過去幾年，類似推特的新浪微博一直是中國大陸最主要的社群媒體。這種微網誌服務創造網路上的自由討論公共空間，不但孕育社會變革，甚至在傳統媒體仍受嚴格限制的中國大陸，不時要求政治人物為一些問題扛起責任。

然而近幾個月，微博已被類似臉書的WeChat比下去。後者讓網友在自選的追隨者之間收發簡訊。

The shift from public to semiprivate communication, accelerated by a government crackdown on Weibo, has reordered the social media landscape for the country’s 600 million Internet users, curbing what had been modern China’s most open public forum. “This is a new phase for social media in China,” said Hu Yong, a professor at Peking University. “It is the decline of the first largescale forum for information in China and the rise of something more narrowly focused.”

官方打壓微博加快了公共通信變成半私人通信的速度，不只重劃有6億網友的中國大陸社群媒體版圖，而且抑制曾經是現代中國大陸最開放的公共論壇。

北大教授胡勇說：「對中國大陸的社群媒體而言，這是個新階段。這是中國大陸第一個大規模資訊論壇的式微，也是另一種更專注形式的崛起。」

WeChat has its advantages and its defenders. It is less censored than Weibo, and some users say it allows them to speak more freely, knowing that their conversations are private.

WeChat有它的優勢及擁護者。它受到的監控不像微博那塺嚴密。部分網友說這讓他們更能暢所欲言，因為對話具有私密性。

In May, though, the government announced that WeChat would be more heavily monitored. Saying that instant messaging services were being used to spread “violence, terrorism and pornography,” the agency charged with policing the Internet said it would “firmly fight infiltration from hostile forces at home and abroad,” according to a government statement.

不過北京當局五月說，WeChat將受到更嚴密監控。負責監控網路的官方機構在聲明中說，有心人利用簡訊散播「暴力、恐怖主義與色情」，它將「堅決對抗來自國內外敵對勢力的滲透」。

In its heyday, Weibo promised much more. It came to prominence in 2011 after a high-speed rail crash killed 40 people. Weibo users detailed the mayhem and government shortcomings that led to the accident. It was a signal moment in the Internet’s coming of age in China, a reminder of how the medium could challenge even an authoritarian government.

在它的鼎盛期，微博承諾得更多。2011年的一場高鐵意外事故導致40人罹難之後，它旦夕成名。微博用戶詳細報導此一重大事故與官方的疏失。這是象徵中國大陸網路時代來臨的重要時刻，證明這種媒體連威權政府都能挑戰。

Weibo is still important.

微博還是很重要。

Boundary-pushing news and commentaries are still more easily found there than in the more tightly controlled world of government news media. It reported in March that it had 66 million daily users, up 37 percent over a year earlier.

在這裡，挑戰極限的新聞與評論，還是比在監控嚴密許多的官方媒體容易看到。微博三月報導，它每天的用戶平均6600萬人次，比一年前增加37%。

But government figures show that the overall number of microblog users, including those using Weibo , fell by 9 percent last year, with many migrating to WeChat.

然而根據官方統計，包括微博用戶在內的微網誌使用者總人數去年減少9%，其中許多人轉到WeChat。

“You can still find facts on Weibo, or news reports, but the comments aren’t as interesting or deep,” said He Weifang, a lawyer and onetime heavy blogger on Weibo with more than a million followers.

曾經常在微博貼文，追隨者逾百萬的維權律師賀衛方說：「你還是可以在微博看到事實或新聞報導，然而評論已經不像以前麼有趣或深入。」

One reason is the government crackdown on the so-called Big V accounts — prominent commenters, with verified accounts, who often had millions of followers. After hundreds were detained, most stopped posting on Weibo.

原因之一是，官方打壓所謂的大V名人言論。這些知名評論家擁有認證帳戶，往往有數百萬追隨者。數百大V遭到拘押後，多數不再在微博貼文。

Others quit because of the sharp tone of commentary on Weibo, which often devolved into nasty attacks. Some grew tired of the dizzying list of banned terms and the cat-and-mouse games with censors to evade them. WeChat seized on the frustration.

有些人因為微博評論的語氣過於尖銳，甚至淪為惡意攻訐而退出。有的人因為禁語太多，又常須與官方玩貓捉老鼠的遊戲而感到厭倦。WeChat趁機而入。

Its parent company, Tencent, claims 355 million monthly users. The company does not make public the number of daily users, making a comparison to Weibo difficult.

它的母公司騰訊號稱每個月吸引3.55億人次。它並未公布每日的使用者人數，以致難與微博比較。

Activists say WeChat allows them to dig deeper into issues with like-minded people. The veteran environmentalist Li Bo has used WeChat for more than two years to rally opposition to damaging infrastructure projects, such as a plan to dam the Nu River.

活躍人士說，WeChat使他們得以與志同道合者共同深入發掘各種問題。兩年多來，環保老將李波（譯音）不斷透過WeChat號召各界同聲反對多項有害的公共工程計畫，例如在怒江建壩。

WeChat has built-in constraints that hobble its ability to replicate Weibo’s public sphere. WeChat allows the creation of public accounts that anyone can follow, but limits posts to one a day. In addition, access to public accounts is not possible on cellphones, making it more difficult, for instance, to launch an incriminating photo of a public official into the blogosphere.

WeChat內建的限制使它難以複製微博的公眾領域分量。WeChat允許網友開設任何人都可以跟隨的公共帳戶，卻將貼文限制在一天一則。網友也無法透過手機進入公共帳戶，使他們更難將不利於某官員的照片張貼在部落格。

Comments are also deleted after a few days, erasing a historical record. The government also monitors these accounts and recently deleted some covering social news and politics.

評論會在數日後刪除，連帶刪除相關紀錄。官方也會監控這些帳戶，最近並刪除一些報導社會新聞與政治的貼文。

Still, WeChat remains a powerful tool for activists, even if Weibo’s promise of an open online society has been frustrated.

即使微博允諾開創開放式網路社群的雄心壯志已經受挫，WeChat仍然是活躍人士手上的有力工具。

Hu Jia, who has worked on environmental causes for 15 years, said the advent of social media, despite its limitations, had produced a better-informed society. “Weibo and WeChat are gifts from God,” he said. “Despite all the government surveillance, the benefits we get are even greater for people trying to organize society.”

已為環保奔走請命15年的胡佳說，社群媒體雖然有其限制，它的興起還是造就了資訊比較流通的社會。他說：「微博與WeChat是天賜的禮物。雖然政府嚴密監控，嘗試組織社群的民眾卻仍然受益良多。」

點擊時間不必太久，即會遇見網路暴怒。

Log in to a social network and you’ll find it directed at celebrities and civilians alike. Then there’s the bigger game: courts of law, social movements, news media outlets, corporations and governments that annoy people. As an overused joke goes on Twitter, “What are we angry about today?”

登入某個社群網絡，也會看見對名人或一般民眾的點名批判。還有些更大的獵物（目標）：令網民光火的法院、社會運動、新聞媒體網站、企業和政府。「今天我們怒什麼？」已經成了在推特上推濫了的笑話。

Angry comments have long been part of Internet culture, as any insult-filled comments section or chat room shows.

憤怒的評論一向是網路文化的一部分，一如我們在充斥謾罵的評語欄或聊天室所見。

But the last few years have seen this anger proliferate in social media, where people proclaim their ethical outrage.

不過，過去幾年，這種怒火也開始在社群媒體擴散，人們宣稱自己是義憤填膺。

A 2013 study, from Beihang University in Beijing, of Weibo, a Twitter-like site, found that anger is the emotion that spreads the most easily over social media. Joy came in a distant second. The main difference, said Ryan Martin, a psychology professor at the University of Wisconsin, Green Bay, who studies anger, is that although we tend to share the happiness only of people we are close to, we are willing to join in the rage of strangers.

根據北京北航大學2013年針對微博（類似推特的網站）所做的一項研究，憤怒是在社群媒體上最容易散播的情緒，遙遙領先排在第二的歡樂。綠灣威斯康辛大學研究憤怒心理的心理學教授馬丁說，最大的差異在於，雖然我們喜歡分享與我們親近的人的快樂，我們卻樂於分享陌生人的憤怒。

People prone to Internet outrage are looking for validation, Professor Martin said. “They want to hear that others share it,” he said, “because they feel they’re vindicated and a little less lonely and isolated in their belief.”

馬丁博士說，喜歡在網上宣洩暴怒的人，是在尋找認同感。他說：「他們渴望聽到其他人也有同感。因為他們自覺在平反，他們的信仰，不再那麼孤單與孤立。」

Internet outrage often says more about the commenter than the cause, and its deployment may do more harm than good, to the instigator and the issue.

網路暴怒往往只能讓我們對評論者有更多了解，而不是對事情的原因，而這些發布對煽動者或事情本身卻可能弊多於利。

In another 2013 study, Professor Martin determined that people susceptible to Internet rage tend to be angrier.

在2013年另一項研究中，馬丁教授獲致如下結論：容易受網路暴怒影響的人，往往會怒上加怒。

“They expressed their anger less healthily, in maladaptive ways,” he said. “People who rant online in any way tend to get into more physical and verbal altercations.”

他說：「他們以比較不健康、適應不良的方式發洩怒氣，以任何方式在網路上咆哮的人，都更容易陷入更多的肢體和語言衝突。」

Outrage carries a different flavor from pure anger; it suggests an affront to one’s value system as opposed to fury. So whereas a venomous insult from an anonymous commenter simply seeks to tear down another person or institution, an outraged Twitter post from an identified account calls attention to the user’s own probity.

暴怒與純粹生氣有著不同的況味，它代表挑釁一個人的價值體系，不單只是發怒。因此，匿名評論者發出惡毒侮辱，是為摧毀另一人或機構，而來自具名帳戶的推特抓狂貼文，值得注意使用者本人是否正直不阿。

By throwing 140-character stones from our Google glass houses, we preserve our belief that we are morally superior to those who have offended us.

從谷歌的玻璃屋丟出140字的石頭，讓我們保有我們自己的信仰，認為我在道德上，優於那些惹火我們的人。

The outraged may be enacting a defense mechanism reinforced by the culture of Internet ire. When you’re upset , it’s difficult to be counterattacked for your ethical injury. To state one’s outrage is to insulate oneself from criticism.

這些網路暴怒可能是一種防禦機制，這項機制因網路文化而受到強化。當你發怒時，不太會因為你的道德損害而遭反擊。表達憤怒可把自己隔離起來不受批評。

But such responses can overshadow the complexity of a subject, rather than opening up a thoughtful debate.

但這種反應可能反而掩蓋主題本身的複雜性，而非開啟深思熟慮的辯論。

Furthermore, outraged comments are sometimes more offensive than the originating misconduct.

此外，暴怒的評論有時比原來的不當行為更加得罪人。

Mobs breed a sense of anonymity, and in the midst of trending Twitter outrage, Professor Martin said, “you may feel anonymous, even if you’re not really.”

群眾有種匿名感，馬丁教授說，在推特散播暴怒時，「你可能自覺匿名，即使不是真的如此。」

Ultimately, Internet outrage is a way to protest by tapping and clicking rather than boycotting and marching. It is a noble endeavor to become incensed about a cause and risk arrest or toil without acclamation for one’s deeply held beliefs. Less honorable is joining a digital attack as a means of propping up one’s ego.

最終，網路暴怒變成另一種抗議方式，透過觸擊和點擊而非抵制和遊行。為某一目標而熱血，以及在無人喝采下，為自己的高度信仰甘冒被捕危險或付出辛勞，是高尚的行為。較不光榮的，是加入數位攻擊行列，做為提升個人自尊的方法。

Perhaps the real problem, Professor Martin suggested, isn’t our rage but our rashness .

馬丁教授說，或許真正的問題不在我們的暴怒，而是莽撞。

“The Internet exacerbates impulse-control problems,” he said. “You get mad, and you can tell the world about it in moments before you’ve had a chance to calm down .”

他說：「網際網路導致衝動控制問題惡化。你發怒了，而你可以立刻告訴全世界，在你還有機會冷靜下來之前。」