香港網台的碎片化：不僅僅是中國文化，而是「後危機」的必然

 

香港網台的碎片化：不僅僅是中國文化，而是「後危機」的必然

香港網台從「香港人網」的狂飆年代到現在 YouTube KOL 的散落全球，這場演變不僅是媒體型態的轉移，更是一場深層的社會學裂解。

為什麼總是分裂？

這種近乎強迫性的分裂，是由「個人崇拜」、「意識形態純潔性」以及「小圈子政治」共同驅動的：

1. 個人崇拜的宿命： 香港網台長期依賴「意見領袖（KOL）」的明星光環。網台的靈魂通常與主持人的個人魅力綁定。當兩個強勢人格（Alpha voices）在同一個平台無法相容時，分裂就成了必然。

2. 路線之爭與道德審判： 特別在 2014 與 2019 年後，網台內部對「抗爭路線」的意見分歧往往演變成「路線之爭」。一旦主持人間出現對「敵我關係」或「抗爭策略」的認知偏差，爭論往往會升級為對「忠誠度」的質疑，這迫使持不同意見者必須「出走」以證明自己的立場純潔。

3. 經濟誘因的重組： 隨著市場縮小，原本的大平台模式（養龐大團隊、租錄音室）變得不可持續。YouTube 的低門檻讓創作者意識到：與其在大台分佣，不如單飛。單飛後，直播斗內（Superchat）全部落入自己口袋，經濟上的理性決策助推了分裂。

4. 流散（Diaspora）的碎片化： 移居海外後，大家都在找尋新的生存模式。在英國或台灣，新的受眾基礎不穩定，為了搶奪有限的「離散香港人」眼球，競爭更趨激烈，這進一步促使了內容的極端化與碎片化。

這僅僅是中國文化嗎？

將一切歸咎於「中國文化」是危險的簡化。這種現象其實是「全球媒體去機構化」的縮影：

• 全球化趨勢： 看看美國的 Podcast 界或政治評論圈，同樣充滿了主持人的出走與結盟、再分裂。這是數位時代「去中介化」的結果——當每個人都可以透過手機成為一個小型廣播電台時，過去那種壟斷資訊的「大台」自然會崩解。

• 香港的文化特徵： 香港網台的特殊之處在於其「高風險性與高情緒感」。在國外，分裂可能僅僅因為創意不合；但在香港，分裂往往與「政治身分認同」掛鉤。這種分歧關乎「誰才是真正的抗爭者」、「誰是投機者」，這使得分裂過程比西方的同行更充滿恨意與情緒張力。

結論

這種碎片化是一個失去中心的社會所呈現的必然景觀。當傳統媒體體制失效，權威感便從「制度」下放到「個人」。現在沒有人能代表「香港聲音」，只有成千上萬個 KOL 各自宣稱代表那「真誠的香港精神」。

這種不斷分裂的現象，與其說是中國文化使然，不如說是「後危機社會的後遺症」。當社會失去共識，群體就會退回到最原始的「部落狀態」。在香港網台的世界裡，部落是以主持人的個性來界定的，而「分裂」不過是這個部落在確保自己內部立場夠「純」的防禦機制。

The Fragmentation of the Hong Kong Web-Radio Sphere: A Tribal Anatomy

 

The Fragmentation of the Hong Kong Web-Radio Sphere: A Tribal Anatomy

The evolution of Hong Kong’s web-radio landscape from the raw, rebellious days of Hong Kong People’s Radio to the fragmented, diaspora-led YouTube era is a textbook study in how media platforms mirror the society that births them. The shift from centralized "stations" to individual KOL channels is not just a technological transition; it is a profound sociological splintering.

Why the Constant Splitting?

The persistent fragmentation of this industry is driven by a volatile mix of ego, ideology, and the "narcissism of small differences":

1. The Cult of Personality: Unlike mainstream media, which relies on institutional branding, Hong Kong’s web-radio scene has always been built on the "star system." Figures like蕭若元 (Stephen Shiu) or 黃毓民 (Wong Yuk-man) functioned as anchors. When your platform is effectively an extension of a person's ego and ideological fervor, conflict is inevitable. There is rarely room for two "alpha" voices in one room.

2. Ideological Purity vs. Pragmatism: Especially in the post-2014 and post-2019 eras, the line between "true believers" and "pragmatists" became a chasm. Splitting often happens when the intent of the broadcast shifts from simple commentary to moral gatekeeping. Once a host is accused of being "not pro-democracy enough" or "too soft on the establishment," the only resolution is a walkout and the launch of a competing channel.

3. The Economics of Scarcity: As political tension rose and the local advertising market shrank, the revenue pie became too small to share among large production teams. It became more economically rational to move to a lean, home-based YouTube studio where one person captures 100% of the Superchat revenue rather than splitting it with a station.

4. The "Diaspora Effect": Migration forced many to start over. In the UK or Taiwan, the cost of entry is lower, but the need to distinguish oneself in an oversaturated market leads to further niching. Each host feels compelled to build their own "fortress of influence" to ensure their relevance abroad.

Is This Solely Chinese Culture?

To attribute this solely to "Chinese culture" would be a reductionist error. While the Confucian emphasis on the "master-disciple" dynamic and a tendency toward intense interpersonal loyalty (and subsequent betrayal) certainly plays a role, this pattern is a global symptom of the "De-institutionalization of Media."

• The Global Parallel: Look at the fracturing of the American talk radio scene or the evolution of independent political streamers on platforms like Twitch and YouTube. You see the same pattern: a host gains a following, disagrees with their employer's management or political direction, and launches their own independent channel. This is the "Substack-ification" of discourse.

• The Cultural Nuance: Where "Chinese culture" (or specifically, the Hong Kong political environment) does add a unique flavor is in the high-stakes nature of the content. In many Western countries, media splits are often about creative differences or salary. In the Hong Kong context, the splits are often existential. They are about who is the authentic voice of the movement, who is a traitor, and who is still "holding the line." The pressure is higher, the rhetoric is sharper, and the emotional toll is heavier.

The Verdict

The fragmentation is the byproduct of a society that has lost its center. When institutional legitimacy vanishes (or is suppressed), authority becomes decentralized. You no longer have "The Voice of Hong Kong"; you have a cacophony of thousands of individual voices, each claiming to speak for the "true" spirit of the city.

The web-radio diaspora is essentially a digital reflection of the physical diaspora. Just as the people have scattered, so too has the narrative. It is less a "Chinese" trait and more a "Post-Crisis" trait. When trust in traditional systems collapses, society reverts to tribal units. In the Hong Kong web-radio world, the "tribe" is now defined by the personality of the host, and the "split" is simply the tribe’s way of ensuring its own internal purity.

荒謬的鏡像：當「受害者檢討」被映照出原形

 

荒謬的鏡像：當「受害者檢討」被映照出原形

這段出自 1981 年《Revolting Women》的經典短劇，是一場精準的「諷刺手術」。透過將原本針對性暴力受害者的荒謬審訊，強行植入到一起「男性搶劫案」中，它完成了對受害者檢討（Victim Blaming）最致命的打擊。

當一名男子報案被搶，若警方詢問：「你為什麼要穿這件外套？這難道不是在誘惑搶匪嗎？」我們聽到的當下會覺得荒謬絕倫。然而，這種荒謬的邏輯，卻在過去幾十年裡，成為無數性侵害受害者求助時，必須吞下的社會苦果。這段短劇最卓越的地方，就在於它利用了這種巨大的「錯位感」。它強迫觀眾站在一個原本被視為「正常邏輯」的對立面，讓我們驚覺：原來這些針對女性受害者的質疑，放在任何其他情境下，都顯得如此令人作嘔。

為什麼這段影片能跨越四十年的時空，依然在網路上引發強烈共鳴？因為人性中存在一種根深蒂固的防衛本能：我們傾向於尋找受害者的「過失」，來給自己營造一種「只要我做得對，我就不會受害」的虛假安全感。這是一種心理上的懶惰，但在法律與司法體系中，這種懶惰演變成了結構性的壓迫，導致了「二次傷害」的氾濫。

這段諷刺喜劇的持久影響力，在於它不是透過辯論，而是透過「展演」來瓦解偏見。當我們看著 Mr. Phillips 被警官以同樣邏輯盤問時，我們感受到的憤怒是真實的，這種憤怒就是打破偏見的開端。只要我們的體系持續將防衛加害者的尊嚴，置於維護受害者的權利之上，那麼這段短劇就不只是喜劇，它更像是一份關於社會正義缺席的控訴書。它提醒我們，如果我們無法在對待所有受害者時都保持一致的同理心，那麼我們所談論的「正義」，不過是另一種形式的偽善。

The Mirror of Absurdity: Re-centering the Victims of Prejudice

 

The Mirror of Absurdity: Re-centering the Victims of Prejudice

The sketch "What were you wearing? Mugging sketch" from the 1981 BBC series Revolting Women is a masterclass in the weaponization of absurdity. By taking the toxic, systemic interrogation tactics typically reserved for sexual assault survivors and applying them to a male robbery victim, the writers achieved something profound: they broke the shield of "common sense" that usually protects such victim-blaming rhetoric.

When a person is robbed, we don't ask what color their wallet was. We don't ask if they "secretly wanted" their cash to be taken. We recognize these questions as irrational, insulting, and legally grotesque. Yet, for decades, that is precisely the psychological gauntlet women have been forced to run when reporting sexual violence. The genius of the sketch lies in its mirror effect. By making the police officer ask Mr. Phillips if his choice of jacket was "asking for it," the sketch exposes the underlying misogyny of the original interrogation logic. It forces the audience to see the victim-blaming for what it truly is: a mechanism of power, not a quest for justice.

Why does this continue to resonate so deeply, decades later? Because human nature is remarkably resistant to correcting its own biases until they are held up to the light of ridicule. We are conditioned to look for "reasons" for trauma because it makes us feel safe—we want to believe that if we don't do X, Y, or Z, then we are immune to catastrophe. This is a psychological defense mechanism, but when it is adopted by law enforcement or judicial systems, it becomes a structural form of secondary victimization.

The lasting power of this performance isn't just in its satire; it is in its ability to transform empathy. It turns a theoretical debate about "social justice" into an immediate, visceral experience of being wronged and then blamed for that wrong. It is a reminder that the most effective way to dismantle a harmful narrative is not just to argue against it, but to show how utterly ridiculous it sounds when the roles are reversed. As long as our systems continue to prioritize the mitigation of the perpetrator's guilt over the protection of the victim's dignity, sketches like this will remain less of a "comedy" and more of a documentary.

iPad 的反叛：當「Netflix」成為職工福利

 iPad 的反叛：當「Netflix」成為職工福利

在一個普通人連糊口都感到吃力的時代，一群年薪高達 7 萬 4 千英鎊（約 74 萬港元）的倫敦地鐵司機，為我們上了一堂生動的「當代傲慢」課。倫敦交通局（TfL）為了推進數字化改革，好意向這群高薪專業人士配發工作用的 iPad，期望提高效率。你可能會以為接下來的討論會聚焦於數據安全、班表管理或是訊號訓練。然而，這場會議最終演變成一場只有受到強大工會保護的勞工，才演得出的鬧劇。

根據《Evening Standard》爆料，在某次平板電腦發放會議上，工會代表對管理層發出的抱怨並非關於工作流程，而是理直氣壯地抗議：「這 iPad 螢幕太小了！根本沒辦法看 Netflix！你們應該換個大一點的給我們。」這一刻，我們看見了現代勞工運動的「尖端水準」——他們不再討論如何服務乘客，而是爭論雇主提供的設備是否足以滿足他們上班時「追劇」的需求。

這深刻揭示了人性中關於「舒適度」的貪婪本質。當人類一旦習慣了某種程度的特權，就不再視其為運氣，而將其視為理所當然的「基本人權」。如果下一年的福利沒有比今年更好，我們便會產生一種發自內心的、燃燒般的憤怒，覺得自己遭到了壓迫。我們建立了一個過度保護的制度，在那裡，「工作」這個詞早已與「職業素養」脫鉤。

這是機構保護主義最陰暗的一面。當一個組織大到不能倒、硬到不能改時，員工不再關心未來，只會關心哪裡能找到最舒適的地方「打混」。這是一個悲哀的寓言：當社會契約被無止盡的索求取代，勞動價值便隨之崩解。如果職場上最大的困擾，竟然是公司配發的平板電腦螢幕比例不夠大，那麼你不是脫離了現實，你只是住進了自己打造的鍍金牢籠裡。別以為這只是個別的笑話，這是一個時代走向平庸與怠惰的縮影。

The iPad Rebellion: The Unbearable Heaviness of Being a Subway Driver

 

The iPad Rebellion: The Unbearable Heaviness of Being a Subway Driver

In a world where the average worker is lucky to scrape together a living, a group of London Underground drivers—each pulling in a comfortable £74,000 per year—has provided us with a masterclass in modern entitlement. Transport for London (TfL), in a desperate, optimistic attempt to modernize its archaic operations, offered these highly paid professionals iPads as part of a push for digitization. You might expect a conversation about data security, shift scheduling, or signal training. Instead, the dialogue descended into the kind of farce that only a protected, unionized labor force can produce.

According to internal forums leaked to the Evening Standard, the response from a union representative regarding the new work-issued tablets was not about productivity, but about screen real estate. The complaint? "The screen is too small! We can't watch Netflix on this!" It is a staggering moment of clarity. Here we have the vanguard of the modern labor movement, essentially arguing that their employer-provided tools are insufficient for their primary daily objective: binge-watching television during their shifts.

Human nature is defined by the "ratchet effect" of comfort. Once we attain a certain level of privilege, we stop viewing it as a fortunate circumstance and start viewing it as a baseline right. If we don’t get a slightly better perk next year, we feel—with genuine, burning indignation—that we are being oppressed. We have built a system so insulated from the harsh realities of the competitive market that the concept of "doing a job" has been completely detached from the idea of "professionalism."

This is the darker side of institutional protectionism. When an organization becomes too powerful to fail and too stubborn to reform, its employees stop looking toward the future and start looking for the most comfortable place to snooze. It is a cautionary tale of what happens when the social contract is replaced by an endless demand for more. We aren’t just looking at lazy employees; we are looking at the natural outcome of a culture that has replaced the "work ethic" with the "entitlement ethic." If your biggest problem at work is the aspect ratio of your company-issued iPad, you haven’t just lost touch with reality—you are living in a gilded cage of your own making.

商店街的搶劫時代：當秩序崩塌，全民買單

 

商店街的搶劫時代：當秩序崩塌，全民買單

在現代英國的商店街上，店門口掛的招牌恐怕不該寫「營業中」，而該寫「歡迎零元購」。向來保持企業優雅形象的馬莎百貨（M&S）高層，最近不得不聯名寫信給倫敦市長薩迪克·汗（Sadiq Khan）與內政大臣馬曼婷（Shabana Mahmood），卑微地請求政府正視日益猖獗的店舖盜竊問題。零售總監 Thinus Keeve 的抱怨簡直是字字血淚：當犯罪被默許，當執法淪為口號，商界根本無力招架。

這是人性中陰暗面失控的必然結果。一個社會如果喪失了對「後果」的敬畏，將犯罪視為某種「被害者無感」的娛樂，那麼貨架被清空只是遲早的事。這是一場社會契約的慢速瓦解。但崩潰不僅止於收銀台，英國零售商協會（BRC）行政總裁 Helen Dickinson 一語道破殘酷真相：沒有所謂的「免費犯罪」。猖獗的竊盜成本，加上那種對企業極度不友善的官僚政策，最終全部轉嫁到了普羅大眾的購物籃裡。

歷史上有太多文明不是亡於外敵，而是亡於內部秩序的鬆弛。當政府無法履行保護商人、維持法治的最基本職責時，這個政權的根基就已經鏽蝕了。我們現在面臨的「生活成本危機」，早已不僅僅是全球能源價格波動的問題，而是我們正在被迫支付一筆高昂的「混亂稅」。我們花錢買的每一條麵包，都在為政府的無能買單，為那些寧願高談社會議題、卻不願在街角派駐一名警察的官僚買單。如果你想知道為什麼你的社區正在凋零，別怪經濟大環境，去看看那些絕望的店主，和那些大搖大擺走出店門的竊賊吧。這就是我們選擇縱容秩序崩塌後的代價。