landscape where someone who puts out a meme on X can completely control the twenty four hour news cycle in a way that that did not happen five years ago.

所以这给了独立声音更大的发言权。我认为传统机构有很多挫败感，真诚地质疑如何应对这种情况。作为前邮报人，我强烈感觉到他们在杰夫·贝索斯买下报纸后十一年无所作为，现在终于开始应对了。我认为实际上很有趣的是

So it gives independent voices a much louder voice. And I think there is a lot of frustration, sincere sort of questioning at legacy institutions of how do we combat this? As a former postie, I feel very strongly that they're finally combating it after eleven years of doing nothing when Jeff Bezos bought the paper. I think that it's actually interesting to

观察并看看现在是否还能挽救，或者他们是否等得太久了。为了正确观察这个空间并关注这一点，我们必须记住的一件事是2020年是一根火柴，但它掉在了Tinder上。这是一个已经在衰败的媒体景观。它已经衰败了很多年。人们谈论，我认为很多读者觉得2020年似乎突如其来。

watch and see whether or not it's salvageable at this point or whether they waited too long. And in order to observe the space and watch for that properly, one of the things that we have to remember is 2020 was a match, but it dropped on Tinder. This was a media landscape that was decaying already. It had been decaying for years and years. People talk about and many readers, I think, felt 2020 as though it came out of nowhere.

他们对传统媒体的信任突然触底。但事实并非如此。当然，对于我们这些在媒体行业的人来说，我认为Tablet有一个非常奇怪的轨迹，因为Tablet一开始在传统媒体空间是一个小众或边缘或 cult 出口。实际上，由于我们半意识地做了一系列动作，老实说，我希望我能说我是有战略的，我们最终成为了独立空间的元老，因为我知道我会在那里感到更舒适。但为了理解这一点，Tablet已经17年了。

And their trust in their legacy media got bottomed out suddenly. But it didn't happen that way. Certainly, for those of us who are in the media, I mean, I think tablet has this really weird trajectory because tablet starts out as a niche or marginal or cult outlet in the legacy media space. And effectively, because of a bunch of moves that we made half consciously, honestly, I wish I could say I was strategic about it, we ended up becoming the kind of granddaddy of the independent space because I knew I was gonna feel much more comfortable there. But in order to understand that tablet's 17 years old.

对吧？我们对媒体的看法并非始于2020年。它早已成为一个问题重重的领域。我认为，任何传统品牌若能存活下来并在十年或五年后依然存在，那将是因为它们决定跃入独立空间的精神内核。再次强调，我指的不是政治立场。

Right? Our view on media didn't start in 2020. It was already a deeply problematic space. And I'm not sure which I think that any legacy brand that survives and that still exists in ten years or five years is going to be because they made a decision to leapfrog into the ethos of the independent space. And, again, I don't mean politics.

这不是政治取向问题，而是一种精神理念。我认为任何传统媒体若仅仅试图回归旧有格局，都不会取得成功。我觉得那只是死路一条。或许可以回溯一下。

It's not a political orientation. This is an ethos idea. I don't think there's any success to be had for any legacy media outlet in simply trying to live back in that old landscape. I think it's just death. Maybe go back.

我很赞同你的说法，因为这确实如此。我们这些在媒体行业工作的人，从2007年2月左右开始，就经历了一轮又一轮的裁员和收购，至少从我的角度来看是这样，可能对你来说甚至更早。也许你能给我们讲讲传统媒体到底出了什么问题？是商业模式问题？还是文化问题？

I mean, I love what you said because it is true. Any of us who were working in media I mean, it was layoff after layoff, buy off after buyout starting around 02/2007, at least from my perspective, maybe it was even earlier for you. Maybe give us the history of kind of what went wrong in legacy media. Was it a business model problem? Was it a cultural problem?

是多种因素的综合吗？也许能请你分享一下阿拉娜对过去二十五年美国媒体的看法？

Was it a combination of things? Maybe give us sort of Alana's view of the last twenty five years of American media.

好吧，我的观点有点受我个人对杂志投资的影响——坦白说，我认为杂志是美国独有的艺术形式之一。小说不是，因为我们有很多欧洲小说。就像有些艺术形式是从其他地方借鉴来的。但杂志，我认为，是真正源自美国的本土艺术形式，我对此投入很深。我觉得它们与众不同，是不同的有机体。

Well, so my view is a little bit colored by my particular investment in magazines as a frankly, I think one of the only it's an American art form. Novels are not in that we have plenty of European novels. Like, there are other art forms that we take from other places. But magazines, I think, are are truly an American native art form, and I'm invested in them. I think they're different, and I think that they're different organisms.

它们意味着不同的东西。我可以稍微解释一下我的意思。但杂志真正有趣的地方在于——为了快速说明，我可能会简化历史——但真正的问题，我认为始于六十年代后的广告繁荣，这是一个缓慢的过程。它在七十年代发生，在八十年代加速，特别是在九十年代华尔街繁荣时期，杂志——再次强调，这一切都不是有意识的。

And they mean something different. And I can talk a little bit about what I mean by that. But the the thing that was really interesting about magazines is that and I'm gonna bastardize the history just to get it to to get us there quickly. But the real problem begins, I think, in the post sixties ad boom, and it happens slowly. It happens in the seventies, picks up in the eighties and, nineties, particularly as as Wall Street booms, where magazines and, again, none of this was conscious.

但杂志在某个时刻做出了决定，认为它们主要关心的受众是广告商。而读者只是触及广告商的手段，而不是反过来。对吧？广告商本是次要的，它们只是你向读者推销的东西。当你决定将读者置于次要位置时，就会引发一系列连锁后果。

But magazines at some point made a decision that the primary audience they cared about were the advertisers. And the audience was the means to get to the advertisers as opposed to the other way around. Right? Advertisers were secondary, and they were just things that you sold to your audience. When you make that decision to make your audience secondary, it's a whole host of consequences that cascade from that.

而且，你可能会经历数十年的繁荣，数十年的巨大成功，数十年的极其成功的新闻业。但我认为那个决定从根本上就有问题。最终发生的情况，尤其是对地方报纸而言，显然是从互联网开始侵蚀广告收入时起，它们的财务状况开始受到真正影响。分类广告逐渐被Craigslist取代。但我永远不会忘记我开始创办平板电脑杂志时的情景。

And, again, you can have decades of boom, decades of massive success, decades of enormously successful journalism. But I think there was a problem in that decision fundamentally. And what eventually happens, certainly for local newspapers, is that they obviously, it begins with when the Internet begins to eat away at advertising, you start to get a real effect on their bottom line. Classified ads start to go the way of Craigslist. But then all of a sudden, I'll never forget when I was starting tablet.

这是十七年前的事了。在我们推出平板电脑杂志之前，我在一个晚宴上遇到了一位刚被任命为某知名奢侈服装品牌数字广告销售主管的女士。她对我说，你正在创办一家网络出版物。那么给我解释一下，假设她代表的是香奈儿（虽然不是真的香奈儿，但我以此为例）。

So this is seventeen years ago. Before we launched tablet, I was at a dinner party with a woman who had just been made the head of digital ad sales at a luxury very, very well known luxury clothing brand. And she said to me, you're starting a Internet publication. So explain something to me. Let's say she represented let's say she represented Chanel because it wasn't Chanel, so I'll use that as an example.

她说，《纽约时报》想告诉我他们的故事有2000万读者。好吧。这2000万人中有多少人买得起香奈儿包？假设是400万。

She said, so the New York Times wants to tell me they have 20,000,000 sets of eyeballs on their stories. Okay. How many of those 20,000,000 can afford a Chanel bag? Okay. Let's say it's 4,000,000.

这400万人中有多少人会在网上购买香奈儿包？然后她开始要求我对受众进行分层分析。她说，好吧，那么我们最终得出的结论是：可能有150万潜在客户。

How many of those 4,000,000 ever buy a Chanel bag on the Internet? How and she starts asking me to stratify the audience. And she said, okay. So then we get down to it. It's a million and a half possible customers.

我为什么要为这个付费？当时我立刻意识到，根本不存在真正可持续的广告市场。随着商业模式的瓦解，我的观点是：无论有意还是无意，许多传统媒体机构开始用政治来让自己感觉良好。因为你赚不到钱，所以就投身于正义事业。你无法维持员工的工作。

Why don't I pay for that? And right away, I knew that there was just no ad market that was actually gonna really be real and sustainable. As the business model starts to come apart, it is my contention that consciously or not, many of these legacy outlets decided to make themselves feel better with politics. So you take up righteous causes because you're not making any money. You can't actually sustain people's jobs.

你无法向他们承诺工作保障。所以你能做的是，在他们还在职期间，让他们感觉自己正在改变世界。让他们觉得每天醒来都在为正义而战。因此在我看来，政治最终取代了（或成为了）一种创可贴式的解决方案

You can't promise them jobs. So what you can do is while they're here, you can make them feel like they're changing the world. You can make them feel like they're waking up every day, and they are fighting for justice. And so that's how to me the politics end up replacing or being becoming a Band Aid

是的。

Yeah.

本质上是一个商业问题。

Over what was essentially a business problem.

是的。不。这非常有道理。我的意思是，我确实认为媒体文化中的稀缺性，一方面导致人们因各种政治原因互相攻击，无论是内部政治还是人们所支持的某种宏大愿景。但我也认为存在我们经常讨论的质量问题，那就是我2010年加入《华盛顿邮报》时，人们就在谈论辉煌岁月已经结束。

Yeah. No. That makes a ton of sense. I mean, I do think that the scarcity in the media culture, one, it leads to people taking each other down over various political causes, whether it's internal politics or whether it's sort of these grandiose kind of visions of what people stand for. But I think there also this quality problem that you and I have talked a lot about, which is the I joined the Washington Post in 2010, and people were talking about how the glory days were over.

那里有从80年代和90年代就在职的记者，他们还记得，你知道，出去喝马提尼午餐。他们记得一个月写一篇报道。他们记得，可以说，拥有全权去做任何他们想做的报道，可以飞到世界任何地方讲述非常有趣的故事。他们将那视为辉煌岁月。当你从那种高潮中走出来，然后这些从顶尖大学毕业的年轻人又将此视为一份 prestigious 的职业，对吧？

And there were reporters who had been there since the 80s and the 90s, and they remember, you know, going out for martini lunches. They remember writing a story a month. They remember, you know, having kind of, I would say, carte blanche to do any story they wanted where they could fly anywhere in the world and tell a very interesting story. And they saw that as the glory days. When you're coming off that high, and then there's these young people who graduate from top universities and see this as a prestigious career, right?

因为在80年代和90年代加入的人并不认为杂志写作、时尚写作、特写或报道是 prestigious 的职业，不像对于这些哈佛毕业生在世纪之交时那样。他们意识到，好吧，现在我们必须与习惯互联网日常苦差的年轻人竞争。他们没问题。而且‘垃圾内容’这个词当时还不存在，但他们没问题，一天发布12篇垃圾内容，迎合SEO。

Because the people who joined in the 80s and 90s did not see magazine writing or style writing or feature writing or reporting. Like it was not a prestigious career in the same way that it was for these Harvard grads, you know, at the kind of turn of the century. They realized, okay, now we have to compete with young people who are used to the kind of daily grind of the internet. And they're fine. And the word slop didn't exist yet, but they're fine putting out 12 slop stories a day and playing to SEO.

所以你就有这种激进的——这不仅仅是新闻编辑室里发生的某种政治争论。这是一种激进的，我认为，是互联网原生的年轻人——你知道，我们当时都20多岁，非常非常，你知道，非常能一天写10篇报道——与这些老手之间的争论，他们，你知道，是出色的作家，但不习惯同样的节奏。我确实认为这导致了很大一部分问题。你知道，就像，我的意思是，所有那些人都接受了买断。许多理解优质新闻业的人离开了这个行业，因为他们也被这种‘你必须喂饱野兽’的力量推着走。

And so you had this sort of radical it wasn't just a political sort of argument that was happening in newsroom. It was a radical, I would say, argument between the internet native young you know, we were all in our 20s, very, very you know, very capable of writing 10 stories a day versus like these old hands who were, you know, just fabulous writers but not used to the same sort of pace as well. And I do think that that led to a lot of it. You know, it's like, I mean, all those people took buyouts. A lot of the people who understood quality journalism left the industry because they were pushed also by this force of you have to feed the beast.

而野兽不再是24小时新闻周期了。它是我们的新闻周期。是每天更新网站。这无疑是我认为某种程度上引发了你在《纽约时报》和《华盛顿邮报》看到的文化革命的事情，年轻人接管了，因为老人都离开了。而年轻人对记者意味着什么有着非常不同的看法。

And the beast is not twenty four hour news cycles anymore. It's our news cycles. It's every day updating a website. And that was certainly something I think that kind of brought on kind of the cultural revolution that you saw at The New York Times and The Washington Post where the young people took over because the old people all left. And the young people had very different views of what it meant to be a journalist.

阿拉娜关于广告的说法非常重要。但当你思考这种新模式是什么时，很大一部分是订阅。对吧？就像很多这些新的人格化媒体，或者是像‘自由新闻’这样的新机构，它们根本上建立在订阅之上，是人们会为新闻付费的理念。而这是十年前没人相信的事情。

What Alana said about ads is really important. But when you think about what is this new model, a lot of it is subscription. Right? It's like a lot of these new personalities, whether it's the personality media or it's the kind of new institutions like the free press, these are fundamentally built on subscription, the idea that people will pay for news. And that was something ten years ago no one believed.

让我们深入探讨这一点，因为人们曾认为这种商业模式会改变内容，许多人对此持乐观态度且有理由如此，但其中一个论点是，广告会导致更多像BuzzFeed那样的内容，迎合大众口味——你描述的那种低质量内容迎合大众。而如果转向订阅模式，人们只有在获得真正价值时才会付费。这大致是当时的逻辑。你如何看待这种逻辑的实际发展，或者商业模式如何改变了底层内容？

And let's go into that more because people said that this business model would change the content and many people were optimistic and had reasons to be, but one of the arguments was, hey, ads leads to more BuzzFeed like content appeal to the common The slop that you were describing appeal to common denominator. Whereas for subscribers, if you change it to subscription, people will only pay if they're getting real value out of it. So that was sort of the logic. How would you comment on sort of how played out or how the business model has changed the underlying content?

听着，关于受众捕获有很多争论，对吧？这种观点认为订阅模式可能导致群体行为的操纵，而互联网比八十年代更容易助长群体行为，那时你实际上还得写信。对吧？话虽如此，我想提出一个观点：这是一种回归，回归到以读者为中心的媒体。

Look, there's a lot of argument about audience capture. Right? And this idea that subscription models lead to potential manipulation by mob behavior, and the Internet can it can lend itself to mob behavior much more easily than we had in the eighties when you had actually had to write a letter. Right? That said, I want to to possibly present the idea that it is a return back to media that put readers first.

是的。

Yes.

是的。

Yes.

就我而言，战后美国媒体的原罪就是这个决定——实际上引入第三方介入他们的关系。而这种三方关系根本不会持久。是的，不会。每个人都能赚很多钱，大家也能开心一阵子，但那不是长久的关系。长久的关系，以及我认为像自由新闻社这样成功的媒体之所以是订阅制的原因，是因为在某种程度上——不是要故弄玄虚——但在某种真实意义上，它让作家、编辑、制作人回归到他们本该拥有的关系中。

And that was the as far as I'm concerned, the original sin of postwar American media was this decision to actually make this to bring a third party into their relationship. And that throuple just simply doesn't last. Like, it doesn't yes. Everybody makes a lot of money and everybody has a lot of fun for a little while, but that's not a lasting relationship. The lasting relationship and the reason why I think successful media outlets like the free press are media outlets that are subscription based is because in some not to get woo woo about it, but in some real way, it's returning writers, editors, producers back into the relationship that they were meant

绝对如此。这也是为什么我认为Substack模式也是如此，Substack采取了强硬立场：我们不是广告业务，我们是您和您的订阅者的业务，您与订阅者有直接的关系。

to be in. Absolutely. And and this is why I think the the Substack model too, where Substack took a hard line. We are not an ads business. We are a you and your subscriber business, and you have a direct relationship with your subscribers.

我认为，这在某种程度上让粉丝文化重新回到了关系中。比如，自由新闻社就是一个很好的例子，Tablet也是，您的读者实际上是粉丝，他们将自己视为品牌的一部分，对吧？

It's sort of allowed for fandom, I would argue, to come back into the relationship. Like, I mean, the free press is a good example. Tablet is a good example of this, where your readers are actual fans. Like, they consider themselves part of the brand. Right?

他们将自己视为社群的一部分。这与我们成长过程中接触媒体的关系截然不同，那时你可能觉得自己是NPR的捐赠者或《纽约时报》的订阅者，但这并非深度粉丝文化，更像是一种企业关系——这是我获取新闻的地方。而自2020年以来，随着我们将核心订阅者关系重新纳入商业模式，这种粉丝文化层面的发展创造了更牢固的纽带。

They consider themselves part of a community. And it is a very different thing than the relationship we had growing up reading media where it's like you considered yourself maybe you donated to NPR or you subscribed to the New York Times, but it wasn't a deep fandom. It was more of like a corporate relationship. This is where I get my news. The fandom aspect of what's happening since 2020, since we've returned the sort of paramount subscriber relationship to the business model, it just creates much stronger ties.

这就是为什么我如此看好这种模式。人们可能会说，哦，小型出版物可能只有X数量的订阅者，无法与《纽约时报》竞争，但这些纽带要深厚得多。对客户而言，它们意义重大。想想其他领域，不是媒体，而是消费品牌或科技相关行业，你想要的正是那些愿意为你奋斗的客户，他们就像你的军队。而这正是新媒体的面貌。

And that's why I'm so bullish on people can say, Oh, well, are small publications, or maybe they only have X number of subscribers. They're not going to compete with The New York Times, but those ties are so much deeper. Like, they have so much more meaning for the customer. And when you think about, like, in any other world, not media, but think about, like, in consumer brand or in anything related to tech, it's you want those customers who are just going to fight for you, where they're part of your army. And that that is what new media looks like.

就像人们会为他们喜爱的媒体人和新闻编辑室而战。

Like, people will fight for the personalities and for the the newsrooms that they love.

我也认为发生了一些变化。让我谈谈我的看法——如果过去五年是关于向边缘地带、向主流之外的叛逆者和海盗靠拢，那么我认为接下来五年，或者说是五到十年，将会是关于重新正常化。凯瑟琳曾恰当地将独立媒体时期的金字塔描述为非常令人兴奋，这确实如此，但我也要说，它也是一团乱麻。

I also think that there was something that happened. So so so let me just say something about what I think is a if the last five years were about a kind of move to the fringes, move to rebels and pirates outside of a mainstream. I actually think the next five years or call it five to ten is gonna be about a normalization again. You know, one of the things that we, Catherine, I think rightly described the independent media period pyramid as very, very exciting, which it is, obviously. I would also say that it's it's a mess.

其中一个混乱之处在于缺乏层级结构。暂且不论层级本身的价值，也没有明确谁负责什么。比如，谁做报道？谁发表观点？

And one of the things that's a mess about it is is that there's no hierarchy. And forget about hierarchy as a value in and of itself. There's also no sense of who does what. Like, who does the reporting? Who does the opinion?

谁负责思想？谁负责品味？不可能每个人都做所有事，对吧？之前金字塔结构的一个好处是它分层明确，每个人都有自己分工。

Who does ideas? Who does taste? Everyone can't do everything. Right? And one of the things that was nice about the previous pyramid is that it's stratified and everybody had jobs that they did.

我认为我们会回归那种状态，主要是因为人类天生会自我分层并承担不同职责。我们只是自我区分。但我觉得这其中的美妙之处在于——我是个势利眼，对我的作家、为我们创作内容的人、我们发表的艺术作品，甚至对我的读者都很挑剔。作为一个势利眼，我的未来看起来非常光明，因为现在有可能创建真正精英化的平台和受众群体，不是过去几十年那种平庸的精英，而是真正的精英。

I think we're gonna get back to that mainly because I think human beings naturally stratify themselves and take on different jobs. We just distinguish ourselves. But what I think is gonna be great about that is going to be I'm I'm I'm a snob. I'm a terrible snob about my writers, about the people who produce stuff for us, about the art that we publish, and I'm a snob about my readers. I think my future looks really good right now as a snob because the idea of being able to create platforms and audiences that are truly elite, not the kind of elite of mediocrities that we've had in the last few decades, but a real elite, is very possible now.

我平板发布，我是说，我们发表了一篇关于比尔·盖茨在非洲的15,000字文章，讲述他的基金会正在非洲做什么。会读这篇文章的人非常少。但那些会读这篇文章的少数人，实际上会因此改变他们的想法，并扩展他们对全球政治的视野。这意味着我正在创造更聪明的大脑，并且我正在让已经非常强大的大脑变得更聪明。

I tablet publishes I mean, we published a 15,000 word piece about Bill Gates in Africa and what he's what his foundation is doing in Africa. It's a very small number of people that are gonna read that. But the the small number of people who are gonna read that are actually gonna have their minds changed by it and have their vista on global politics expanded. That means I'm creating smarter brains and and smarter I'm making more smart already very powerful brains.

是的。没错。不。不。而且我认为，正如你提到的，媒体正在发生很多变化，很多合并，很多事情正在发生，并且很可能在未来五年内继续发生。

Yep. Yeah. No. No. And and I think, you know, as you mentioned, there's a lot of change happening in media, a lot of, mergers, a lot of things that are happening and likely will happen over the next five years.

而且我认为很多这种商业活动将会展示的是，嘿，在互联网上当个海盗真的很有趣。就像，成为一个有个性的人，拥有一个单人播客真的很有趣。那真的很有趣。但那不是媒体业务。并且可以作为一个个体存在，只是随便说说。

And what I think a lot of that business activity is going to do is to showcase that, hey, it's really fun to be a pirate on the Internet. Like, it's really fun to be a personality and to have like a one a one woman podcast. So that's really fun. That's not the media business. And can exist as an individual and just kind of run your mouth.

但实际上，这些机构迫切需要新的资产，需要那些与粗制滥造相反的东西。他们迫切需要声望。他们迫切需要经过充分研究的新颖观点。那是因为他们的读者也是如此。我们正处在这个时刻，我确实认为这是一个世代更替。

But actually, these institutions are desperate for new properties, for what the antithesis of slop. They're desperate for prestige. They're desperate for new takes that are well researched. And that's because their readers are as well. And we are in this moment where I do think it is a generational shift.

我们有一位最年轻的副总裁，我认为这是我们有过的最年轻的副总裁。我们有，你知道，或者也许不是有史以来，但在最近的记忆中，我们正在经历这种政治上的、你知道的、世代更替，比如下一届总统选举可能是千禧一代对X世代的设置，或者千禧一代对千禧一代。对吧？就像你见证了从婴儿潮一代时代的一切到现在的火炬传递，一切都在变化中。所以人们可以举手并真正尝试去建设一些东西，但你必须尝试去建设一些东西。

We have one of the youngest vice presidents, I think it's the youngest vice president we've ever had. We have, you know, or maybe not ever, but in recent memory, we're having these sort of political sort of, you know, kind of shifting of the generations where like the next presidential election could be a millennial gen X setup or a millennial millennial. Right? Like you have the passing of the torch from the boomer era everything to this very everything's in flux. So people can put their hands up and actually try to build things, but you have to try to build something.

它必须是一个机构。不能只是一个单人秀。它必须是一个机构。所以我认为我们在媒体和文化堆栈的许多不同部分都看到了这一点。这非常令人兴奋。

It has to be an institution. It can't just be a one woman show. It has to be an institution. And so I think we're seeing that across a lot of different parts of the media and cultural stack. That's very exciting.

但我也认为，这将导致很多人思考得更加宏大。

But it also, I think is going lead to a lot of people thinking a lot bigger.

我认为巴里做得非常出色的一点是，她建立了一个机构，这个机构最初可以说是由个人魅力驱动的，但同时又兼具制度化。大多数人无法兼顾这两点。他们要么试图将其白标化，变得毫无个性，要么就只依赖某个人的明星效应，但无法在此基础上进一步扩展。

And I think that's what Barry did so well is that she built an institution that was sort of started as, or was also personality driven at the same time. Most people can't do both. They either try to just sort of white label it and just be faceless, or they just lean into the stardom of one person but can't expand beyond them.

完全同意。她发现的一点是，愿意来与她一起建立机构的人才几乎是无穷无尽的。实际上，我认为如果她再等几年，可能就找不到这么多人才了，因为大家可能都转行去了其他行业。在某个时间点，一个行业或一种职业前景的光环会逐渐消失，对吧？

Completely. And one of the things that she found was that the amount of talent that wanted to come and build an institution with her was almost bottomless. Like, there was just there was so there was so much good talent out there that and I actually think that if she had waited a few more years, there wouldn't have been because everybody would have left for other industries. And at some point, the glow off of an industry or off of a possible career goes away. Right?

所以我认为她可能抓住了最后一个能够吸纳真正人才的时机，而且他们都找到了，并且无论如何他们都会继续找到人才。这真是对机构建设的惊人证明。

And so I think she probably caught the last moment where there was real talent to scoop up, and they all found they all found it. And they'll they're gonna continue to find it no matter what. It's just a it's a it's an incredible testament to institution building.

是的。而且人们确实需要机构。我认为确实有那么一个时刻，很多人变得非常悲观，比如几年前我自己也这么想，觉得我们不需要机构。

Yeah. And that people really do want institutions. I do think there was this moment, where, you know, a lot of us were black pilling. I'll say I where I were, say several years ago. It's we don't need institutions.

我们只会发声或退出。我就是退出大军的一员，我搬到了佛罗里达，对吧？所以很明显，我当时更倾向于认为我们无法拯救这些垂死建制的一部分。但与此同时，就像人们在COVID期间经历那种恐慌时刻时的认识一样。

We're just gonna, you know, voice or exit. I'm part of the exit train. I mean, moved to Florida, right? So like I was clearly a little bit more more more on more on the we can't save some of these parts of the the dying establishment. But at the same time, it's like the the the recognition when people have sort of that that panic moment during COVID.

实际上，我们确实需要这些机构。我们需要拯救那些经过几代人、几个世纪建立起来的东西，而且这是可能的。

Actually, we do need these institutions. We do need to save things that that have been built over over generations and centuries, and it's possible.

是的。我曾被称为'全部推倒重来的女孩'，因为我觉得一切都坏了。

Yeah. I was became known as sort of the burn it all down girl because of everything is broken.

是的，是的。关于'破碎性'的那篇文章，我记得是2021年的必读文章之一，是你写的吧？

Yeah. Yeah. The the brokenness piece, which was one of, like, the the sort of essential readings of I believe it was, what, 2021 when you wrote it?

嗯，是的。其实是我在2020年3月写的，但2021年才发表。

Mhmm. Yeah. Mean, was actually I wrote it in March 2020, but I published it in 2021.

对，对，你确实提出了一个...好吧，我们需要确定自己的立场。也许可以谈谈你在那里提出的范式。

Yeah. Yeah, you did have sort of a, okay, like, yeah, we gotta decide what we are. Maybe talk a little bit about the kind of paradigm you put forward there.

所以，但我会告诉你我认为这个范式是如何被误解的。基本观点是一切都已破碎，后续文章指出美国生活中的根本对话不是左右之争、民主党与共和党之争，甚至不是保守派与自由派之争。我看到真正主导的对话是：深信美国生活认知机构（媒体、大学，还包括医疗系统、政府等）的人，与认为这些系统已不可挽回地损坏或腐朽的人之间的对话。我发现这两个群体间的对话最具建设性，也最具热度。这些对话让我变得更聪明。

So so but and I'll and I'll tell you how I how I think the paradigm was misunderstood. But the the basic idea was behind everything is broken and then a follow-up was that the fundamental conversation in American life was not between the right and the left or Democrats and Republicans or even be between conservatives and liberals. The dominant conversation that I saw happening was actually between people who deeply believed in the sense making institutions of American life, media, universities, and also including other institutions, our health care system, the government, and those who believe that those systems had become irrevocably damaged or decayed. And the conversation between those two groups was the one that I found to be the most generative and also the one that I found was the one that had the most heat coming off of it. And those conversations I left smarter.

但由于这两篇文章，人们有理由地——但也只是假设——认为我主张把一切推翻重来。这并不准确。如果你真的读了文章，我说的是我们需要审视这些机构并评估其健康状况。有些应该抛弃。其实我认为任何人都不该花太多时间精力去推翻什么。

But because of those two pieces, people assumed with good reason, but they just assumed that I was like, burn everything to the ground. That's not really right. If you actually read the piece, what I say is that we need to look at these institutions and assess them for health. Some of them we should abandon. I actually don't really think that anyone should spend that much time or energy burning anything down.

那只是徒劳。但你应该抛弃那些无法存活、无法服务你或他人的事物。哪些需要改革，哪些需要保守维护。这是一个广泛的呼吁：审视机构并评估其健康度，不要仅仅因为它们伴随你一生就假定它们真的在很好地服务你。但我觉得我们现在看到的，凯瑟琳完全说对了。

It's just useless. But you should abandon the things that are not actually gonna survive or serve you or serve other people. Which ones should be reformed and which ones should be conserved where we actually work to preserve them. And so it was a broad plea to look at institutions and assess them for health and not just assume that because they had been there for your whole lives that they were actually serving you properly. But the thing that I think we're looking at now, I think Catherine's completely right.

过去五年大家都领悟了这一点，每个人都说：好吧，我们必须以怀疑的眼光审视这些机构。我们必须抛弃它们。我们走得相当远。可能还需要再走一段，但这五年我们已经走了很远。但我确实认为我们正迎来一种'普通人革命'。

We just had five years where everybody grokked this and everyone was like, okay, we have to look at these institutions with a real skeptical eye. We have to abandon them. We we went pretty far out. Think we probably have a little farther to go, but we went far we've gone far in five years. But I do think that we're in for a kind of normie revolution.

我认为我们将迎来一个转折点，人们开始重新渴望机构的力量。他们会再次需要大众媒体。他们会渴望那种当表达观点时能感受到许多人共鸣的体验。是的。而且我觉得边缘空间日益增长的兴奋感、活跃度或低俗性正在逐渐失去吸引力。

I think we're in for a pivot where people start to want people start to want to institutions. They're gonna want mass media again. They're going to want things that feel like when they say a lot of people like, when you have an opinion, you can feel like a lot of people have that opinion too. Yeah. And I think the increasing excitement or verb or prurience of marginal spaces is starting to wear thin.

这期节目我们一直在讨论'垃圾内容'。上周刚推出'氛围'专题，这周也在持续关注。所以这其实是对内容未来走向的更广泛评论。阿兰娜，你有一篇相关文章。不如分享一下你的思考？

We've been talking a bit about slop in this episode. We just had Vibes last week, launch and sort of this week. And so there's kind of a broader commentary on sort of the future of content there. Alana, you have a piece on the topic. Why don't you sort of share your reflections?

是的。这篇文章实际上是我们十一月刊的编辑手记。在编辑手记中，我试图捕捉一个时代瞬间——可能涉及当期几篇不同文章，也可能关乎更广阔世界的动态。那期杂志的封面故事其实是关于养猪业的。

Yeah. So the piece is actually the editor's letter for our November print issue. And in the editor's letter, I try to traverse the a moment. So it can be about a couple of different pieces in that issue, or it could be actually about stuff happening in a wider world. The cover story in that month's issue is actually about pig farming.

特别聚焦于一种叫做'妊娠限位栏'的装置，这是极其可怕的工具。它本质上是工厂化养殖的关键环节，堪称恐怖秀——从多个角度看都是如此。多个州已通过法律禁用妊娠限位栏，而联邦政府却考虑推翻这些州法来支持企业使用这种极不道德的装置。

And it's particularly about the use of something called gestation crates, which is this incredibly horrendous instrument. Mainly, it's a linchpin of factory farming. And it's a horror show. And it's a horror show from a bunch of different angles. Various states have actually passed laws outlying gestation crates, and the federal government is considering overriding those states in support of companies for an instrument that is incredibly unethical.

这很荒谬对吧？这种装置让联邦政府凌驾于州政府之上，让中国（注：此处应为笔误，根据上下文应指企业利益）优先于美国利益，完全违背伦理。福音派信徒憎恶它，就像任何关心慢性病的医疗健康协会成员一样。

And so it's bizarre. Right? This is an instrument that favors the federal government over state governments, favors China over The US, is completely unethical. The evangelicals hate it, as well as anybody in, like, MAHA who is concerned about chronic disease.

嗯。

Mhmm.

当我思考我们如何对待摄入和引入生活的事物时，越来越觉得当前就像处在'垃圾进垃圾出'的个人经济模式中——我们在生活每个层面摄入大量糟粕，又产出大量糟粕。这种感觉显然令人麻木压抑，但更值得思考的是：这两者是否存在关联？因此我在文中提出：我们无力甄别生活中引入的垃圾内容，导致我们也无法辨别网络数字空间的垃圾信息，无法判断是否应该在意、接纳或真正与之互动。我对此非常好奇。

And as I thought about it and I thought about how we think about what we take in and what we bring into our lives, it felt more and more to me like we have this slop in, slop out economy, personal economy right now, where we just take in a lot of shit in every part of our lives and then produce a lot of shit. And something about it feels I mean, it obviously feels to me deadening and depressing. But it also feels worth thinking about whether or not the two things are related. So I pose in this in this piece that our inability to judge or discern slop in what we're bringing into our lives has led us to not really be able to discern slop on the Internet, slop in on digital spaces, and to know whether or not we should care about it, bring it in, actually engage with it. I'm really curious.

我知道凯瑟琳可能不同意我的观点，我很好奇想听听她的论点，因为那样我就可以和她争论，告诉她我认为这一切都源于上帝的缺席。不过我会讲到那一点的。

I know Catherine probably disagrees with me, and I'm curious to hear her argument because then I wanna fight with her and tell her I think it's all about the absence of God. But I'll get there.

一切都可以归结为上帝的缺席。但是，是的。不，我我想不是。我我我同意我同意你说的。

Everything comes back to the absence of God. But yeah. No. I I think no. I I I agree with I agree with you say.

我的意思是，我认为在某些方面，大语言模型（LLMs）教会了我们一些东西，它让我们更好地理解了人类思维，以及你训练自己的内容，对吧？就像你吸收的信息类型会彻底改变你的世界观。所以垃圾进垃圾出的模型，我们100%都知道这一点，对吧？技术人员比任何人都更清楚这一点。如果你用糟糕的数据训练，就会得到糟糕的产品。

I mean, I think in some ways, the the LLMs have taught us anything, it gives us a better understanding of the human mind and that what you train yourself on, right? Like the kind of information that you take in, it completely transforms your worldview. And so the garbage in garbage out model, like we 100% know that, right? Like that technologists know that better than anyone. If you train on bad data, you get a bad product.

所以在某些方面，我认为这其中有很多道理。我更能同情‘孩子们会没事的，垃圾内容无所谓’这一论点的地方在于，你知道，前几天我看了一个播客，我相信是肖恩·瑞安的播客，上面有个人说，孩子们每天使用手机七个小时——其实成年人也是——但这是每天七小时的原始消费。我记得在九十年代也用过完全相同的统计数据，因为我就是每天看电视七小时群体中的一员。对吧？就像我每天看七小时电视，而且大部分都是垃圾内容。

So in some ways I think there's a lot of truth in that. Where I'm more sympathetic to the kids are gonna be okay slop argument is, you know, I was watching a podcast the other day and there was someone on I believe it was Sean Ryan's podcast and there was someone on and he was saying, you know, like kids use their phones seven hour or actually adults too, but it's seven hours of raw consumption a day. And I remember the exact same stat being used in the nineties because I was part of the seven hour a day television consumption world. Right? Like, I watch seven hours of TV a day, and it was mostly slop.

对吧？就像，当然，你可以争辩说《法律与秩序》造就了一代非常激进的检察官之类的。对吧？就像，但当时我们看的都是同样的东西。就像我，你知道，放学回家后看《男孩遇见世界》，然后看一些游戏节目。

Right? Like, sure, you could make the argument that Law and Order created a generation of, like, really hard charging prosecutors or whatever. Right? Like like, but we were all watching the same stuff. Like I would, you know, get home from school, watch Boy Meets World, then watch some game shows.

你知道，夏天的时候，我会看一些，比如CBS的电视剧，你知道，那些为家庭主妇打造的，对吧？就像你看肥皂剧。你吸收了一堆无意义的东西。但我现在回顾我的世界观时，我总是想，嗯，这就是为什么我的世界观与我打交道的很多人非常不同，因为大多数每天看七小时电视的人并不在科技界工作，对吧？所以这里有点，好吧，沉浸在垃圾内容中似乎有点用处，它给了我一种普通人（normie）的心态，如果我父母没有管教我，或者如果我父母对我消费的内容更关注一些，我可能就不会有这种心态。

You know, during the summer, I'd watch some, you know, like CBS dramas, you know, built for housewives, right? Like you you like soap operas. You took in a bunch of nonsense. But I always look back at my sort of worldview now and I'm like, well, this is why my worldview is very different than a lot of the people I interact with because most people who are watching seven hours of television a day are not operating the tech world, right? So there's something about, Okay, there's like a utility to having kind of bathed in slop that gives me a kind of a normie attitude that maybe I wouldn't have if I had parents who weren't policing me and you know, like or or or if I, you know, if I had parents who were a little bit more engaged in what I was consuming.

所以我觉得有些事情我不知道。我我我猜我猜我有点更倾向于‘孩子们会没事的’这种态度，而且我们已经从电视时代过渡到了垃圾内容引擎时代。但这仍然会没事的，因为孩子们会知道如何消化它。也许也许我太乐观了，但我确实认为在九十年代，当有人告诉我因为我看了那么多电视将来会一事无成时，人们对电视也有同样的恐惧。

So I think there's something I don't know. I I I guess I guess I have a little bit more of an attitude of the kids are gonna be alright, and we've made this movement from television to slop engines. But it's still gonna be okay because the kids are gonna know how to metabolize it. Maybe maybe I'm being way too hopeful, but I do think that there was the same sort of fear of of television definitely in the nineties when, you know, I I was told that I was I was gonna amount to nothing for how much television I watched.

是的。我们其实分歧不大。我想说的是，也许这里数字确实会带来差异。我担心的是，我不知道有多少孩子能够承受七小时由AI生成的内容——顺便说一句，我认为这与电视不同——并保持大脑健康。肯定有一部分孩子能做到，但我不确定这个比例是否会像能从电视中自救的比例那么大。

I yeah. We don't actually disagree that much. What what I guess I would say is and and maybe here's where here's where numbers actually make a difference. What I'm concerned about is is I don't know how many kids are going to be able to take in seven hours of AI generated content, which, by the way, I do think is different than TV, and save their brains. A certain percentage absolutely will, but I don't know if it's gonna be as big as the percentage that could save themselves from TV.

我也不知道这是否可以接受。对吧？也许我们只是创造了一个更小的少数群体，他们的大脑能从世界中吸收多种养分。在一个拥有3.4亿人口的国家里，想着也许只有一百万人没问题，这种想法似乎不太对。

And I don't know whether or not and and maybe that's okay. Right? Maybe we just create a smaller minority of people whose brains can take in lots of different kinds of nutrients from the world. Something about living in a country of 340,000,000 people and basically being like, maybe it's okay if only a million of them

没问题。但这在我看来并不是构建社会的正确方式。是的，不。我，嗯，我想是的。

are alright Doesn't strike me as this is the right way to architect a society. Yeah. No. I I yeah. I I guess yeah.

我也想听听埃里克对此的看法。我想九十年代是有防护栏的。就像，我认为互联网缺少的就是这个。如果我要为另一方辩护，你知道，这是非常真实的。我13岁的时候，得去百视达租烂片看。那时是有摩擦的。

And I'd love to hear Eric's thoughts on this too. I guess it's there were guardrails in the nineties. Like, this is the thing that I think doesn't exist with the Internet that that like, if if I'm gonna make the the other case, you know, if I'm going to the side for the other case, this is very true. When I was 13 years old, I had to go to Blockbuster and check out the slop. There was friction.

那时也有防护栏。我不被允许租色情片。我只能租那些专门为13岁观众制作的PG-13电影。而现在很多内容，不仅是现有的烂片，还有AI生成的烂片，所缺失的是，除非有严格的家长指导或有人监督，否则你很容易迅速陷入黑暗的深渊，这一点大家都承认。我的意思是，我经常试验通过点击某些词能陷入多深的深渊。

There were also guardrails. I wasn't allowed to check out a porno. I had to check out, you know, a PG-thirteen movie that was made directly for 13 year olds consumption. The thing that is missing in a lot of not only, you know, the kind of existing slop, but the AI slop is that like, unless there are strong parental guidelines or unless there are people looking over your shoulder, you can go very, very quickly down a dark hole, which everyone recognizes. I mean, like, I routinely experiment with how like which holes you can get down just by clicking certain words.

就像每个人都明白这一点。所以我确实认为与九十年代的类比并不像我说的那么强烈。但我也担心所使用的语言，以及那种被固化用来妖魔化某些产品的说法。因为我看到我是如何使用AI的——它在某些方面非常有用，而且不是烂片，因为我提示它不要生成烂片。所以我认为在讨论中，这一点也常常被忽略。

Like everyone understands this. So I do think it's parallels with the nineties are definitely not as strong as I'm making them. But I also I just I also worry about the language that is used and kind of codified to sort of demonize some of these products where it's like, I see how I'm using AI. It's very useful in certain aspects and in not slop because I'm prompting it not to be slop. So I think that there is something there too that's often missed in the conversation of it.

它不一定全是烂片。也许我会这样写：它不一定全是烂片。

It doesn't all have to be slop. Maybe that would be how I would write it. It doesn't all have to be slop.

我开始认同乔纳森·海特关于限制儿童使用手机的观点。也许学校应该更早禁止手机入校。但与此同时，我也担心孩子们无法对这些产品产生免疫力。看看我父亲，他晚年才接触推特，现在却完全离不开，简直上瘾得不行。要是他当初发现的是TikTok，天哪，那还得了。

I've become sympathetic to Jonathan Haidt's arguments around sort of your cell phones for kids. Maybe earlier schools shouldn't have them in But at the same time, worry about kids not being able to develop immunity to these products. I look at my dad who discovered Twitter later in life and just can't get off. He just is like so addicted. And if he had discovered TikTok, Jesus Christ.

人们需要对这些产品建立免疫力。泰勒·考恩曾这样评价互联网：它让聪明人更聪明，让愚笨的人更愚笨。我认为可以引申为：对于那些适应良好、能筛选信息的人，它就像超能力，让你变得更出色。

People need to develop immunity to these products. Tyler Cowen had this line about the internet. He says, It makes smart people smarter and dumb people dumber. I think you could extrapolate that out to sort of people who are well adjusted and are able to filter information. It's a superpower and it makes you better.

这就像一种共病。对于有其他挑战或脆弱性的人，它可能加剧这些问题或利用这些弱点。所以它的影响差异很大。

It's like a comorbidity. It's like for people who have other challenges or vulnerabilities, it can exacerbate them or prey upon them. And so it's high variance.

我还认为这可以成为我们三人许多对话的一个评判标准。我觉得对于不涉及政府的重大激进举措，我们往往没有解决方案。讨论这些话题时，我们都会开始感到不安，因为我认为我们三人有一个共同点——可能我猜错了——但我们都不希望政府对这些事进行监管。那才可怕。感觉就像，天啊。

I also think that there's a way in which this could be a rubric for a lot of conversations that we three could have. I think there's a way in which we don't have answers for what to do about big radical moves that don't include the government. Like, conversations about all this stuff, in some senses, we all start getting, like, breaking out in hives because part of what I think one thing that I think the three of us share, I I assume, and I could be wrong, is that what we don't want is government regulation around these things. That's what's scary. It feels like, oh god.

如果我们对这些事情过于悲观，政府就会介入并开始监管。如果我们能抛开这种恐惧，假设政府永远不会插手

If we start to black pill enough about this stuff, then the government comes in and starts to regulate it. And if we could take that fear out of the conversation and imagine that that was never gonna happen

不。

No.

那么作为社会，我们有什么机制能够以健康的方式刹车，甚至引导我们改善现状，确保人们在接触技术之前就足够聪明，从而让技术使他们更聪明？对吧？我认为这是当前许多热点话题中缺失的重要讨论层面。

Then what systems do we have in place as a society that could, in a healthy way, put the brakes on things or maybe even direct us, make it better, make it so that people were smart smart enough before they got to the technology so that it made them smarter. Right? And I think that's a big missing layer of conversation in a lot of hot button topics right now.

完全同意。完全同意。

Totally. Totally.

存在一种类似蒙塔和贝利的现象，当人们谈论对体制的批判时，有些人不是去评估这些批判，而是转移话题说，嘿，你只是在削弱对体制的信任，或者你只是想全部推倒重来，因为他们不想去评估这些批判。我们一直在讨论黑色药丸现象，以及人们如何对黑色药丸感到厌倦。

There's little bit of a Mont and Bailey where people You were talking about sort of the critique of institutions. Instead of sort of assessing the critique, some people deflect and say, Hey, you're just undermining belief in institutions, or you just want to burn it all down because they don't want to assess the critique of it. And we've been talking about black pilling and how people are tired of black pilling.

人们有很多情绪反应我可以容忍。但其中有几种让我感到非常非常恼火。我发现有一种特定的黑色药丸现象特别令人反感，那就是那种多年来忽视问题、忽视所有试图引起他们注意的好人，然后问题一出现，他们就惊慌失措、大发雷霆的人。

There are a lot of emotional reactions that people have that I can tolerate. Then there are a couple of them that I just find very, very annoying. And I find there's a particular kind of black pilling. There's one flavor of black pilling that really gets under my skin, which is the person who ignores the problem for years and ignores all the very good people trying to direct their attention to it, then the minute it shows its face, that person's hair gets on fire. They freak out.

他们愤怒不已，震惊万分。然后因为他们无法在十一天内改变整个世界，他们就变得唉声叹气，觉得一切都完了。而你只觉得，他们每一步的情绪反应都是虚伪的。

They're outraged. They're shocked. And then because they can't actually change the entire world in eleven days, they're then like, ugh. It's all over. And you're just like, every move here emotionally was fraudulent.

我特别有这种感觉，因为我住在纽约市，我刚才描述的情绪过程正是许多人在我们市长选举中所经历的过程。在某个时刻，你看着他们，你会说，你到底会不会吸取教训？你必须真正参与进来，你可以让事情变得更好。是的，但你必须付出努力。

And I feel this way particularly because, I live in New York City, and there I the emotional process I just laid out is the process that many people have had around our mayoral election. And at some point, you just look at them and you say, are you gonna are you gonna ever learn? Like, you have to actually engage and you can make things better. Yeah. But you do have to do the work.

是的。而且一有问题就惊慌失措，就像消防警报政治一样令人沮丧。真的，这大概是最让我恼火的事情了。是的。

Yes. And freaking out as soon like, fire alarm politics is just dismal. And, really, it's just it's it's like the thing that annoys me the most, I think. Yeah.

我认为这完美地概括了纽约市目前正在发生的事情。作为佛罗里达州的居民，我担心会有很多人决定搬家，考虑到政治状况，考虑到他们对政治的反应，以及你刚才描述的觉醒时刻。

I I think that is a perfect encapsulation of what's happening in New York City now. And as a resident of Florida, I fear for the number of people who are going to make the decision to move, like, given given the politics, given their reaction to the politics and to the waking up moment you just described.

我觉得我们需要转入美学政治的话题。奥赛米克（Ozempic），阿兰娜，你谈到了“普通人革命”。我们私下聊过维韦克（Vivek）著名的书呆子与运动员之争，你知道的，圣诞节期间在X平台上的那场喧嚣。我们也讨论过这届政府是运动员风格的政府。你知道，P标签塞斯（P tag Seth）本周向军方发表了演讲。当你谈到最引人注目和非凡的发现时，有很多内容值得深入探讨。

I feel like we have to segue into the politics of aesthetic. Ozempic, you talk about the Normie revolution, Alana. We've talked offline about know, Vivek's famous nerd versus jock, you know, Christmas, know, hullabaloo on X, and we've talked about how this admin is the jock administration. Know, P tag Seth had the speech this week to military. There's a lot to get into when you talk about what you found most striking and remarkable.

是的。我的意思是，本周充斥在我们视野中的新闻是对军方演讲的肥胖羞辱。有趣的是，我认为它如此吸引人的原因当然是因为我在航空航天和国防领域工作，很多人都在提出他们对即将发生之事的理论，对吧？

Yeah. I mean, the sort of news of the week that was all over our expedience was the fat shaming of the military speech. And it's interesting. The reason why I think it's so fascinating is, of course, I work in the world of aerospace and defense, and a lot of people were sort of putting out their theories of what was going to happen. Right?

比如，为什么这些人全都聚集在一起？为什么军队的所有高层都齐聚一堂？我认为有些不一定一直关注这届政府形象的人会想，哦，我们肯定要开战了。那是一种——我常说很多主流媒体实际上都推出了这种叙事。如果我们举行这种大型会议，那一定是有极其重要的事情发生。

Like, why are all of these people getting together? Why is all the top brass in the military getting together in one place? And I think there were people who haven't been necessarily following the optics of this administration who thought, Oh, we must be going to war. That was sort of the and I always say a lot of mainstream media actually put out that narrative. If we're having this kind of big powwow, there must be something extremely important happening.

我内心的看法——后来被证实了——是这是一届懂得美学、戏剧性以及20世纪60年代电视刚兴起时所谓的‘伪事件’重要性的政府。有一本很棒的书叫《形象》，全是关于这些，你如何创造随后引领新闻的伪事件？我一直认为，这些事情更像是伪事件，尤其是当它们是经过计划和组织的。我认为，当你说‘好吧，我们的将军长什么样很重要’，或者‘我们政府中很多人都有电视生涯很重要’时，所展示的就是美学政治，对吧？

Sort of my internal view, which was vindicated, is this is an administration that understands the importance of aesthetics and of drama and of what was called the pseudo event in the 1960s when television first started. There's a great book called The Image, and it's all about these, how do you create pseudo events that then lead the news? And I'm always of the opinion, these things are much more pseudo events, especially if they're planned and if they're organized. And I think that the politics of aesthetics that are on display when you say, okay, like, it matters what our generals look like, or it matters that a lot of our administration has had a television career. Right?

比如，我认为关于这位国防部长最有趣的一点是，他有十年的电视生涯，而且他的形象看起来就像一位全球反恐战争的老兵。对吧？比如他有纹身。他的样子与之前担任该职位的将军或穿那套西装的前任部门负责人非常不同。对吧？

Like, I think one of the things that's most interesting about the secretary of war is that he had a decade on TV, and he looks the part of someone who a global war on terror veteran. Right? Like he's tattooed. He looks very different than the previous generals who've had that role or the previous people the department who've worn that suit. Right?

所以这届政府有某种深刻理解美学重要性的特质。这有点让人回想起——我认为在某种程度上很合适——美学政治始于肯尼迪（JFK）时代。它始于电视的出现。而现在我们有一届政府，其总统当然是在电视上度过了多少年。

So there's something about this administration that deeply understands that aesthetics matter. And it kind of harkens back. I think it's in some way fitting that like politics of aesthetics started with JFK. It started with the advent of television. And now we have an administration that of course was born from the president spent how many years on TV.

他理解那个媒介。因此，我们必须通过发布事件的人的媒介来看待每一个事件。我们必须透过这个媒介来看待每一个政治事件。这是美学，是电视，是福克斯新闻（Fox News）的样貌，对吧？每个人都有着同样的外表。

He understands that medium. And so we have to view every event. We have to view every political event through the medium of the people who are putting it out. And it's aesthetics, it's television, it's the Fox News look, right? Everyone has the same look.

通过那种美学棱镜来理解世界有其独特之处。有趣的是，我认为这是最后一点，年轻人能理解这一点。因为他们一生都生活在某种模因宇宙中，他们理解形象和模因的重要性，事物的外观方式与其本质密不可分。所以我觉得很多预测这将是重大历史时刻的人，其实更多是出于美学考量，确保部门工作人员符合这种美学取向。

There is something about understanding the world through that aesthetic prism. And what's interesting, that's sort of the last point on it, I think young people get that. Like, I really think young people understand it because they've been in a sort of memetic universe for their entire lives, and they understand sort of the importance of image and memes and that, like, the the kind of way things look is is is very inherent to how they are. And so I think a lot of the people who were predicting, you know, that it was gonna be a really big momentous event, you know, it was interestingly more about sort of aesthetics and making sure that the people who work at the department are in line with the aesthetics.

我还要补充一点，你提到的'伪事件'概念非常重要。这届政府的诸多重要事件往往都是突然发生的。以两个例子说明：一是以色列对伊朗的袭击，二是皮特·赫格塞斯上周的声明。

I would also say that I think that you're picking up on this idea of a pseudo event, think, I is really important because one of the things that we've seen with this administration is a lot of times the most important things that happen, nobody actually knows are gonna happen. And what I find useful about that is that in both instances let's use two things as as as examples. One, Israel's strike on Iran. To Pete Hegseth's announcement last week. Right?

以色列袭击伊朗事先未作宣布，对吧？而皮特·赫格塞斯的声明则大张旗鼓，精心准备，众人瞩目。这两种情况下，最讽刺的是那么多人都自信满满地声称自己知道内情。我认为政府中有些人确实意识到这一点，但有些人只是本能行事——他们让中介者（即媒体）的原形毕露，这些本该帮助我们理解时事的人。

Israel's strike on Iran not announced before. Right? And Pete Hegseth's announced to great fanfare, lots of preparation, lots of people. In both instances, what was so great were the number of people who seemed absolutely sure that they knew what was happening. And one of the things that I think this administration some people in the administration, I think, definitely are conscious of this and know it, but some of them, I think, are just simply just do it naturally, is I think that they're throwing into sharp relief the mediators, meaning the media, the people who tell us how to understand what we're seeing.

他们让很多媒体人出尽洋相，因为这些媒体经常出错，而且各种错误都有。美学之所以重要，是因为你能看出谁会上当谁不会。所以我认为这种美学运用策略非常高明，无论用与不用。你可以喜欢或否定其效果，但凯瑟琳提出的关键点是：这些人深度思考着什么形象应该呈现，什么不应该——这个洞察既重要又有趣，却很少有人清晰认识到。

And they are making fools of a lot of them because they're wrong a lot, and they're wrong in both ways. And the aesthetics is super important because you could see who falls for them and who doesn't in all sorts of directions. So I think it's very skilled politics, their approach to aesthetics, both when they use them and when they don't. You can you can like the effect of them or or appreciate the consequences or not. But what I think Catherine is saying that I I think is is really important and actually really interesting and and very few people are really thinking about it clearly is that these are people who think deeply about what images are and are not getting put out.

我们这些自称要分析观察他们、为读者观众提供解读的人，确实应该更深入地理解这一点，从而以更成熟的方式服务受众。

And I think it behooves those of us who claim to analyze them and to observe them for readers or for audiences to get smarter about it and be able to serve our audiences in a more sophisticated way.

没错。很多时候这意味着要读懂模因背后的含义。

Yeah. Yeah. A lot of that means reading the memes.

确实如此。

It does.

嗯，这有趣吗？我是说，关于表情包这一点，我记得谈到过大规模伪事件，还记得JD·万斯在沙发上的讨论吗？人们当时认为那是一次真正的打击？有趣的是，就在几周前，JD·万斯自己接受了这个梗。对吧？他转推了那张自己鼓着腮帮子的图片。

Well, is it interesting? I mean, on the point of the memes, I remember speaking of massive pseudo events, remember the JD Vance on the couch discourse and how people thought that that was some sort of real blow? And it's funny because JD Vance, the other week, he just embraced the meme. Right? He co tweeted the image of him, like puffed out.

有趣的是这种关于表情包的来回拉锯战，人们如何可以融入或远离它们。类似地，卡玛拉的……是什么来着？艺术椰子树还是什么，一度很尖锐，但下一周就变成了轻浮的象征。符号意义的变化真是有意思。

It's funny how just sort of this back and forth war on memes and how people can lean into them or out of them. Or sort of and similarly, like, Kamala's what was it? Art the coconut tree or something that was, like, was acute at one point became kind of a symbol of, like, frivolousness, you know, the next week. It's it's funny how the symbolism can change.

而且有趣的是它消散得如此之快。对吧？但重要的是表情包会消散。有时它会被重新提起，但很多时候，表情包及其影响消散了，但它改变了我们。

And it's funny how quickly it it it dissipates. Right? But what's important is is that the the meme dissipates. Sometimes sometimes it gets brought back. But a lot of times, the meme and the effect dissipates, but the it changes us.

这种改变可能是潜移默化的。但我们中有些人变得更加怀疑，有些人则继续被操纵。基本上，看看谁是谁很有意思。

And it change maybe in unspoken ways. But we some of us get more skeptical, and some of us just keep buying the manipulation. And it's interesting to see who's who, basically.

另一件有趣的文化事件是艾玛·沃森称赞J·K·罗琳或者说'哦，我仍然爱你'，J·K。

One other just sort of funny cultural thing that happened was Emma Watson sort of Emma Watson complimented J. K. Rowling or said, Oh, I still love you. J. K.

罗琳完全不买账。她说：'在我需要的时候你不在我身边。现在你来巴结我是因为这样做更受欢迎，但我在2020年经历了地狱般的煎熬，那时我需要勇气。现在我不需要了。'有趣的是她没有让她得逞。人们试图区分这是不同的时代，你知道，那时候你在哪里？

Rowling wasn't having it at all. Was like, You were not there for me in my time of need. Now you're sucking up to me because it's more popular to do so, but I've been through absolute hell and I needed courage in 2020. Today, don't need it, and it's just funny she didn't let her have it. People are trying to just distinguish that these are different times and, you know, where were you at, you know, at these moments?

我还认为有其他因素在起作用。你说的对，但还有一点，就是要道歉。作为一个领导者，你不能犯错后不承担责任还指望别人听你的。你可以这样做，但那样你就无法赢得每个人的信任。

I also think that there's something else at work. I think that's right. But then there's another thing, which is say you're sorry. Like, you don't get to be a leader who people listen to and get something wrong and then not take responsibility for it. You or you you do, but then you don't get people's you don't get to earn everyone's trust.

我认为罗琳说的是，要为你所做的事情负责。无论你在2020年做了什么，那都过去了。但如果你想现在被认真对待，作为人们应该追随、倾听并接受指引的人，你首先需要承认你错在哪里。在我看来，她看到沃森所做的——至少这是我的解读——相当懦弱。那是在狡辩，就像是，嗯，我想看到所有方面。嗯，你知道，每个人都应该爱每个人，我们应该能看到一切事情的两面性。

I think what what Rowling was saying was take responsibility for what you did. Whatever you did in 2020, fine. But if you wanna be taken seriously now as somebody who people should follow and listen to and and, take direction from, the first thing you need to do is acknowledge what you got wrong And what I think she saw Watson doing, at least it's certainly my read of her, was pretty cowardly. It was wriggling it was like, well, I wanna see everything. Well, I wanna you know, everyone Everyone should love everyone, and we should all be able to see both sides of everything.

然后你就想，什么？所以你很抱歉。对我来说，这只是——我在新冠疫情上经常有这种感觉。

And you're just like, what? So you're sorry. And to me, there's just this I feel this way a lot with COVID.

记得《大西洋月刊》那篇文章吗，就像是呼吁休战，说，嘿，双方在新冠疫情上都犯了错误。

Remember the piece of the Atlantic that was like truce, like, hey, both sides got things wrong in COVID.

问题是，如果我觉得你只会再次带我走上另一条错误的道路，我为什么还要听你的？所以当新冠疫情爆发时——我认为那是我们许多人集体经历的时刻，我们有权威或我们信任的人告诉我们，在一场空气传播病毒的疫情中，我们都待在家里非常重要，我们必须关闭学校，我们必须做所有事情。就像，他们以如此确定和自信的态度发布了这些声明。然后他们从未说过，我们哪里错了，我们怎么错的，以及为什么错了。然后他们转过身来说，为什么有这么多不信任？

Thing is, why would I listen to you again if I feel you're just going to take me down another road that was wrong? So when COVID was the I think it's the time when a lot of us experienced this en masse where we had authorities or people that we trusted telling us that this was it was very, very, very important that we all stay inside in a pandemic of an airborne virus and that we had to close down schools, and we had to do everything. Like, They issued these proclamations with such surety and such a sense of confidence. And then they never ever said, here's what we got wrong and here's how we got it wrong and why we got it wrong. And then they turn around and say, why is there so much mistrust?

你们这些人都疯了。嗯，你什么意思？就像，我需要你在某个时候至少告诉我，你看到你在该右转的时候左转了。因为我怎么知道在下一个红绿灯，你不会再做同样的事？对我来说，我的意思是，我显然对很多事情、很多人和媒体都有这种感觉。

All you people are crazy. Well, what do you mean? Like, I needed you at some point to at least tell me that you saw that you took a left when you were supposed to take a right. Because how do I know that at the next stoplight, you're not gonna do that again? And to me, I mean, I obviously feel that way about a bunch of different things, about a bunch of different people and media.

而且，你知道，另一个很好的例子是所有那些在伊朗袭击之前大喊这将引发第三次世界大战的人。我理解。我理解所有的恐惧。我完全明白。但当它没有引发第三次世界大战时，你就必须站出来说，我错了。

And, you know, another good example are all the people who yelled that before the Iran strike that this is gonna be World War three. And I get it. I get all the fears that go into that. I completely understand it. But when it's not World War three, you then have to come out and say, I got it wrong.

否则，我看不出为什么下次发生地缘政治事件时，我应该信任你有任何基于现实的直觉。其中一件事，我

Otherwise, I don't see why I should trust you the next time there's a geopolitical event to have any instinct that is reality. One of one of the things that I

我认为市场和投资的伟大之处在于，如果你是对的，就会有记录，并且会标记出你有多早。作为一个对此非常认真的人，我真的很愿意记住如果你早且正确，我也真的很愿意记住我错在哪里，对吧？这就是知识分子的诚实。我认为X真正给我们带来的一点是，现在媒体也有了同样的衡量标准，因为至少现在有据可查。过去没有严肃的记录，或者过去要困难得多，比如，你知道，回溯各大新闻台的档案，然后说，嘿，这就是人们当时说的，对吧？

think is so great about markets and investing is that there's a track record if you're right, and it's marked how early you were. And as someone who takes that very seriously, I really like to remember if you're early and right, and I really like to remember what I got wrong, right? Like that's intellectual honesty. And one of the things that I think X has truly given us is that is the same metric system for media now, because at least now there's receipts. There didn't used to be serious receipts or it used to be much more difficult to like, you know, go back to the archives of various news stations and be like, hey, this is what people were saying, right?

但现在任何人都可以做到，比如，这个人说了这种疯狂的话，他们还没有道歉。我认为你是对的。我们现在有了追踪的系统，但确实存在这种犹豫。我认为艾玛·沃特森的事情是件好事。英雄会成为恶棍。

But like now any person can do it and be like, this person said this crazy thing and they haven't apologized. And I think you're right. Like, we now have the system to track, but there is this hesitancy. And I think the Emma Watson thing is a good thing. Like, the heroes will be villains.

恶棍会成为英雄。我认为她被点名是好事，比如，嘿，你不是早期的信徒。你没有支持你的朋友，或者你并不是真的在乎，我认为J.K.罗琳说的那句话很美，她本可以闭嘴，对吧？就像，什么都不说，我认为这对我们大多数人来说是非常好的建议。即使我们在播客上，如果我们不确定某件事，也许就该停止说话。

The villains will be heroes. And I think it's like good that she is called out as like, hey, you you weren't an early believer. You like you didn't stand by your friend or you didn't just like mean, I think the thing that JK Rowling said that was beautiful was like she could have just shut up, right? Like, just not said anything, which I think is very good advice for for most of us. We're just even though we're on podcast, maybe just stop talking if we don't if we're if we're, you know, if we're not totally sure about something.

但这当然不是我们所生活的时代。

But that is, of course, not the times that we that we live in.

但是，我的意思是，我认为问题在于，你知道，这场对话之所以有如此大的影响力和价值，是因为你面对的是两位知名女性。是的。对吧？所以艾玛·沃特森的评论迅速传播，然后罗琳的转发更加火爆。

But, I mean, I I think that the problem is is that, you know, the reason why the conversation has the power that it has in the valence is because you're dealing with two celebrity women. Yeah. Right? And so Emma Watson's comments go viral, and then Rowling's repost goes even more viral.

嗯。

Mhmm.

这样我们都能看到证据了，对吧？对我来说，X的问题是证据的传播远不如原帖那么广泛。再次，我基本上同意凯瑟琳的观点，即一切最终都会水落石出，我们会找到解决之道。但找到解决之道，我认为部分包括承认其中出了什么问题。

So then we can all see the receipts. Right? The problem for me with X is that the receipts don't nearly don't go nearly as viral as the original post. Again, I I fundamentally fall out where Catherine is, which is like, it's all going to come out in the wash and we are going to find our way through it. But finding our way through it, I think, in part includes acknowledging what's going wrong with it

是的。而且这是一个非常混乱的时刻。我得说，J·K·罗琳发布的那条回击——因为她是有史以来最棒的作家——我的意思是，它将成为历史上最经典的回击之一。就像，十年后我们可能会谈论什么是被人背后捅刀后最精彩的反击。那段文字写得真是精妙绝伦。

Yeah. And that it's a messy, messy moment. I will say the receipt that JK Rowling put out because she is the best writer to ever exist is I mean, it will go down in history as one of the greatest receipts. Like, ten years from now, we could be talking about what is one of the greatest takedowns of someone who backstabbed you. That paragraph was just beautifully crafted.

我渴望有一天也能写出如此优美的文字。

And I aspire one day to be able to write something so beautiful.

我不知道你是否看到了，太经典了。Cernovich回复说，好吧，那现在说说移民问题吧。而她回怼道，你还在这儿？太精彩了。好了，说到这里，我想我们应该结束了。

I don't know if you saw it was so classic. Cernovich replied and was like, Okay, now do migrants. And she's like, You're still here? It was amazing. Well, with that, I think we should wrap.

这是一次非常精彩的对话。Alana，非常感谢你加入我们。感谢收听本期a16z播客。如果你喜欢这一期，请务必点赞、评论、订阅，给我们评分或留言，并与你的朋友和家人分享。更多节目，请前往YouTube、Apple Podcasts和Spotify。

Been It's a fantastic conversation. Alana, thanks so much for joining us. Thanks for listening to this episode of the a 16 z podcast. If you like this episode, be sure to like, comment, subscribe, leave us a rating or a review, and share it with your friends and family. For more episodes, go to YouTube, Apple Podcasts, and Spotify.

在X（推特）上关注我们@a16z，并在a16z.substack.com订阅我们的Substack。再次感谢收听，我们下期再见。提醒一下，此处内容仅供参考，不应视为法律、商业、税务或投资建议，也不应用于评估任何投资或证券，且并非针对任何a16z基金的投资者或潜在投资者。请注意，a16z及其关联公司可能在本播客讨论的公司中持有投资。更多详情，包括我们的投资链接，请参见a16z.com/disclosures。

Follow us on x at a sixteen z, and subscribe to our Substack at a16z.substack.com. Thanks again for listening, and I'll see you in the next episode. As a reminder, the content here is for informational purposes only, should not be taken as legal business, tax, or investment advice, or be used to evaluate any investment or security and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a sixteen z fund. Please note that a sixteen z and its affiliates may also maintain investments in the companies discussed in this podcast. For more details, including a link to our investments, please see a 16z.com forward slash disclosures.