今個禮拜六嘅天氣唔係幾好，今日又有幾十宗確診，最好呢就係留喺屋企睇書！呢個禮拜我都好想睇哂《娛樂至死》呢一本書【1】，我以為佢好薄，但係原來佢嘅文字都幾複雜，要慢慢睇先可以咀嚼個意思，就正正係作者話文字同圖像嘅分別係，我哋要理解每一隻字母嘅形狀、字母點樣配成一隻字；每個字點樣構成一句句子構成一個個抽象嘅概念，每一個概念點樣環環相扣，先至可以引伸到成為一個argument。然後一篇文、一本書就係由唔同嘅argument組成，所以解釋到有時點解我哋寫出來先諗到嘢。相比起一幅圖像，「a picture's worth a thousand words」可能係對作家、記者、任何有一啲複雜少少意見嘅人嘅惡夢。一幅相只能capture一個物體，但係文字可以指出、解釋抽象嘅概念、諗法、意見，圖像令人易於理解，但有啲嘢係圖像永遠冇辦法表達。就好似用emoji溝通，好似可以帶出真實嘅情緒多啲呀呵，但係我永遠無可能用emoji去表達呢個podcast想講嘅嘢。可能睇書要花時間，係有佢嘅原因嘅。

由於我仲係睇到一半嘅關係，所以有啲觀點我仲要消化下，但其中有一個觀點嘅印象好深，可能好似有啲離題，但係信我－－非常特別。佢提到Lewis Mumford，一位研究Philosophy of clocks（翻譯成：時鐘嘅哲學？？）嘅學者。佢話時鐘嘅發明將人類同大自然嘅關係切割，「Clocks has ‘the effect of disassociating time from human events and thus nourishes the belief in an independent world of mathematically measurable sequences」，時鐘增潤咗我哋認為大自然係獨立嘅、可以用數字去量度嘅世界嘅想法。人類由同大自然共同生活，到想用一件機器、數字同大自然溝通。做business嘅人相信都有聽過一句說話：「What gets measured gets managed」；時鐘嘅發明令到我哋變成time-keepers，之後變咗time-savers，最後time-servers。其實作者係想話：我哋對大自然嘅理解，用嘅係時鐘；我哋想了解文化，就應該了解我哋用嚟理解文化嘅工具、medium（媒體）。然後再指出文字都有佢嘅演變，由一本本嘅書，去到短篇少少嘅新聞，到電報、演講、收音機，然後去到電視。當然啦，佢冇寫到嘅係我哋由電視去到而家嘅社交媒體。佢唔係話某一種媒介有問題，而係媒介嘅dominance有深遠嘅影響。

雖然呢本書喺1984年寫成，但佢將主流媒介、媒體作為思想、文化載體嘅諗法仍然適用。佢亦都令我諗起Christopher Wylie（前幾集都有講過嘅Cambridge Analytica嘅Whistleblower吹哨人）對於點樣用data改變人心嘅理論。Wylie當時同Steve Bannon仲未合作，但係言談間佢哋討論乜嘢係「culture」（文化？）。政治係文化嘅延伸，想改變政治，就要改變文化。Wylie就問，咁究竟文化係啲乜？呢個似乎先至係個問題。答到呢個問題，就可以知道點樣改變文化。Wylie嘅理論係，「units of culture are people; this is why we use a lot of the same words to describe cultures as we do people, as ultimately culture is made up of people」。文化嘅單位係人，所以我哋形容文化嘅形容詞同形容一個人係一樣嘅。所以如果文化嘅單位係一個個嘅人，然後每一個人可以被佢哋嘅social data量化，咁我哋就可以量化文化。Again, what gets measured gets managed。人同文化之間嘅關係係trends。「And all a trend is a movement in a culture, what we call an information cascade—the kind of information that is just flowing through a culture—and you can measure that」。我唔想翻譯trend做潮流，而我亦都好希望抱怨我用好多英文嘅聽眾可以明白唔係所有嘢我都可以翻譯做中文。Trend講到尾係資訊嘅流通、傳遞，咁如果改變咗知識、信息嘅傳播，我哋就改變咗一個trend【2】。呢個同《娛樂至死》一脈相承，如果Cambridge Analytica做嘅嘢只係微調我哋嘅文化，但媒介由文字去到圖像嘅進化就係改變咗幾代人。

不如我哋跳出《娛樂至死》嘅框框，諗下我哋嘅未來應該何去何從呢？我想將佢嘅諗法延伸到未來嘅世界，做一個推演。首先我哋要估計未來會係一個點樣嘅世界，再諗吓《娛樂至死》圖像dominant嘅知識傳播model會有乜嘢問題。

最近Loreal出咗一個虛擬化妝系列，淨係喺zoom度先可以用【4】。可能你覺得好簡單，如果社交媒體都可以用filter，咁點解返工唔可以？公司係一個潮流由niche變成mass嘅指標，就好似以前波鞋一定唔可以返工著，而家normalise咗athletic wear，返工都可以著；以前紋身係黑社會，而家變成表達自己嘅一種，返工冇問題；以前牛仔褲只會係屋企著，而家甚至可以返工添。所以連zoom都可以用filter，就即係filter由niche變mass嘅分水嶺。不如我哋將所有possibilities推到極致，咁我哋以後應該乜嘢場合都可以用filter喇。一個人可以隨心用無限個filter都得，而filter除咗可以修飾，中國嘅主播仲話俾我哋聽，甚至可以改變成個樣。我究竟想講乜呢？

喺未來嘅世界，科技只會越嚟越深入我哋每一刻生活。我哋可能變得更加依賴科技同外面世界嘅接觸。你可能以為出到街會見到真實，但無幾耐大家應該會全部轉晒用Google Glass。咁就好啦，咁即係你係條街上面見到嘅人都係經過google glass，咁我就可以好似instagram咁set privacy，只有我嘅close friends先可以見到我呢一個樣，其他人只係會見到另外一個樣。覺得冇可能？又或者由於未來嘅世界可能已經太污染，我哋未必會經常出街，我哋真實嘅外表好似變得冇咁重要，就好似今次COVID咁，啲人買少咗好多好多衫。因為法律冇限制個filter可以改變幾多嘅樣，所以有可能一個人有10幾個好唔同嘅樣。喺未來，就算冇filter都可以由化妝去到喬裝嘅外表，加上filter嘅可能性令樣貌作為認證非常唔可靠，所以我哋嘅身份證唔再係基於樣貌，而係biometrics例如基因、瞳孔等等。我哋每買一個filter，政府個database都可以自動update，所以我哋嘅身份已經正式同外表脫離。如果我哋嘅外表係由科技製成，就正如Wylie所講，科技製造就即係可以量化，What gets measured gets managed。而當人人都用呢一啲filter，佢哋就唔會再係免費，同而家嘅化妝品一樣，販賣美麗。咁究竟審美觀會由乜嘢主宰呢？

靚嘅定義係稀有，科技democratise咗美，人人可以一樣咁靚，咁美仲有咩存在價值？係一個隨時都可以改變樣貌嘅世界，乜嘢先係靚呢？會唔會係每個filter都有佢嘅期限，越貴嘅就可以用耐啲？美嘅價值就在於邊個靚得最耐？又會唔會我哋步向緊一個大同社會，無論你係乜嘢年紀、種族、國籍，喺科技嘅filter之下，大家都係一模一樣？當我哋個個都有完美嘅外表，就即係net net冇咗外表，我哋嘅identity又係乜嘢？最近我睇到一個新嘅app叫做Clubhouse，佢係Silicon Valley嘅一個exclusive social network，佢淨係by invitation only，入面有唔同嘅chatroom，會員係入面嘅交流只限於聲音，並非一句起兩句止嘅文字或者樣貌。聽講都幾多人喺個waiting list度想join喎。

如果我哋將呢一個未來，連同《娛樂至死》入面嘅知識傳播model一齊諗，對比作者著重資訊嘅接收方式，我比較擔心嘅係資訊嘅輸出方式。如果我哋只係靠圖像作為主要渠道、被動地收集知識，而我哋亦都習慣用影像去輸出思想，無練習用文字作為輸出，而當我哋嘅未來只能以我哋嘅內涵同其他人用聲音同文字交流，我哋又剩低啲乜嘢呢？無咗外表呢一個臭皮囊，我哋嘅identity似乎就只剩下我哋嘅腦袋，「if the words you spoke appeared on your skin, would you still be beautiful?」

【1】Amusing Ourselves to Death - Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, Neil Postman (1984).

【2】https://www.vogue.it/en/news/daily-news/2018/05/09/interview-with-christopher-wylie-cambridge-analytica/?refresh_ce=

So we talk about culture as that’s what he wants to talk about. I was like, great, I love talking about this; we spent literally hours talking about what is culture? He tells me about Andrew Breitbart’s belief that politics exists downstream of culture, so if you want to change politics you have to change culture. I then said, if you want to change culture, you haven’t even told me what culture is yet—if you want to change something you first have to know what it is. What I told Steve Bannon was that the units of culture are people; this is why we use a lot of the same words to describe cultures as we do people, as ultimately culture is made up of people.

XC: The units are people, and from data’s point-of-view, people are comprised of what they have liked online and their data trail?

CW: Exactly. If the units of culture are people, and people can be quantified by their social data, then we can quantify culture using the internet, right? If we’ve then quantified culture, we can then change it. What he was talking about was very similar to what I was researching when I would take off my information warfare hat and put on my fashion hat, which was trends. He wanted to create a trend. And all a trend is a movement in a culture, what we call an information cascade—the kind of information that is just flowing through a culture—and you can measure that. Once you measure it you can then literally identify out the exact people who if they move slightly this way, you’ve then changed the culture.

【3】https://www.wired.com/story/what-is-clubhouse-why-does-silicon-valley-care/

【4】https://www.zdnet.com/article/loreal-debuts-virtual-makeup-for-work-from-home-video-meetings/