When the bosses start speaking up themselves

Foreign bigwigs are becoming more and more "abstract" in the way they create content.

They are less likely to accept formal interviews and prefer to speak up on their own, having casual chats with a few friends. Executives at OpenAI, investors at a16z, and even Elon Musk now love having these "casual chats anywhere."

With just a table, a mobile phone, a few acquaintances, and a fill light bought from an online marketplace, they can start recording. There may not be a set topic, but the content is very free: they talk about companies, industries, philosophy, and occasionally some gossip.

That kind of state is particularly "human - like."

I'm not sure if the term "human - like" is accurate, but it's really different from the past refined interviews: they don't pursue perfect rhetoric, aren't afraid of awkward silences, and don't care if someone interrupts. Instead, it has an earthy charm.

01

This really makes me curious: why do they increasingly like this way?

Because the media environment has changed.

A few years ago, the media was the only amplifier. If you wanted to be seen, understood, and written into the mainstream narrative, accepting an interview was almost a status symbol.

Now the media has become a clipping factory, full of clickbait. One sentence is split into ten short videos, and one view is cut into two stances. You want to present logic, but they create conflicts for you; you want to express your views, but they play up emotions.

As a result, more and more people find that for every one sentence they say, they have to explain ten more.

Over time, many people, especially company leaders and founders, are afraid of being "processed" into traffic materials. The more you explain, the more mistakes you seem to make; the more you stay silent, the more likely people are to imagine things.

I saw a set of data yesterday from the "2025 Digital News Report," which tracks global news consumption trends every year. I personally think it's quite reliable and truly reflects the current public opinion ecosystem.

What does it say?

The credibility of the media is only 40%. In other words, about 60% of the information has been processed, distorted, exaggerated, or rewritten two, three, or even N times.

Interestingly, another form is on the rise: video podcasts.

Spotify announced that the average daily podcast playback volume has increased by more than 39% year - on - year, and there are already more than 250,000 video podcast programs on the platform. Some media even say the number is close to 330,000. Most of this content is recorded by founders and industry practitioners themselves.

Abstract, right?

I can't really explain what this means, but I can clearly feel a rift: when you open content platforms, the headlines are becoming more and more extreme, and taking things out of context has become the norm.

Yesterday, when I was scrolling through Weibo, I saw a blogger posting a photo of herself holding a water flosser, wearing pajamas, with a bathroom in the background, taking a photo in front of the mirror. I really thought she was brushing her teeth at that time and was thinking, "It's strange to take a photo while brushing teeth." But when I clicked on it, it turned out to be an advertisement.

Can you stand this? Using a girl's photo to deceive people. I'm such a naive person. Sigh.

So now, when I see any news, my first reaction is: Is it true? Is there an original source? Sometimes, after reading a whole report, I feel that it's not as clear and honest as listening to an industry insider chatting in a podcast.

To be honest, my current screening logic is very simple: categorize.

Is this news? A methodology? In - depth observation? Or just pure emotional output? If the content has no practical value from the start, I just swipe it away. After all, in the era of information explosion, discrimination has become a new survival skill.

So, on the one hand, the fragmentation of the media makes people more and more anxious and skeptical, and on the other hand, it also puts those who really want to express themselves in a "self - proof" dilemma.

02

Have you ever thought about how people will react when speaking becomes a high - risk action?

I remembered that Yu Minhong gave a speech at Peking University some time ago. He got on the hot search because of the sentence "Consumers are not gods; they are not forgiving."

When I first saw the video, I was also stunned for a moment.

After all, we are used to hearing the saying "Customers are gods." Suddenly, someone tells you "You are not forgiving," which is like being splashed with a bucket of cold water.

But if you look closely, he wasn't "confronting consumers." It's more like an old entrepreneur sighing: No matter how hard you try, consumers can still turn away without hesitation.

If this was just said casually at the dinner table, no one would think there was a problem. But once it was said on the Peking University podium, it was interpreted as "class - related remarks."

The key here is called "context misplacement." What does it mean?

You can think of it as a "whispering game." The entrepreneur is talking about business logic, while the audience is listening for emotional expression. There is a "cognitive translation" in between. If this translation fails, a simple "sigh" can be interpreted as an "arrogant declaration."

Li Auto is a typical example.

In the past, Li Xiang's words "Listen to me" on Douyin were repeatedly clipped and became a popular meme across the internet. Later, when the MEGA was launched, it was labeled as a "coffin - like car" and a "creepy vehicle."

Some netizens photoshopped the Chinese character for "mourning" on the car's rear, and some bloggers added a gray - tone filter to the real - shot photos, insisting that it had a "hearse - like quality."

But in fact, they were talking about space layout, aerodynamics, and design language. However, the audience's first reaction is often based on visual, aesthetic, and emotional factors, and then they add their own imagination.

As a result, a product concept becomes "showing off wealth" in malicious clips, and a self - deprecating joke becomes a "public relations failure" in media headlines.

Consequently, when a company talks about innovation, it is heard as an offense. They are afraid that if they tell the truth, it will be exaggerated. More and more founders simply choose to stay silent.

But while the bosses are silent, the content track doesn't stop.

Why has it become like this? The answer is actually not complicated: The algorithm and the platform mechanism together create an endless horse - race.

Creators are like horses in the same track. The ones who shout the loudest, have the fastest rhythm, and express the most intense emotions will be seen. Once seen, they will get traffic, clients, and conversions.

So, traffic has become the new currency.

Everyone is using content to exchange for attention and emotions to exchange for clicks. Over time, the game has become a vicious cycle: without traffic, you have to create topics; without topics, you have to create emotions; without emotions, you have to force it.

Yesterday, Zhang Yiming quietly went to Shanghai to attend an event at an innovation center. As soon as the news came out, the whole internet started to interpret it crazily within 24 hours:

Some said he was going to make "personal investments," some said he was going to "All in on something" (I didn't really read what it was). Some even imagined that he was "returning to the business world." I really laughed at that time. Even Tencent's fantasy scenarios couldn't be this absurd.

This is the current situation of expression:

Facts, speculations, emotions, and fantasies are all mixed together. You can't tell which part is news, which part is an illusion fed by the algorithm, and which part is "outsourced emotions."

Of course, we can't blame others entirely. We are all involved in this rat - race.

Everyone is competing for the timeline, chasing hot topics, competing for eye - catching headlines, and rushing to be the first to publish. Writing content is like rushing to meet a deadline. I've also been through that stage of "either writing an article or fighting against anxiety."

So, if you ask who to blame, no one can be solely blamed. The entire creative mechanism is essentially a horse - race logic: traffic is the finish line, and creators are trained to be "drivers of the show."

What's even more abstract is that the addition of AI has put an extra set of reins on this horse. It does make you run faster, but the direction, rhythm, and even the way of thinking are no longer entirely your own.

03

However, some people are getting off the horse and switching to a different stage and a different way of speaking.

Who are the ones who will flee?

My most intuitive feeling is that some foreign entrepreneurs and investors. It's not that I'm fawning on foreign things; it's just that this phenomenon actually started there.

For example, the most popular "All - In Podcast" in Silicon Valley is a program created by four investors - Chamath, Jason, David Sacks, and David Friedberg.

If your English is not very good, you can ignore the names. Just remember this:

They get together once a week and chat from technology to the market, from elections to entrepreneurship. After recording, they just upload it directly. No one reviews the content, no one edits it, and no one packages their views for them.

Sometimes, they even argue, crack jokes, and go off - topic for more than ten minutes in the program. But it's precisely this kind of "human - like" conversation that has made the program one of the most influential voices in Silicon Valley.

There's also Sam Altman.

He hardly accepts interviews from traditional media but is willing to sit on the "Lex Fridman Podcast" and chat for a full two hours - from the philosophy of AI to the boundaries of human nature. That kind of complete and unedited expression seems more real.

I've been observing why they do this.

After listening to many episodes of the programs, my biggest feeling is that they are afraid of being reported. Because in today's world, "being reported" means "being interpreted." You'll either be sliced up or led by the headlines.

As I'm writing this, a question pops up: Is there a difference between a report and a long - chat?

There really is.

A report is for "being seen." It has an audience, a rhythm, and an editing logic, and it pursues clear, sharp, and spreadable views. A long - chat is for "being listened to and seen." It allows for hesitation, pauses, self - correction, and even silence.

The former requires a definite answer, while the latter allows you to be on an uncertain path. In a report, expression is like a "performance"; in a long - chat, expression is more like a "resonance."

This kind of conversation where you're not forced to take sides makes people speak their real minds, and it also makes the listeners more willing to believe.

From this perspective, you'll find that this is a transfer of power.

Those who were used to being interviewed and reported in the past are now starting to tell their own stories. Maybe they are all looking for the same thing: a sense of security in expression. This is also why many entrepreneurs and creators are starting to tell their own stories.

Take Luo Yonghao for example.

Do you think the cross - road talk show hosted by Luo Yonghao is a form of media? Of course. However, Zhiyuan believes that the person being interviewed is more like the media.

Because in that scenario, the person is a complete individual. He has a timeline, emotions, stories, and integrity. It's a space for self - presentation. Every word he says is "telling about himself" and "controlling the narrative."

This is a new communication structure: it circulates through relationships, aiming to be understood rather than consumed.

Podcasts, talks, and casual chats with friends... Essentially, they are all doing the same thing:

Withdrawing from the public noise and returning to the origin of trust and understanding. Maybe, when the algorithm takes away the right to distribute attention, people start to create their own small world where they can be understood.

So, those who express themselves are redefining "media": The way of speaking has changed, the path of relationships has changed, and even the logic of "who is speaking and who is listening" has quietly changed.

04

I've always felt that we are now entering a new stage: The period of the return of the right to express.

In the past decade, platforms defined the discourse, and algorithms determined who could be seen.

Now, reading habits have changed. Content that is well - structured, high in information density, and logically correct is becoming less and less popular. On the contrary, some irregular, emotional, and somewhat chaotic expressions are more likely to go viral.

Because there is a "human touch" in it. This is a new kind of gap in language proficiency.

The upper - class prefers AI - style expressions, which are clear in logic, complete in argumentation, and are like academic papers, and they can obtain higher "language power." Ordinary people are more inclined to casual, abstract, and even a bit chaotic expressions. It may not be "neat," but it's more real.

The algorithm and AI may not like this kind of "non - standard language material," but people do.

There are emotions, breaths, real pauses, and hesitations in it. This means that our expressions can no longer conform to technical logic like a program.

So, on this new ground, two trends are emerging:

One is authoritative expression, represented by institutional media, with a cautious tone, a steady stance, focusing on data and logic. The other is individual expression, coming from communities, friends, and creators, which is relaxed, warm, emotional, and often more infectious.

To put it simply, The truth of the "return of the right to express" is the shift from "unilateral distribution by the platform" to the "tug - of - war between users and the platform." The core of this game is the struggle for the autonomy of expression.

More and more people, including bosses and content creators, don't want to be defined by the algorithm about "what to say" anymore, and they don't want to pretend to be someone else for the sake of traffic.

They want to tell the truth in a controllable space, find people who understand them, and have a thorough chat about their inner thoughts.

Is this a return to the essence of expression? I don't know, but I always believe that expression should be "I want to say." After all, this return is more like an invisible reconstruction of social media.

Some people say that expression is a "fate doomed to be misunderstood." Maybe so, but for real leaders, the more likely they are to be misunderstood, the more they should take the initiative to express themselves.

Because silence won't eliminate misunderstandings; it will only make people's imaginations run wild. When the noise fades away, what really matters is the person who can speak clearly.

This article is from the WeChat official account "Wang Zhiyuan" (ID: Z201440), author: Wang Zhiyuan, published by 36Kr with authorization.