图片来源：视觉中国
自从英国脱欧和特朗普上台以来，关于新闻业前途，特别是“假新闻”相关的事情，就越来越成为各界关注的焦点，从仅有专业人士关注，过渡到了普通人也在谈论。
Since Teo and Trump came to power in the United Kingdom, there has been a growing focus on the future of journalism, particularly & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &, & & & & & & & & & &, & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & # & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & # & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & # # # # & # # # # & # & & & # & # # & # # # # # # # # & & & # # # # & & & & & # & & # # # # # # # # & & & & &
打击所谓“假新闻”、“另类事实”，或者对抗算法对人的潜移默化的影响，人们想到了各种各样的办法。
There are various ways to combat the so-called & & ldquo; false news & & & & & & & & & ; alternative facts & & & & & & & & &, or the effects of counter-calculation algorithms on the latentization of human beings.
《纽约时报》、CNN这样的大牌媒体，着重强调自己花了很多年打造的招牌，和传承的新闻专业主义精神。维基百科和由各类学校、NGO等主体运营的事实核查机构，也越来越多被媒体所倚重，曝光率日渐增长。
The New York Times, CNN, and other major media outlets, have highlighted the brands they have built for many years, as well as the propagating professionalism of the news. Wikipedia and the fact-finding bodies run by various schools, NGOs, etc., are also increasingly relied upon by the media, and their exposure is increasing.
除此之外还能在讨论中大放异彩的，就是区块链了。
What's more, it's the chain of blocks that's going to make a big difference in the discussion.
通过区块链来拯救媒体，实现媒体进化的讨论，一年多以来就没有停过。在不少国内外的权威媒体行业会议上，区块链也都被视为是“拯救”新闻业的明日之星。
The discussion of media evolution through block chains has not stopped for more than a year. In a number of authoritative media industry meetings, both at home and abroad, block chains have been seen as & ldquo; saving & rdquo; and the future star of journalism.
比较近的一次是6月11日在葡萄牙召开的2018年全球网络编辑大会（GEN），与会的区块链媒体践行者说，“可能在十年后，已经没有中心化的媒体了。”
More recently, the Global Network Editorial Conference 2018 (GEN), held in Portugal on 11 June, was attended by block-link media practitioners who said, “ probably 10 years later, there was no central media. & rdquo;
其实在积极的推动者看来，区块链哪里是去除假新闻这么简单，简直可以完全拯救新闻业的每个方面，面面俱到，无所不能。
In fact, in the view of the protagonists, where the block chain is so simple to remove false news, it can completely save every aspect of the press industry from everything.
今天航通社就来谈谈，区块链到底可以对新闻行业带来怎样的变化，发挥多大的能力。
Today, we're going to talk about how and how much power the block chain can make for the news industry. & nbsp;
理论上，区块链上的各个参与主体/节点是平等的，也就是分布式、去中心化的。这意味着，在各环节都设计周密，没有漏洞的前提下，数据/信息一旦上链，其传输将更安全、更不容易被中间篡改、从中经过的渠道/中间商更少。
Theoretically, the participating subjects/nodes on the block chain are equal, i.e. distributed and decentralized. This means that once the data/information is in the chain, it will be safer, less easily tampered with in the middle, and fewer channels/brokers will pass through it, with well-designed links and no loopholes.
具体到新闻业，几个比较典型的区块链应用模式，分别是体现在新闻的产生，事实核查，新闻的排序和分发这三个方面。
In the case of journalism, several of the more typical block-chain application models are reflected in the production of news, fact-checking, sequencing and distribution of news, respectively.
- 新闻的产生
有几个项目比如Steemit、Civil、Matters、PUBLIQ，旨在通过小额付费的方式，直接向新闻源头的个人提供报酬。道理很简单，因为“拿人钱财，替人消灾”，如果不知道钱从何来，写的东西大概可以相对客观一点。
There are several projects, such as Steemit, Civil, Matthews, PUBLIQ, which aim to pay individuals directly to the source of the news by paying small sums. The reason is simple, because & & & & & & & & & ; if you don’t know where the money comes from, you can probably write something that is relatively objective.
那么，钱从何来？目前已知的各个项目，提供了普通用户付费打赏、订阅作者，或通过购买服务、接纳广告主等方式，提前转移支付等方式。
So, where does the money come from? The projects that are currently known provide for general user fees, subscriptions to authors, or early transfer payments through the purchase of services, acceptance of advertisers, etc.
也就是说，如果你已经形成了为好文章付费的意识，可以顺理成章地赞赏作者；如果你喜欢看免费的，可以通过跟传统无异的广告方式收看。
In other words, if you have developed a sense of paying for a good article, you can justifiably appreciate the author; if you like to see free, you can see it in traditional advertising.
不同的是，广告主提交的广告费则打入同一个池子里，在完全打散以后，根据读者阅读、点赞、评论等行为习惯确定偏好，以相应的比例分配给作者。
In contrast, advertising fees submitted by advertisers are placed in the same pool and, after complete dissipation, preferences are determined on the basis of the reader's habits of reading, praising, commenting, etc., and allocated to authors in proportion.
鉴于区块链上用户活动可以通过公开发行Token（代币/通证）进行，一些项目还面向币圈资本市场，通过ICO（首次公开发行代币）获取自身生态系统之外，来自外部市场的资金。投射到“古典互联网”，大致相当于媒体集团上市募股。
Given that user activities on the block chain can be carried out through the public distribution of Token (demonstration/passport), some projects are also oriented towards the capital market in the currency circle, where funds from outside the external market are obtained through the ICO (for the first time in the public distribution of tokens).
- 事实核查
区块链本身不能进行价值判断，但可以用于确保人工核查员得出的结论，在传递给读者的过程中不会被中间人篡改。
The block chain itself cannot make value judgements, but it can be used to ensure that the conclusions reached by the manual inspectors are not tampered with by intermediaries in the process of transmitting them to the reader.
广受欢迎的去广告插件ADBlock Plus开发商Eyeo的新浏览器插件Trusted News，既可以确保从维基百科、Snopes这样的人工事实核查机构提取的新闻真实性信息不被篡改，又可以通过评估或者是其他评分的方式，来确定一些最终用户的可信度，并且为这些人分配权重。
The popular de-advertisement plugin, ADBlock Plus Developer Eyeo's new browser plugin, Trusted News, can both ensure that news authenticity information extracted from artificial fact-verification bodies such as Wikipedia and Snopes is not tampered with and determine the credibility of some end-users by assessing or other rating methods and allocating weights to them.
再接下来，就可以通过这部分民间事实核查员，实现核查过程的部分众包。
This could be followed by a partial crowding-out of the verification process through this part of the civilian fact-checker.
事实核查只用到了区块链的不可篡改性，基本不涉及金钱利益，因此也是几种应用当中最容易出成果的一种。
Fact-finding uses only the inexorable nature of the block chain, with little financial benefit, and is therefore one of the most productive of several applications.
- 新闻的分发
在这个环节应用区块链，主要是希望尽可能真实的，不带偏见的去反映用户在看过新闻之后的动作，以及推断其背后的真实意义，并保证算法不会被扭曲。
Applying block chains in this chain is primarily a desire to be as true as possible, to reflect without prejudice the actions of users after seeing the news and to extrapolate the meaning behind it, and to ensure that algorithms are not distorted.
为何要在商业公司业已成型的算法基础上另起炉灶？这部分推动者假定，像是Facebook或今日头条这样的公司，虽然存储了最大量，也最理想的用户原始操作数据，并且有着最聪明的头脑帮他们设计算法。
Why build on the algorithms that commercial companies have developed? Some of the protagonists assume that companies like Facebook or today’s headlines, while storing the largest and most desirable user raw operating data, have the smartest minds to help them design algorithms.
但是在利用以及向外展现这些数据的时候，则不可避免会夹带公司的“私心”，或者是“私货”，甚至还有可能会因为自己对数据占有的优势，有意识的去引导用户做或不做某方面的行动——当然，一切假设都没有证据来证实。
But when using and presenting these data to the outside world, it is inevitable that & & & & rdquo; & & & & & & & ; & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &.
所以，区块链推动者认为，自己通过区块链所设置的不可逆转，无/低人工干预的分发方式，能够尽可能准确的去反映用户行为，且不被商业力量左右。
Thus, the block chain promoters believe that they are able to reflect user behaviour as accurately as possible and are not subject to commercial force through irreversible, non-/low manual interventions in distribution through the block chain.
以上是我对目前所有通过区块链方式，来改良新闻传播全流程的做法的一个粗浅的总结。
This is a rough summary of all current approaches to improving the flow-wide dissemination of information through block chains.
但如果仅基于所抽象出来的这三种不同的路径，那么实际上，我丝毫没有看到现在开始使用区块链来变革新闻传播流程的必要性。
But if only on the basis of the three different paths that are abstract,
基于区块链的新闻业，是否跟使用现有方式运转的新闻业之间，存在着足够巨大的、革命性的差别，以至于你宁愿下大力气抛弃旧社会，拥抱新世界？
Is there a sufficiently large and revolutionary difference between the sector-based news industry and the news industry, which operates in the current way, to the extent that you prefer to put the old society behind you and embrace the new world?
航通社认为，站在2018年的今天看，并非如此。
IATA believes that this is not the case when I stand today in 2018.
现有的系统已经足够好用，而新系统的切换成本，并不足以被它所带来的好处而弥补。在这种情况下，使用新系统来替代就是不划算的。
Existing systems are already good enough, and the switching costs of the new system are not sufficient to be compensated for by the benefits they bring, and it would not be cost-effective to replace them in such a case.
- 钱依然是个问题
绝大多数网络用户的付费意愿都极低，但要它们迁移用户习惯则相对很费劲。通俗的说，不仅不能指望从用户身上赚钱，你还得花钱买用户。
The vast majority of Internet users have a very low willingness to pay, but it is relatively hard to move them. In general, not only can you not expect to earn money from them, but you have to pay for them.
即使不是“更愿意拿隐私换效率”（李彦宏语）的中国用户，也是一样。比如#deletefacebook（因“剑桥分析”等事件愤而到Facebook销号的运动）热度消退，也就是不到一个月的事。
The same is true even if it is not “ if it is not & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &, & & & & & & & & & &, & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & ) & & & & & & & & & ) & & & & & & & & ) & & & & ) & & & & & & ) ) & & & & & # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
有可能有些人会很愤怒，但更多的人是不以为然。如果让多数人去换用一个仅仅是“可能更安全”的替代品（哪怕是免费的），他们并没有那样的动力。
Some people may be angry, but many more do not. If most people are given to switch to just & ldquao; possibly safer & rdquao; and if they are free of charge, they are not motivated to do so.
而且，“刑罚的威慑力不在于刑罚的严酷性，而在于其不可避免性。”对于享受免费服务的用户而言，免费服务对其的损伤可能是长期的、慢性的，更可能是不确定的。
Moreover, “ the deterrent of the penalty is not the severity of the penalty, but the inevitability of it. & & & rdquao; for users who have access to free services, the damage to free services can be long-term, chronic and more likely uncertain.
虽然总有人提醒你，广告和偏向性算法会让你存有偏见，被特定厂商误导，信息泄露等等，然而并不会有人承诺，只要你使用免费的新闻客户端多少天以后，就一定会遭受身体病痛，亲人变故，或者价值多少多少美元的损失。
While you are always reminded that advertising and biased algorithms can lead to bias, being misled by a particular manufacturer, leaking information, etc., there is no commitment that, as long as you use free news clients, you will suffer physical pain, family members will change, or how much dollars will be lost.
如果“假新闻”或者别的什么也好，没有为用户带来这样确定的关联，而始终只是一种概率上的隐患，那实在没有什么指望让用户跳出原有的习惯。
If & & ldquo; false news & rdquao; or anything else, without such a defined connection for the user, is always only a risk of probability, there is little hope that the user will get out of the way.
所以，区块链化的媒体，到头来还是要自己想办法解决资金来源。直接打赏极其难以走通。而长期订阅模式、单篇付费墙模式、以及前面提到过的广告转移支付方式，哪个不是现在没有区块链的媒体已经走过的路？
So, in the end, the serialized media have to solve their own sources of funding. Direct rewards are extremely difficult to access. And long-term subscription models, single-paying wall models, and the advertising transfer payments that have been mentioned earlier, which is not the way that a media that does not have a block chain now has gone?
那么区块链是做到了“没有中间商赚差价”呢，还是让广告主或者最终读者觉得更超值，所以花钱更多了呢？——还是通过走一波ICO作为最主要的回报来源呢？——恐怕都很难说。
So is the block chain & & & & & & & & & & & & & & ; whether it's more expensive for the advertiser or the end reader to think it's worth more? & mdash; & mdash; or whether it's through a wave of ICOs as the main source of return? & mdash; & mdash; it's hard to say.
- 读者有私心
上面说了，读者是需要花钱买的。而当他们购买了服务，转化成功为“用户”之后，他们跟媒体之间的对应关系也随之改变，不再处于平等地位了。
It says that readers need to pay for their services. And when they buy the services and transform them into &ldquao; the users & & rdquao; then their relationship with the media changes and they are no longer on an equal footing.
前读者，现用户们摇身一变成为千里之外的“老板”，以自己的眼光、履历、价值观来判断这篇文章“值不值得我花这么多钱”。
Former readers, current users shake into thousands of miles away & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & ; & & & & & & ; & & & & & &.
怎么判断呢？
How do you judge that?
- 我能不能通过其他免费或者省钱的方式看到获取同样的信息（绕过付费墙）；
- 这文章是不是合我的胃口；
- 我读起来是不是自我感觉得到了帮助，受到了震撼，甚至实现了自我提升等等。
这些标准和新闻专业判断报道好坏的标准，显然不尽相同。例如就“合胃口”来看，这依然走的是一条兴趣驱动的选择路线，那么经过非区块链环境多年熏陶的标题党、营销号，显然是战斗力十足。
These standards and the standards of journalistic judgment for good and bad reporting are clearly different. For example, &ldquao; appetite & rdquao; this is still an interesting-driven selection route, and it is clear that the title party, marketing number, which has been inundated for many years through non-block chain environments, is highly combative.
即使是正常文章，评价标准也可能是蜕变为更刺激的，更深度的，更催人泪下的，而这几乎一定会导致评价机制的扭曲，例如认为短文章不如长文章“深度”“有料”，催化文章越写越长/水。
Even in normal articles, evaluation criteria may be transformed into more exciting, deeper and tearier evaluation mechanisms, which almost invariably lead to distortions in evaluation mechanisms, such as the perception that short articles are less long than long articles & ldquo; depth & & rdquao; & & & & ldquao; good & rdquao; and the more long/water the catalytic articles are written.
读者的审美能力不够，甚至会引发排斥异己的极端状况。
The lack of aesthetic competence of readers can even lead to extreme exclusion.
试问，一旦出现这种读者选择和专业人士选择明显冲突的局面，区块链是会化解，还是加剧分歧？要化解的话，靠什么？增加专业人士的权重？那专业人士的人选怎么认定？其他读者一气之下不跟你玩了，活跃度下降了呢？
The question is, if there is such a situation of apparent conflict between the choice of readers and the choice of professionals, will the chain of blocks resolve or exacerbate the differences? If so, by what means?
试图实现“被报道权”的平等的机构，包括维基百科创始人创建的WikiTribune，以及更早十多年前的“全球之声”GlobalVoices。
Attempts to achieve & ldquo; the right to be reported & rdquo; equal institutions, including Wiki Tribune, founded by the founder of Wikipedia, and & & ldquo, more than 10 years ago; Global Voices & & rdquo; GlobalVoices.
航通社认为这两个站点的模式类似，是团队评估可信的少数供稿者和编辑，采取中心化的投稿方式。因为它们旨在提供主流媒体设置的议程之外的冷新闻，观众投票决定热度和版面的方式几乎是失效的。
In the view of IAA, the two sites are similar in their models and are team-based assessments of a credible minority of contributors and editors, using a centralized presentation. Because they are designed to provide cold news beyond the agenda set by the mainstream media, the way the viewers vote for heat and layout is virtually ineffective.
比如，繁体中文的“全球之声”老是关心台湾少数族裔的发展，英文版则总是关注中东战场。这些真的很难让大众感兴趣。相对地，WikiTribune会多一些美国政治，报道也尽力做了持平处理，但还是很难强力扭转大家关注的视角。
For example, Chinese-style & ldquo; Global Voices & & rdquo; always concerned with the development of the Taiwan minority, the English version is always concerned with the Middle East battlefield. These are really hard to get popular interest.
可以想见，这类社区就算引入区块链，其用户参与度也将是肉眼可见的惨淡。
As one can imagine, even if such communities were to introduce block chains, their user participation would be minimally visible.
- 媒体也有私心
现在的机构媒体，尽管声音一定程度被分薄，但总体上其实并未丢掉自己设置议程的能力。它还是可以通过一些话题的周期性，或专门策划的运作，来让大家的视线转移到某些特定方向上的。
Today’s institutional media, although somewhat thinly divided, does not, in general, lose its ability to set its own agenda. It can move people’s eyes in certain directions through the cyclical nature of some topics, or through specially designed operations.
但是，议程设置是一种有限效果的操作。并不是任何问题或者新消息都有条件成为大众关注的热点，自身不带有传播能力的“生造热点”，只会如明星尬上热搜一般令人无感，甚至反感。
But agenda setting is a limited exercise. It is not that any problem or new news can be a hot spot for the public, with no propagating power & & & & & & & & hot spots & & & &, which can only be unsatisfied or even repulsive as a star on fire.
所以，媒体在长期进化过程中，可以说形成了一种与读者/观众之间带有默契的“合谋”。
Thus, in the long-term evolution of the media, it can be said that a & & ldquo; conspiracies & & rdquo have been formed with the reader/observer.
我们都知道大家喜欢看什么，但在同类型的一大堆事当中，我可以帮你挑，帮你决定今天看这个，不看那个。
We all know what you like to see, but of the same kind of stuff, I can pick it out for you and decide to watch it today, not that.
如果是这样的话，那么一些在原有的新闻业机制下，本来就得不到关注，发不出声音来的新闻，在新的体制之下，不管由谁评判，同样无法出声。
If that were the case, it would be impossible for some news to be heard under the existing press mechanisms, without being heard, or under the new system, regardless of who judged it.
例如，始终会有战乱地区又爆炸了死了多少人的新闻。这类新闻离大部分用户都比较远，可能也没有很大兴趣，就直接跳过去了。
For example, there will always be news of how many people have died in a war zone.
而某些恶性伤人案件发生以后，此前一些媒体凭借专业触觉，会去采访施暴者的家庭环境，探寻罪恶的根源。这类报道最近却被读者广泛“抵制”，其原因是“加害者都有人替他说话，那么谁来关心受害者呢？”“犯罪就是犯罪，没有那么多好说的”。
In the wake of some malignant cases, some of the media, with their professional touch, were able to interview the perpetrator’s family environment and look for the root causes of the crime. Such reports have recently been widely read &ldquao; boycott &rdquao; because &ldquao; because the perpetrator has a voice on his behalf, so who cares about the victim? &rdquao; & & ldquao; crime is a crime, not so much to say & rdquao;
为了避免读者对媒体出现长远的负面评价，一些新闻此前就很难由媒体刊发，有了区块链也会是一样。
In order to avoid a long-term negative perception of the media by readers, some news stories had previously been difficult to publish by the media, as would be the case with a block chain.
更不用说，一些区块链项目本意是打破单位区隔，促进不同媒体之间的分工合作，将现在本就逐渐萎缩的调查记者、采访报道团队力量整合起来，但实际操作过程中，媒体们浅尝辄止尚可，伤筋动骨则大大的不行。
Not to mention, some of the block chain projects were intended to break down divisions and promote a division of labour between the different media, bringing together investigative journalists and interview teams, which were now shrinking, but in practice, the media had a lot to do and the mutilated bones had a lot to do with it.
例如Civil是这么做的：
For example, Civil did this:
“用户可以自由发起新闻主题，其他用户可以通过贡献CVL代币附议该新闻主题，当集资金额达到一定限度时，记者或新闻机构将会对该主题进行认领，组织报道。”
& ldquo; Users are free to initiate news topics, other users can give CVL tokens to co-sponsor the news topics, and when the amount of funds collected reaches a certain limit, journalists or news agencies will identify the subject and organize their coverage. ”
这应该是前些年媒体开放爆料的一个变种，像是CNN iReport这样。但这个系统是一种把不同媒体的爆料渠道打通的尝试。
This is supposed to be a variant of the media releases of the previous years, like CNN iReport. But the system is an attempt to connect different media outlets.
对于是不是要打通，媒体可以说心态比较复杂。它当然最希望自己的消息是独家的；而且在此前的模式下，所谓“职业报料人”和现在的自媒体一模一样，也是一个线索多投的。
The media can be said to be more complicated about whether or not to get through. Of course, it wants its message to be exclusive; and under the previous pattern, the so-called & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &, as is now the case with the media.
所以“古典互联网”和“区块链+”，在给媒体提供新闻线索的效率方面，可以说不相上下。
So & ldquao; classical Internet & & rdquao; and & & & ldquao; block chains + & rdquao; can be said to be comparable in terms of efficiency in providing the media with news leads.
更重要的是，目前对社交媒体热点的利用，才是最主流的机构媒体追热点方式，而且转载微博并不需要交钱或者代币……
More importantly, the current use of social media hotspots is the most dominant way of pursuing institutional media, and reproducing microblogging does not require money or tokens & Hellip; & Hellip;
像《卫报》、CNN这些机构，面对这些新出的跟区块链相关的媒体革新，普遍持有的态度是像对待Web2.0、Facebook、Snapchat这些曾经的热点一样，以一种恒定不变的节奏，浅尝辄止地参与，直到大概率确定了玩法和投入产出比以后，才可能大规模部署。
In the face of these new media innovations associated with block chains, such as the Guardians, CNN and others, the prevailing attitude is to engage at a constant pace, as with the former hotspots of Web 2.0, Facebook and Snapchat, and to be able to deploy on a large scale only after presumably determining how to play and input output.
所以，就算区块链倡导者们在论坛上再怎么口吐莲花，实际的执行过程，对媒体和普通读者而言，依然会是极其漫长和保守的。
Thus, the actual implementation process, even though block chain advocates spit on lotions in the forum, will be extremely long and conservative for the media and the general reader.
最后再提一句。很多区块链媒体的创业者，都愿意特别提到一点——“不会有任何广告商和第三方利益集团牵涉到商业模式的运作”。
Finally, many entrepreneurs in the block chain media would like to mention in particular & mdash; — &ldquao; there would be no advertisers and third-party interest groups involved in the operation of the business model & & rdquao;
航通社认为，任何号称要隔离商业利益的新闻运作模式，都难以实现它声称的目的。
In the view of IATA, any information mode of operation that purports to isolate commercial interests is difficult to achieve its stated purpose.
当报料人、记者有私心，媒体有私心，读者更是有个人偏好的时候，任何对“利益集团”的识别和提取都会相当艰难。
Any identification and extraction of & & ldquao; interest groups & & rdquao is difficult when newspaperers and journalists are self-serving, the media are self-serving and readers are more personal.
我很好奇这些媒体将如何定义小凤雅事件当中的部分NGO组织。相对传统媒体来说，它们肯定属于爆料的“公民”；但其为自身NGO宣传和主张权益的属性，是报道深入之后才被发现的。这条线甚至最终影响了报道走向，让一切被不断“反转”。
I wonder how these media will define some of the NGO organizations that are part of Pygmy events. They must be & & & & & & & & & & ; for traditional media, but their attributes to their NGO propaganda and advocacy are only discovered when the coverage is advanced. This line even eventually affects the flow of coverage and keeps everything going & & & & rdquo; reverse & & & & ;
真正能做到去商业影响的媒体是什么样的？
What kind of media can really have a commercial impact?
恐怕，仅仅声明和商业力量隔离是不够的，而且它还应当是理想主义者的巢穴，要拿出反商业的，与商业为敌的实际行动。在此之外，还得破除上文提到的一切障碍，享有可以解释得通的资金来源（比如继承了遗产什么的）。
I am afraid that it is not enough to claim that commercial forces are isolated, and that it should be an idealist’s nest, with anti-commercial, business-offensive action. Beyond that, all the obstacles mentioned above must be removed, with an accountable source of financing (e.g. inheritance or something).
唯一都做到的，估计就是Wikileaks了。巧了，它现在很多捐助渠道走不通，还真得依靠比特币活着，这可以说非常“区块链”了。
The only thing that happens is Wikileaks. By coincidence, it has a lot of donor channels to go through and depend on Bitcoin for its survival, which can be said to be very & ldquao; block chains & rdquao;
【钛媒体作者介绍：航通社 (ID:lifeissohappy)，微博：@lishuhang】
[Introduction by titanium media author: ANAC & nbsp; ID:lifeessohappy, Weibo: @lishuhang]
注册有任何问题请添加 微信：MVIP619 拉你进入群
打开微信扫一扫
添加客服
进入交流群
发表评论