Name: 你正在被編程。這就是如何掙脫束縛。 (You Are Being Programmed. This Is How to Break Free.)
Uploaded: 2025-07-21T15:40:14.000Z
Duration: 14 min 26 s

程度副詞

I was scrolling through my feed the other night and stopped on a video from a creator I used to really admire.

有一天晚上，我在瀏覽我的新聞時，看到了一個我曾經非常欣賞的創作者的視頻。

He was charismatic, sharp, and had this incredible knack for making complex subjects feel simple.

他很有魅力，思維敏銳，有一種讓人難以置信的訣竅，能讓複雜的主題變得簡單。

基礎被動語態

He was breaking down a recent political event, and as usual, his take was provocative and  I was hooked.

他正在分析最近的一個政治事件，像往常一樣，他的觀點很有煽動性，我被吸引住了。

Curious to see the debate, I scrolled down to the comments, but there was no debate.

我很想看看辯論的情況，於是向下滾動到評論，但沒有辯論。

It was like a stadium chant in text form.

這就像是以文字形式進行的體育場吟唱。

The top comments weren't adding perspective.

They were echoing the creator's exact phrases, almost like a loyalty pledge.

他們呼應著創作者的原話，幾乎就像忠誠的誓言。

Then I saw a comment buried deep, from someone who politely questioned one of the creator's statistics, even providing a link to a different source.

然後，我看到了一條被埋得很深的評論，有人禮貌地質疑了創作者的一個統計數據，甚至提供了一個不同來源的鏈接。

It wasn't an attack, it was a simple factual query.

這不是攻擊，只是一個簡單的事實性詢問。

The replies to that single comment were immediate and vicious.

對這一評論的回覆是直接而惡毒的。

The person was labeled an ater, a troll, and accused of siding with the enemy.

這個人被貼上了 "異類"、"巨怪 "的標籤，並被指責與敵人站在一起。

One user wrote, if you have to ask, you're clearly not on the right side of history.

一位用戶寫道，如果你非要問，那你顯然沒有站在歷史的正確一邊。

There was no counter-argument, no discussion of the facts, just an instant ferocious expulsion from the group.

沒有反駁，沒有對事實的討論，只是瞬間被凶狠地驅逐出了小組。

It felt like I was witnessing a digital immune system attacking a foreign cell, and it was that moment, watching a simple question get treated like an act of treason, that made me realize this wasn't just a fan base, this felt more like an army.

那一刻，看著一個簡單的問題被當成叛國行為，我意識到這不僅僅是一個粉絲群，更像是一支軍隊。

That feeling of witnessing something shift from a community to what felt like an army.

那種目睹從一個社區轉變為一支軍隊的感覺。

Well, that's exactly what we're diving into today.

這正是我們今天要深入探討的問題。

This deep dive is all about understanding the hidden forces at play when online communities start to feel a little too unified, and how to navigate that increasingly complex digital landscape.

這次深入探討的主題是瞭解當網絡社區開始感覺有點過於統一時，哪些隱藏的力量在起作用，以及如何駕馭日益複雜的數字環境。

So, how do these, well, seemingly harmless online communities transform into something that feels like an army?

那麼，這些看似無害的網絡社區是如何轉變成一支軍隊的呢？

We're going to start by dissecting their very anatomy, looking at the psychological manipulation and that sort of cult-like loyalty that can take hold.

我們將首先對它們進行解剖，看看它們的心理操縱和那種邪教式的忠誠。

Think of influence existing on a spectrum.

On one end, you have like healthy groups built on informed consent, where people make conscious choices.

一端是建立在知情同意基礎上的健康群體，人們會做出有意識的選擇。

On the other, you have more authoritarian structures that rely on undue influence.

另一方面，則是依賴不當影響的專制結構。

What we've observed is that a surprising number of online practices are leaning pretty heavily towards that authoritarian side, often because there's just a significant lack of transparency.

我們觀察到的情況是，很多在線實踐都在很大程度上傾向於專制的一面，這往往是因為透明度嚴重不足。

And from a behavioral science perspective, what's truly insidious isn't just what some creators communicate, but how they, well, weaponize human psychology itself.

從行為科學的角度來看，真正陰險的不僅僅是一些創作者所傳達的資訊，而是他們如何將人類心理本身武器化。

They're not just influencing thought, they're actively bending it.

他們不僅在影響思想，還在積極地扭曲思想。

They don't just attract followers, they actively recruit them.

他們不僅吸引粉絲，還積極招募粉絲。

這是經過深思熟慮的策略，對嗎？

They prioritize message first, facts optional, often turning engagement into a kind of loyalty test.

他們以資訊為先，事實可有可無，常常把參與變成一種忠誠度測試。

They use rage-triggering language to cultivate this intense emotional dependency.

他們使用激怒性語言來培養這種強烈的情感依賴。

And they craft these completely one-sided narratives designed specifically to isolate their followers rather than inform them.

他們精心製作這些完全片面的敘述，專門用來孤立他們的追隨者，而不是向他們提供資訊。

Once you're in, it's not really about being a fan anymore, it's about being a defender.

一旦你加入，你就不再是一個真正的球迷，而是一個後衛。

You start adopting their phrases, their tone, even their enemies, often just parroting content you haven't fully processed.

你開始採用他們的措辭、語氣，甚至他們的敵人，往往只是鸚鵡學舌，你還沒有完全理解其中的內容。

It's almost like putting on a digital uniform.

And that uniform often comes with its own specific language.

而這種制服往往有其特定的語言。

It reminds me strongly of things like loaded language and these thought-terminating cliches, you know, phrases like, everything happens for a reason, or trust the process, do your own research, maybe even you just don't understand.

這讓我強烈地聯想到一些東西，比如 "裝腔作勢的語言 "和 "這些會終止思考的陳詞濫調"，你知道，像 "萬事皆有因果"、"相信過程"、"自己去研究 "這樣的短語，甚至可能你根本就不明白。

These aren't innocent turns of phrase, they actually build a closed system of thinking.

這些並不是天真無邪的口頭禪，它們實際上構建了一個封閉的思維體系。

They effectively shut down critical examination and make it incredibly difficult to even consider different viewpoints.

它們實際上關閉了批判性的審查，甚至讓人難以置信地難以考慮不同的觀點。

It's designed to make you feel like you've already arrived at the conclusion, not that you're still in a discussion.

它的目的是讓你覺得你已經得出了結論，而不是你還在討論中。

That's exactly why the anecdote I shared at the beginning hit so hard.

這也正是我在開頭分享的那段軼事讓人印象深刻的原因。

It immediately made me think of an account we came across, the Striker Pack story.

這讓我立刻想到了我們遇到的一個故事，即 "前鋒包 "的故事。

This was a gaming community where the creator, Striker, had built this incredible sense of us against the world.

這是一個遊戲社區，創建者斯泰克（Striker）在這裡建立了一種 "我們與世界對抗 "的不可思議的感覺。

Being part of the pack felt like being in this exclusive club, you know, full of inside jokes and shared victories.

作為團隊中的一員，感覺就像加入了一個專屬俱樂部，你知道，這裡充滿了內部笑話和共同的勝利。

But then a really trivial argument with another streamer, basically a nothing burger, suddenly began this huge betrayal.

但後來與另一位流媒體人發生了一次非常微不足道的爭吵，基本上就是一個無足輕重的漢堡包，卻突然開始了這次巨大的背叛。

The other streamer was instantly declared the enemy and Striker told his pack, you know what to do.

另一個幡立刻被宣佈為敵人，前鋒告訴他的隊伍，你們知道該怎麼做。

Those old inside jokes were twisted into weapons.

那些老掉牙的內部笑話被扭曲成了武器。

The person recounting it said they felt this cold knot when they saw their own username attached to a message they barely remember typing.

講述者說，當他們看到自己的用戶名附在一條几乎不記得打過字的資訊上時，他們感到渾身冰冷。

The fun of being us was just gone, replaced by this, like, ugly obligation to hate them.

作為我們的樂趣蕩然無存，取而代之的是憎恨他們的醜陋義務。

It wasn't about defending a community anymore, it felt like being an anonymous soldier in someone else's petty war.

這不再是為了保衛社區，而像是在別人的瑣碎戰爭中充當一名無名阿兵哥。

我們在其他地方也看到了類似的情況。

That initial feeling of safety and empowerment in other groups, like one called The Circle, where the creator's message, whatever it was, offered this profound sense of security for people who felt like seekers.

在其他團體（比如一個叫 "圈子 "的團體）中，最初的安全感和力量感，無論創造者傳遞的資訊是什麼，都會給那些覺得自己是追尋者的人帶來深刻的安全感。

This whole transformation is fascinating and frankly, deeply concerning.

整個轉變令人著迷，坦率地說，也令人深感憂慮。

It forces us to ask, how does the shift from a fan base to an army so profoundly erode critical thinking skills?

這讓我們不禁要問：從粉絲群到軍隊的轉變如何如此深刻地侵蝕了批判性思維能力？

How does doubt turn into what feels like betrayal?

When creators foster these insular bubbles where really only agreement is rewarded, they start building communities and truly start shaping echo chambers.

當創作者營造出這些只有意見一致才能獲得回報的孤立氣泡時，他們就開始建立社區，並真正開始形成回聲室。

And inside these chambers, critical thinking isn't just discouraged.

而在這些密室裡，批判性思維不僅不受鼓勵。

It becomes collateral damage, seen almost as an act of disloyalty.

這成了附帶損害，幾乎被視為不忠行為。

And it's crucial to remember, this isn't just about individual creators acting alone, right?

重要的是要記住，這不僅僅是創作者個人的行為，對嗎？

This dynamic is profoundly intertwined with the social media platforms themselves.

這種動態與社交媒體平臺本身有著深刻的聯繫。

We're talking about groupthink with a Wi-Fi signal, essentially.

本質上，我們說的是帶有 Wi-Fi 信號的群體思維。

These platforms and their algorithms don't just facilitate these dynamics, they actively amplify them.

這些平臺及其算法不僅促進了這些動態，還積極地放大了它們。

They create echo chambers where agreement gets rewarded and dissenting opinions are basically filtered out or shouted down.

它們創建了回聲室，在這裡，同意的意見會得到獎勵，而不同意見基本上會被過濾掉或被大聲壓制。

The algorithms, well, they're designed to maximize engagement, right?

算法的目的是最大限度地提高參與度，對嗎？

And they often do this by constantly reinforcing your existing beliefs, which inevitably leads to extreme polarization.

而他們往往是通過不斷強化你現有的信念來做到這一點的，這不可避免地會導致極端的兩極分化。

And, you know, from a media studies viewpoint, it's really clear how platform design contributes directly to the escalation of extreme partisan animosity.

要知道，從媒體研究的角度來看，平臺設計是如何直接導致極端黨派敵意升級的，這一點非常明顯。

This isn't just about, say, declining trust.

這不僅僅是信任度下降的問題。

It impacts everything from civic discourse to tragically real world violence.

它影響著從公民話語到悲慘的現實暴力的方方面面。

The constant reinforcement of a single viewpoint without exposure to diverse opinions doesn't just strengthen existing beliefs, it hardens them.

不斷強化單一觀點而不接觸不同意見，不僅會強化現有信念，還會使其變得更加堅硬。

It fosters confirmation bias into an almost impenetrable shield.

它助長了確認偏見，使其成為幾乎堅不可摧的盾牌。

And this creates the perfect environment for misinformation and disinformation to spread like wildfire.

這就為錯誤信息和虛假資訊的瘋狂傳播創造了絕佳的環境。

We know from studies that false news travels significantly faster and farther than true news, something like 70 percent more likely to be retweeted.

我們從研究中得知，虛假新聞的傳播速度和傳播範圍明顯高於真實新聞，被轉發的可能性要高出 70%。

Well, because it often evokes stronger emotions like surprise or anger, making it feel more novel and, let's be honest, more shareable.

嗯，因為它往往能喚起更強烈的情緒，比如驚訝或憤怒，讓人感覺更新奇，而且說實話，更容易分享。

This reminds me of another account we looked at, The Echo Story.

這讓我想起了我們看過的另一個故事《回聲的故事》。

It was about someone whose brother, Leo, used to have these incredible debates with them.

那是關於一個人的故事，他的哥哥利奧經常和他們進行不可思議的辯論。

But after Leo discovered a podcast claiming to expose the narrative behind the news, their arguments just became circular.

但在利奧發現了一個聲稱要揭露新聞背後敘事的播客之後，他們的論點就變得循環往復了。

Leo would wave away reputable studies, just echoing the podcast host, saying things like you have to look at who funds them.

利奧會對有聲望的研究嗤之以鼻，只是附和播客主持人的話，說什麼你得看看是誰資助了這些研究。

It was like arguing with a recording, just retrieving these prepackaged defenses.

這就像是在和錄音機爭論，只是在檢索這些預先準備好的辯護詞。

The real debate partner was essentially lost.

真正的辯論夥伴基本上失去了。

And the real world consequences of this digital division are undeniably tangible and often tragic.

不可否認，這種數字鴻溝在現實世界中造成的後果是實實在在的，而且往往是悲劇性的。

This polarization, fueled by echo chambers, has led to a really noticeable decline in trust, trust in fellow citizens, trust in major institutions.

這種兩極分化在迴音室的推波助瀾下，導致信任度、對同胞的信任度、對主要機構的信任度明顯下降。

It's caused an erosion of democratic norms and a loss of faith in commonly held facts.

這導致民主準則受到侵蝕，人們對普遍持有的事實失去信心。

We've seen horrifying instances of real world violence, like the January 6th Capitol insurrection.

我們已經看到了現實世界中駭人聽聞的暴力事件，比如 1 月 6 日的國會大廈叛亂。

Other examples spring to mind, like the Charlottesville car attack, where James Alex Fields Jr. was apparently radicalized by white nationalist content online.

我還想到了其他一些例子，比如夏洛茨維爾汽車襲擊事件，小詹姆斯-亞歷克斯-菲爾茲顯然是被網上的白人民族主義內容激進化了。

Or the Christchurch mosque shooting, where Brenton Terence's manifesto, The Great Replacement, was published on 8chan, which is an infamous echo chamber.

還有基督城清真寺槍擊案，布倫頓-特倫斯（Brenton Terence）的宣言《偉大的替代》（The Great Replacement）發表在 8chan 上，而 8chan 是一個臭名昭著的回聲室。

And let's not forget the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, where Robert Gregory Bowers posted anti-Semitic messages on Gab, another platform known for its far-right user base.

別忘了匹茲堡猶太教堂槍擊案中，羅伯特-格雷戈裡-鮑爾斯（Robert Gregory Bowers）在另一個以極右翼用戶群著稱的平臺 Gab 上發佈了反猶太資訊。

Even figures with massive platforms, like someone like Kanye West, have had their anti-Semitic remarks amplified by algorithms, contributing significantly to these hate-filled echo chambers.

即使是像坎耶-韋斯特（Kanye West）這樣擁有巨大平臺的人物，其反猶言論也被算法放大，大大助長了這些充滿仇恨的迴音室。

And beyond individual radicalization, there's also this phenomenon called political astroturfing.

除了個人激進化之外，還有一種現象叫做政治斂財（political astroturfing）。

This is where fake accounts and coordinated disinformation campaigns create the illusion of grassroots support.

在這種情況下，虛假賬戶和協調一致的造謠活動就會造成基層支持的假象。