They've admitted that they are aware that they're doing it and that everything is working as intended. On YouTube, I have about 450,000 subscribers. 在优兔上，我大概有45万粉丝。 But on the front end, they only show you about 300,000 due to some issues, where they're intentionally hiding my subscriber count. 但在前端，由于某些原因，只显示约三十万粉丝。优兔故意隐藏我的粉丝数。 My videos get demonetized. My subscribers get removed. The likes get removed, the share count... every metric of a success of a channel gets reduced. 我的视频被去掉广告，我的粉丝被移除，点赞被取消，分享数下降……每个衡量账号成功的维度都受到打压。 As if they want to rub salt into the wound, another thing they do is they boost particularly pro-separatist videos in their ranks. But instead, what I find is the first top five are the most recent, and then the sixth one is one from two months ago by a known racist person against Chinese people with less views than my pro-China video from two months ago. 但我看到的情况是，前五个视频是最新发布的，第六个视频是两个月之前的，是由一个反华种族主义者发布的，而且浏览量不如我两个月前发布的支持中国的视频。 The message that they're trying to cultivate is that they are on the side of Hong Kong, because Hong Kong is fighting for democracy and we have democracy and we want them to have a democracy, and so they are the righteous ones and everything that they're doing is right. We need to support them. 优兔想给人们灌输一种思想，那就是，香港正在为“民主”奋斗，我们是“民主”的，所以我们要站在香港一边。香港抗议者是“正义”的，他们所做的一切都是“正确”的，我们必须支持他们。 And I think there are several problems with that narrative and they don't want to hear it, and they don't want others to hear it. 我认为优兔这种观点这是有问题的，但是他们自己不想听到别的声音，同时也不想让别人听到。 I think it surprises some people that YouTube is actually active in the content. 有些人可能会吃惊，因为他们不知道优兔其实对于内容是有筛选的。 What YouTube is doing is they're trying to get the best of both of those worlds. What they're doing is they're controlling the content, but not taking responsibility for the content. 优兔企图两个便宜都占了，他们在控制内容却不对内容负责。 The biggest problem with YouTube is that it does all this while it also tries to proactively crush all competition. So it's established a monopoly on the Western media platforms. 优兔最大的问题在于它在这样做的同时也在打压竞争对手，在西方媒体平台上形成垄断。 So what that means is that somebody like myself, if I want to reach people in the West, I don't have any other options. 这就意味着，像我这样的博主如果想获得西方网友的关注，除了优兔别无选择。 They are removing competition and crushing dissenting voices. They're also not practicing their own freedom of speech. 他们扫清竞争、消灭反对的声音，但也没有履行自己的言论自由的承诺。 What I see from the West is overwhelmingly only one side of the Hong Kong issue. 我看到的是，西方在香港问题上充斥着单方面的声音。 I've seen videos of them dragging people out of cars and beating them on the street, throwing Molotov cocktails into police headquarters and all kinds of other violent actions. 我看过抗议者把人从车里拽出来当街殴打的视频，他们往警察总局扔燃烧瓶，还有一系列其他的暴力行径。 My message really is to be fair, to understand the situation and to be honest about the situation. 我想说的是媒体要保持公平，理解局势并诚实地报道局势。 It's quite interesting and disturbing to see because there's so much of it going on that they actually create this bubble, where they know that no one's going to challenge them. And so they get very sloppy and loose with their reporting. 这其实很有趣但也令人不安，因为一种报道声音出现得太多了，他们就制造出了一个幻象。而且他们知道没人会质疑他们，所以在报道的时候就会更加不严谨、随心所欲。 And they report in ways that they would never be allowed to report about American or British activities or news. So they'll say things that are very easy to fact-check and see that's totally wrong, and yet no one will check them. 他们在用一种报道美英事务时绝不被允许的方式来报道香港。其实他们的报道很容易进行事实核实，只要核实就会发现，他们说的是完全错的，然而并没有人去核实（香港新闻）。 When we see rioters throwing Molotov cocktails into buildings and then getting tear-gassed, the reports from CNN will say police tear gas protesters. 我们看见暴徒往大楼扔燃烧瓶，然后警方投掷催泪弹。CNN的报道会说，警方向抗议者投掷催泪弹。 And then buried somewhere in the article, maybe they'll say “petrol bomb” somewhere in there. But the point of the article, the headline, is that the police did something bad to these innocent protesters. And so that's one example of how they'll do things. 然后在文章某个隐蔽的地方提一句燃烧瓶，但整篇报道大标题是警方对无辜的抗议者施暴，这就是他们报道手法的一个例子。
Technically they're telling the "truth", but they're quite obviously emphasizing something in a way to deemphasize something else.