10.25｜經濟學人閱讀｜扉頁文章 Who controls the conversation?
經濟學人The Economist是一份英國的英文新聞周報，分八個版本於每周五向全球發行，編輯部位於倫敦，創辦於1843年9月。
經濟學人是一本綜合性新聞評論刊物，有商業、國家和地區、經濟和金融、科學和技術五大類。其中文章文風緊湊且嚴謹，對語言精準運用，展現出一種克制的風趣幽默，常運用雙關語調侃。
經濟學人對於英語考試的重要性不言而喻，其文章常常出現在雅思託福、SAT、GRE、GMAT、考研英語、四六級、MTI和CATTI的閱讀理解真題中。
今天羚羊君（公眾：aa-acad）給大家分享的是經濟學人2020年10月24日期刊中扉頁文章的第一篇：Who controls the conversation?。
這篇文章討論了在社交媒體平臺上的言論自由問題。作者認為社交媒體的決策和監控過程應該更透明，並對社交媒體和科技公司提出了相關建議。
想要閱讀往期內容，可以在公眾號右下角點擊"更多資訊-長文閱讀"進入專欄。
01
Who controls the conversation?
誰掌控著對話
IT IS THE biggest antitrust suit in two decades. On October 20th the Department of Justice (DOJ) alleged that Google ties up phone-makers, networks and browsers in deals that make it the default search engine. The department says this harms consumers, who are deprived of alternatives. The arrangement is sustained by Google’s dominance of search which, because of a global market share of roughly 90%, generates the advertising profits that pay for the deals (see article). The DOJ has not yet said what remedy it wants, but it could force Google and its parent, Alphabet, to change how they structure their business. Don’t hold your breath, though: Google dismisses the suit as nonsense, so the case could drag on for years.
這是二十年來最大的反壟斷訴訟。10月20日，美國司法部（DOJ）指控Google將電話製造商，網絡和瀏覽器捆綁在一起，使其成為默認搜尋引擎。 該部門說，這會傷害消費者的權益，消費者們因此被剝奪了使用其他瀏覽器的權利。這種做法是由Google在搜索領域的主導地位所支撐的，由於其約90％的全球市場份額，它產生了為交易付費的廣告利潤（請參閱文章）。 美國司法部尚未透露其希望採取什麼補救措施，但可能迫使谷歌及其母公司Alphabet改變其業務結構。 不過，請不要屏息以待，Google認為這樣的指控毫無根據，因此此項訴訟可能將持續數年。
02
Action against Google may seem far from the storm gathering against Facebook, Twitter and social media. One is laser-focused on a type of corporate contract, the other a category 5 hurricane of popular outrage buffeting unaccountable tech firms for supposedly destroying society. The left says that, from the conspiracy theories of QAnon to the incitement of white supremacists, social media are drowning users in hatred and falsehood. The right accuses the tech firms of censorship, including last week of a dubious article alleging corruption in the family of Joe Biden, the Democratic presidential nominee. And yet the question of what to do about social media is best seen through the same four stages as the case against Google: harm, dominance, remedies and delay. At stake is who controls the rules of public speech.
針對Google採取的行動似乎和反對Facebook，Twitter及社交媒體的那場風波並無關係。針對Google的行動是將注意力集中在某種公司合同上，而針對這些社交媒體的行動打擊了那些不負責任的科技公司，因為人們認為這些公司正在破壞社會和諧。左派說，從QAnon的陰謀論到煽動白人至上主義者的社會媒體正在使用戶陷入仇恨和虛假之中。 右翼指責科技公司的審查制度，包括上周發表了一篇可疑的文章，指稱民主黨總統候選人喬·拜登（Joe Biden）家族的腐敗。 然而，最好通過與Google案相同的四個階段來了解如何處理社交媒體的問題：損害，支配地位，補救措施和延誤。 誰控制著在公眾面前發聲的規則顯得至關重要。
03
A tenth of Americans think social media are beneficial; almost two-thirds that they cause harm. Since February YouTube has identified over 200,000 「dangerous or misleading」 videos on covid-19. Before the vote in 2016, 110m-130m adult Americans saw fake news. In Myanmar Facebook has been used to incite genocidal attacks against the Rohingyas, a Muslim minority (see article). Last week Samuel Paty, a teacher in France who used cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad to talk about free speech, was murdered after a social-media campaign against him (see Obituary). The killer tweeted an image of Mr Paty’s severed head, lying in the street.
十分之一的美國人認為社交媒體是有益的。幾乎三分之二的人認為它們有害。 自2月以來，YouTube已識別了有關新冠病毒的200,000多個「危險或誤導」視頻。 在2016年投票之前，有1.1億至1.3億成年美國人看到虛假消息。 在緬甸，Facebook被用來煽動針對穆斯林少數群體羅興亞人的種族滅絕襲擊（請參閱文章）。 一位在法國的老師薩繆爾帕蒂曾用穆罕穆德的漫畫來論述言論自由，上周這位老師在反對他的社交媒體活動（見訃文）舉行後，慘遭殺害。兇手在推特上發布了一條帕蒂先生的頭顱躺在街上的照片。
04
The tech firms』 shifting attempts to sterilise this cesspool mean that a handful of unelected executives are setting the boundaries of free speech (see Briefing). True, radio and TV share the responsibility for misinformation and Republican claims of bias are unproven—right-wing sources often top lists of the most popular items on Facebook and Twitter. But pressure is growing on the tech firms to restrict ever more material. In America the right fears that, urged on by a Democratic White House, Congress and their own employees, the firms』 bosses will follow left-leaning definitions of what is acceptable. Contrast that with the First Amendment’s broad licence to cause offence.
高科技公司為消除這個問題而進行的努力意味著，少數未當選的高管正在設定言論自由的界限（請參閱簡報）。 的確，廣播和電視界對錯誤信息負有責任，共和黨的偏見沒有得到證實-右翼消息來源常常在位於Facebook和Twitter上最受歡迎的頻道的榜首。 但是，施加在技術公司越來越大的壓力限制了越來越多的消息。 在美國，右翼擔心：在民主黨下的白宮、國會及其僱員的敦促下，公司老闆將遵循左翼所接受的關於自由言論的定義。與此形成鮮明對比的是，《第一修正案》更易引發更廣的侵權行為。
05
Elsewhere, governments have also used social media companies to go beyond the law, often without public debate. In London the Metropolitan Police requests that they take down legal, but troubling, posts. In June France’s Constitutional Council struck down a deal between the government and the tech companies because it curbed free speech—an initiative that is sure to be revisited after Mr Paty’s murder. Citing Western precedents, more authoritarian governments in countries such as Singapore expect the tech firms to restrict 「fake news」—potentially including irksome criticism from opponents.
在其他地方，政府也經常利用社交媒體公司來凌駕於法律之上，而且往往沒有經過公眾的辯論。 在倫敦，警察要求民眾撤下合法但令人困擾的職位。 法國憲法委員會在6月份否決了政府與科技公司之間的一項協議，因為該協議遏制了言論自由。這項舉措在帕蒂先生被殺害後一定會被重新修改。引用西方的先例，新加坡等國家的專制政府期望科技公司限制「虛假新聞」，這些"虛假新聞"可能包括反政府的令人討厭的批評。
06
This might not matter were the networks less dominant. If people could switch as easily as they change breakfast cereal, they could avoid rules they dislike. But switching is like giving up your mobile-phone number: it cuts you off from your friends. Social networks have also become so central to distributing news and opinion that they are, says Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s founder, a 「town square」. If you want to be part of the conversation you have no choice but to be there, soapbox in hand.
This hold over users has one further dismal implication for truth and decency. In order to sell more ads, the tech companies』 algorithms send you news and posts that they think will grab your attention. Political cynics, con artists and extremists take advantage of this bias towards virality to spread lies and hatred. Bots and deep fakes, realistic posts of public figures doing or saying things that never happened, make their job cheaper and easier. They are rapidly becoming more sophisticated.
如果網絡不那麼佔主導地位，這些事情可能並不重要。 如果人們可以像更換早餐麥片那樣輕鬆轉換，就可以避免他們不喜歡的規則。 但是換掉社交媒體帳號就像放棄您的手機號碼：切斷您與朋友的聯繫。 Facebook的創始人馬克·扎克伯格（Mark Zuckerberg）說，社交網絡對於新聞和輿論的發布也變得如此重要。 如果您想參與對話，則別無選擇。
對用戶的有所保留又意味著對於真相更隱晦的掩藏。 為了銷售更多廣告，科技公司的算法會向您發送他們認為會引起您注意的新聞和帖子。 政治憤青，騙子藝術家和極端主義者利用這種算法偏差，病毒傳播般地來傳播謊言和仇恨。 "殭屍程序"和虛假消息大量充斥網絡、關於公眾人物的帖子講述著從未發生過的事情。這使得這些人的工作更節約成本且更輕鬆。社交網絡正在迅速變得更加複雜。
07
The purest remedy for this would be to change the tech firms』 business model and introduce more competition. That is already working well in other areas of tech, like the cloud (see Leader). One idea is for people to own their data individually or collectively (see Schumpeter). The social networks would become utilities paid a flat fee, while people or collectives earned the rent from advertisers and set the parameters for what was served up to them. At a stroke that would align the gains from advertising with the burden upon the people being advertised to. If users could port their data to another network, the tech firms would have to compete to provide a good service.
對此，最純粹的補救辦法是改變科技公司的商業模式並引入更多競爭。 在其他技術領域（例如雲技術）中，這已經很好地發揮了作用（請參閱Leader）。 一種想法是讓人們能擁有個人或集體數據（請參閱熊彼特）。 社交網絡將變成公共事業，需要支付固定費用，而人們或集體則從廣告商那裡賺取租金，並為向他們提供的服務設置參數。 這樣一來，廣告收益便會與廣告宣傳對象的負擔保持一致。 如果用戶可以將其數據移植到另一個網絡，則技術公司將不得不進行競爭以提供優質的服務。
08
The obstacles to this are immense. The tech firms』 value would tumble by hundreds of billions of dollars. It is not clear you own the data about your online connections. You could not migrate to a new network without losing the friends who stayed behind unless the platforms were interoperable, as mobile-phone networks are. Perhaps the authorities could impose less sweeping remedies, such as giving users the right to choose feeds set by a neutral rule, not an attention-grabbing algorithm.
Such ideas cannot be implemented quickly, but societies need solutions today. Inevitably, governments will want to set the basic rules at the national level, just as they do for speech. They should define a framework covering obscenity, incitement and defamation and leave judgments about individual posts to others. International human-rights law is a good starting-point, because it leans towards free speech and requires restrictions to be relevant and proportionate, but allows local carve-outs.
這樣做的障礙是巨大的。 科技公司的價值將暴跌數千億美元。 人們尚不清楚他們是否擁有有關在線連接的數據。除非社交媒體平臺能夠像手機網絡一樣可互相操作，否則用戶轉移到一個新的平臺後就會丟失已有的好友列表。也許當局可以採取更溫和的補救措施，例如賦予用戶選擇中立規則的權利而不是更吸引用戶的算法設置的權利。
這些想法無法迅速實施，但是當今社會需要解決方案。 不可避免地，就像對於言論自由需要制定基本法則一樣，政府會想要在國家的層面上對此制定基本法則。 他們應該制定一個框架，這個框架涵蓋對於淫穢，煽動和誹謗的具體定義，並將評判個人在社交媒體上的發文的權利交給其他人。 國際人權法是一個很好的起點，因為它傾向於言論自由，並要求相關和相稱的限制，而同時它又允許適應地方性的創新。
09
Social-media firms should take those standards as their basis. If they want to go further, attaching warnings to or limiting content that is legal, the lodestars should be predictability and transparency. As guardians of the town square, they ought to open their processes to scrutiny and particular decisions to appeal. Ad hoc rule changes by top executives, as with the recent Biden decision, are wrong because they seem arbitrary and political. Hard cases, like kicking opponents of Bashar al-Assad in Syria off a platform for mentioning terrorists, should be open to review by representative non-statutory boards with more power than the one Facebook has created. Independent researchers need much freer access to anonymised data so that they can see how platforms work and recommend reform. Such rule-making should be open to scrutiny. In America politicians can use removing the protection from prosecution granted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as a lever to bring about change.
社交媒體公司應以這些標準為基礎。 如果社交媒體公司想走得更遠，指導他們進行警告或限制內容的原則應該要可預測且透明。作為網絡平臺的監督人，他們應該公開其程序以接受大眾審查，也應該公開其決定並接受上訴。與拜登最近的決定一樣，高層管理人員的臨時規則更改是錯誤的，因為這種改變似乎是武斷的和具有政治性的。 有些案件審查較難，例如將敘利亞總統阿薩德（Bashar al-Assad）的反對者踢出社交媒體平臺，因為該用戶提到了恐怖分子。這類嚴格的案例應該開放給具有代表性的非法定委員會審查，其權力比Facebook所設立的委員會還要強大。 獨立研究人員需要更自由地訪問匿名數據，以便他們能夠了解平臺的工作原理並提出改革建議。 這種規則制定應受到審查。 在美國，政客可以使用取消《通信法》第230條所賦予的免於起訴的保護，作為促成變革的手段。
10
This will be messy, especially in politics. When societies are divided and the boundary between private and political speech is blurred, decisions to intervene are certain to cause controversy. The tech firms may want to flag abuses, including in post-election presidential tweets, but they should resist getting dragged into every debate. Short of incitement to violence, they should not block political speech. Politicians』 flaws are better exposed by noisy argument than enforced silence.
這樣的變革將造成混亂，尤其是在政治中。 當社會分裂並且私人言論和政治言論之間的界限變得模糊時，幹預的決策肯定會引起爭議。 科技公司可能會想要舉報濫用的行為，這種行為包括選舉後總統發推文，但科技公司應避免陷入任何爭議。 由於政客們沒有煽動暴力，科技公司不應該阻止政治言論，畢竟激烈的爭論比強制性禁言更容易暴露出政客們的弱點。
經濟學人一般目錄大綱：
The world this week：簡單梳理本周的時事Leaders：社論，對本周熱點事件進行評論Briefing：簡報，對一個特定熱點話題深度討論Letter：讀者來信，對往期文章的評論Sections：各大洲及中美英三國的本周熱點事件報導Business：商業新聞Finances and economics：財經新聞Science and technology：科技新聞Books and arts：文化書籍，書評和文化現象討論Economic and financial indicators：商業及財經指數
Buttonwood：金融專欄Schumpeter：商業專欄Bartleby：職場專欄Bagehot：英國專欄Charlemagne：歐洲專欄Lexington：美國專欄Banyan：亞洲專欄