vc9.vc11.vc14_vc解释了为什么vc现在如此生气

vc9.vc11.vc14

重点(Top highlight)

大技术(Big Technology)

OneZero is partnering with Big Technology, a newsletter and podcast by Alex Kantrowitz, to bring readers exclusive access to interviews with notable figures in and around the tech industry.

OneZero与Alex Kantrowitz的时事通讯和播客Big Technology合作，使读者可以独家访问科技行业内外的知名人物。

This week, Kantrowitz sits down with Bloomberg Beta head Roy Bahat. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

本周，坎特罗维兹与彭博Beta负责人罗伊·巴哈特(Roy Bahat)坐下。 这次采访经过了长度和清晰度的编辑。

To subscribe to the podcast and hear the interview for yourself, you can check it out on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and Overcast.

要订阅播客并亲自收听采访，您可以在Apple Podcasts ， Spotify和Overcast上进行查看。

Venture capitalists, founders, and others in the tech industry are feeling pretty raw these days. Once admired as upstarts fighting the status quo, they now feel under siege, under attack for the negative things their products do without being appreciated for how they improve our lives.

V enture投资，创始人，并在科技行业别人都感觉相当原始的这些日子。 一旦被新贵与现状抗衡时，他们现在就感到被围困，遭受攻击，因为他们的产品所带来的负面影响而没有被他们如何改善我们的生活所赞赏。

Bloomberg Beta head Roy Bahat, a veteran venture capitalist, joins the Big Technology Podcast this week for a nuanced conversation about what’s going with the tech world, how its innovation might be linked to its problems, and how it should handle the criticism.

彭博测试版负责人，资深风险投资家罗伊·巴哈特(Roy Bahat)本周加入“大技术播客” ，就技术世界的发展，创新与问题的联系以及应对批评的方式进行了细微的交谈。

Kantrowitz: You’re one of the VCs out there that are very public with what you think. You tackle the important issues, not skirting around them. And I feel like you don’t yell at journalists, and that’s a good start.

坎特罗维兹：您是那里的风投者之一，他们对您的想法非常公开。 您要解决重要问题，而不要绕过它们。 我觉得您不对记者大吼，这是一个好的开始。

Roy Bahat: I definitely do not yell at journalists. As a person who once thought I might be a journalist and failed at it, I basically think journalists are looking for the truth. If we all want to operate in this world, let’s help them find the truth and then we can figure it out. You just mentioned having the voice, a question I got asked by a founder in our portfolio, he’s like, “Why is VC Twitter so weird?”

罗伊·巴哈特(Roy Bahat)：我绝对不对记者大喊大叫。 作为一个曾经以为我可能是新闻工作者而失败了的人，我基本上认为新闻工作者正在寻找真相。 如果我们所有人都想在这个世界上运作，让我们帮助他们找到真相，然后我们就可以弄清楚。 您刚刚提到有声音，这是我的投资组合中的一位创始人问的一个问题，他说：“为什么VC Twitter这么奇怪？”

You’re getting right into my question.

你说的很对。

Oh, good. Then ask me questions and…

哦好然后问我问题...

I want to hear what you got to say, and then I’ll follow.

我想听听你要说的话，然后我会跟着。

Well, I was thinking about it. Look, venture capital is a strange business because: What do we do? People think we invest in companies. Kind of. We really sell money to companies because the companies have so much leverage when they’re doing well. And you only want to invest in great companies, so you think the ones you’re investing in are doing well. In a way, we’re all salespeople. And what do we sell?

好吧，我正在考虑。 看起来，风险投资是一件奇怪的事情，因为：我们该怎么办？ 人们认为我们投资于公司。 有点儿。 我们确实将钱卖给了公司，因为当公司表现良好时，它们具有很大的杠杆作用。 而且，您只想投资于优秀的公司，因此您认为所投资的公司表现良好。 在某种程度上，我们都是销售人员。 我们卖什么？

In the language of tech, we are customer success people, meaning helping our customers, founders to succeed. And we sell money and money is a commodity, meaning like literally my product that I sell is legally equivalent — it’s tender for all debts, public, private, whatever it says on the bills. As a result, as with all commodities, the way you distinguish yourself is with your brand, reputation.

用技术的语言来说，我们是客户成功的人，意味着帮助我们的客户，创始人取得成功。 而且我们出售货币，而货币是商品，这意味着我所出售的产品在法律上是等效的-无论票据上怎么说，它都可以偿还所有债务，包括公共债务，私人债务。 结果，与所有商品一样，您与众不同的方式就是品牌，声誉。

And so, VCs just have become, in a lot of cases, these flat-out braggarts who just are incredibly annoying. And I’ve tried for myself to figure out how do you highlight the things you’re proud of and the founders you’re also proud of while also having some things very difficult to have in public which is authentic, genuine engagement and it can be maddening.

因此，在很多情况下，风险投资人已经成为这些令人讨厌的扁平吹牛者。 而且我自己尝试着弄清楚您如何突出自己引以为豪的事物以及您也为自己感到自豪的创始人，同时还拥有一些很难在公开场合获得的东西，这是真实，真诚的参与，并且可以发疯。

One of the reasons I think people who are inauthentic in public is the fear that they could have any piece of what they say excerpted and flattened and mischaracterized and I’ve just kind of concluded that that’s going to happen sometimes and I’ll just try to be myself.

我认为在公共场合不真实的人的原因之一是担心他们会说出自己所说的话而被摘录，弄平，弄虚作假，我只是得出这样的结论，即有时会发生这种情况，我将尝试做我自己。

And one reason I like podcasts is — I’ve even invested in a bunch of podcast companies — is that in a podcast, it’s very hard to do that. It’s very hard to pull out that little piece and flatten you and the listeners typically paying close attention. And so that makes for a better conversation.

我喜欢播客的一个原因是-我甚至已经投资了许多播客公司-在播客中很难做到这一点。 很难拉出那块小东西弄平你，听众通常会密切注意。 这样可以使对话更好。

I like them too. I do think that you can talk with a level of nuance here that you can’t on Twitter. And one of the things that I worry about these days is that there’s a whole segment of the conversation that’s left out because any attempt to be nuanced can be rewarded with yelling. People love to yell.

我也喜欢他们。 我确实认为您可以在这里进行微妙的交谈，而您在Twitter上是无法做到的。 而这些天，我担心的事情之一是，整个对话环节被遗漏了，因为任何细微的尝试都可以通过大喊大叫而得到回报。 人们喜欢大喊大叫。

You talked about the VC brand. Why do so many decide that their brand is grievance?

您谈到了VC品牌。 为什么这么多人认为自己的品牌不满？

This is something I’ve not talked about in public before but then I’ve been thinking about, I think that it stems from an entire piece of the ideology of the technology industry because I don’t think the aggrieved thing is just VCs. I think it is founders of companies and executives and middle-level employees. I think it’s kind of endemic to the tech industry at this point. Why is that? I think it is the root cause is that a bunch of people entered tech with a certain set of beliefs about how the world works, and those beliefs don’t align with how the world works now.

这是我之前从未在公开场合谈论过的事情，但后来我一直在思考，我认为这源于技术行业的整个意识形态，因为我不认为受害的只是风险投资人。 我认为它是公司，高管和中层员工的创始人。 我认为目前这是技术行业的一种普遍现象。 这是为什么？ 我认为其根本原因是，许多人进入技术领域时对世界的运作方式抱有一定的信念，而这些信念与当今世界的运作方式不符。

And I’ll give you an example of that. I call this the Tech Paradigm. One example of that is that we in tech are the attackers. There’s this famous Steve Jobs’ line about, “It’s more fun to be a pirate than to be in the navy.” But what do you when the pirates run the most valuable companies in the world and have more power than the navy does? Well, then all of a sudden, you’re the admiral.

我给你举一个例子。 我称之为技术范式。 其中一个例子是我们在技术上是攻击者。 著名的史蒂夫·乔布斯(Steve Jobs)的台词是：“成为海盗比去海军更有趣。” 但是，当海盗经营着世界上最有价值的公司并且比海军拥有更多权力时，您会怎么做？ 好吧，突然之间，你就是海军上将。

And so, tech does not know how to wear the crown of criticism that comes with all that responsibility. Instead, it’s like, “Well, I’m just misunderstood and if only you got it, you’d be happier with me.” Instead of saying, “Oh, shit. There actually is something valid about this. Since I have power, maybe I should show a little nuance and responsibility.” And as a result, they feel aggrieved because they’ve been attacked.

因此，技术人员不知道该如何承担所有责任。 取而代之的是，就像“嗯，我只是被误解了，如果您能理解，我会更快乐。” 不用说，“哦，该死。 实际上有一些有效的方法。 既然我有能力，也许我应该表现出一些细微差别和责任感。” 结果，他们因为受到攻击而感到委屈。

I remember there was an article that a journalist wrote about a VC fund basically saying like, “This VC fund is falling apart.” And the VC fund was led by somebody who was really sympathetic and it’s not even important who it was because this could have been many situations. It’s like it’s not about that person. And all the responses, the journalists were like, “Well, why didn’t you write about all these other things that that fund is doing that are great?” It’s like, “Well, because the point of my story was not to grade the fund overall. The point of my story was to talk about this one thing.”

我记得有一篇记者写过一篇关于风投基金的文章，基本上说：“这只风投基金正在崩溃。” 风险投资基金是由一个非常同情的人领导的，即使是谁也不重要，因为这可能是很多情况。 就像不是关于那个人。 记者们的回答都是：“好吧，为什么你不写这笔资金正在做的所有其他事情，那很棒呢？” 就像，“好吧，因为我的故事的重点不是对基金进行整体评级。 我故事的重点是谈论这一件事。”

And so, tech does not know how to wear the crown of criticism that comes with all that responsibility.

因此，技术人员不知道该如何承担所有责任。

And not getting that is the dynamic is a big part of this ideology. I think the ideology explains a lot of tech’s kind of bad behavior in the world and also all of its good behavior.

而不能使之成为动态是这种意识形态的重要组成部分。 我认为，意识形态可以解释世界上许多技术的不良行为以及其所有良好行为。

Let me ask you. If you were to go down the hall in The Hill in Washington or talk to a general business reporter who you’ve worked with, and you said to them, “Well, what characterizes the culture of the tech industry?” — what do you think would be included in that?

让我问问你。 如果您要去华盛顿山丘的大厅去，或者与您合作过的一般商业记者交谈，然后您对他们说：“嗯，这代表了科技行业的文化吗？” -您认为其中包括什么？

Brash, exciting, and they would also say that there’s a level of immaturity — that folks have no idea what their tools are doing and tend to view people as numbers versus actual human beings.

崩溃，令人兴奋，他们还会说还有些不成熟-人们不知道他们的工具在做什么，并且倾向于将人们视为数字而不是实际的人类。

I think a lot of those I really feel. I’ve been trying to introspect myself because I’m part of the tech industry obviously, and think about it as I look around at what are the qualities that drive it? How did tech turn up that way? And I think it’s not an accident.

我觉得很多我真正的感觉。 我一直试图进行自我反省，因为我显然是科技行业的一员，在环顾推动其发展的因素时考虑一下科技是怎么出现的呢？ 我认为这不是偶然的。

I think it actually very much follows how the tech industry originated and how people in tech got into the industry. And you touched on a bunch of this in your book around sort of the engineer’s mentality and I think that’s a big part of it. But let me try to characterize. One of the things that I think is really important is tech is indifferent to norms.

我认为这实际上很大程度上取决于技术行业的起源和技术人员如何进入该行业。 您在书中围绕工程师的想法进行了很多修改，我认为这是其中的很大一部分。 但让我尝试刻画。 我认为真正重要的一件事是技术对规范无动于衷。

Tech is proudly like the kind of place where it’s like, “Well, society says we should do X. Maybe we should do it, maybe we shouldn’t but we should decide for our own reasons.” And so there’s this kind of independence of thought that comes with that and my personal view on that is why did that happen? It’s because a lot of the people in tech historically were outcasts when they were younger. They were the nerd in high school. I certainly was the nerd in high school.

技术就像是这样的地方而自豪：“嗯，社会说我们应该做X。也许我们应该做，也许我们不应该，但是我们应该出于自己的原因而做出决定。” 因此，随之而来的是这种独立的思想，而我对此的个人看法是为什么会发生这种情况？ 这是因为从历史上看，很多技术人员在年轻时就被抛弃了。 他们是高中的书呆子。 我当然是高中的书呆子。

As a result, they had to develop this studied indifference because if they swallowed into the norms, they’d think poorly of themselves.

结果，他们不得不养成这种研究冷漠的态度，因为如果他们陷入规范中，就会对自己的想法很不好。

That’s fascinating.

太有趣了。

A second one is hyper-obsession with focus of like, this is part of the engineer’s mentality, it’s like, “I’m going to stare at this problem and only this problem and decide it’s the only thing in the world and everything else shall melt away.”

第二个是过度专注，像这样，这是工程师心态的一部分，就像，“我将盯着这个问题，只有这个问题，并决定这是世界上唯一的事物，其他所有事物融化。”

Yeah, like if you’re a coder and you’re in the zone.

是的，就像您是编码员并且您在区域中一样。

Yeah. There’s that flow experience. But there’s also focusing on the thing you care about and ignoring short-sellers if you’re Elon or—

是的有那种流动的经验。 但是，如果您是Elon或-

Elon is not ignoring those short-sellers.

伊隆并没有忽略那些卖空者。

Well, fair enough. Fine, he’s taunting them.

好吧，很公平。 好吧，他在嘲笑他们。

Having to be indifferent to their concerns.

不必理会他们的顾虑。

That’s right. Being indifferent to their concerns. Out of that comes a similar and related things which is the focus on optimization which is to say, give me a problem. Amazon says an objective function, and I will find you the best answer to that. Consequences kind of be damned on some level. And so the immaturity is more a consequence of indifference and focus, indifference to norms and focus than it is like, “Oh, they’re bad people. They just are not world-aware.”

那就对了。 对他们的关心漠不关心。 随之而来的是类似和相关的事情，这就是对优化的关注，也就是说，给了我一个问题。 亚马逊说目标功能，我将为您找到最佳答案。 后果在某种程度上是可耻的。 因此，不成熟的原因更多是漠不关心和专注，对规范和专注的漠不关心，就像“哦，他们是坏人。 他们只是不了解世界。”

I definitely think it’s not a bad people thing, so you got that optimization, that focus, that indifference to norms, and then the last part is an obsession with speed because…

我绝对认为这不是一件坏事，所以您得到了优化，关注，对规范的漠不关心，最后一部分是对速度的痴迷，因为……

Get big fast.

快速变大。

The faster you went, the more likely you are to survive. Therefore, all the powerful entities in tech have a culture of incredible speed. You add all these things together and what do you get? You get organizations that can bring an electrical car to life or can make a thing that you speak to that speaks back to you and answers your questions or deliver things to you before you even knew you wanted them and all kinds of stuff. And you get a blindness to, the way I put this, if you’re looking at the screen, you’re not looking at the street. And you get this blindness to all of the consequences that in some ways become more pronounced than the core effects.

您走得越快，生存的可能性就越大。 因此，科技界所有强大的实体都具有不可思议的速度文化。 您将所有这些东西加在一起，会得到什么？ 您会得到一些组织，这些组织可以使电动汽车栩栩如生，或者做出您所说的话，然后回话给您，并回答您的问题或向您提供信息，甚至不知道您想要它们和各种各样的东西。 而且您对我的讲解方法一无所知，如果您正在看屏幕，那么您就不会在看街道。 而且您对所有后果不知不觉，这些后果在某些方面比核心影响更为明显。

I mean, I remember I was talking to this guy, very quintessential founder like for better or for worse, recent Stanford Business School graduate, smart guy, had worked at a late-stage tech company, blah-blah-blah, and I asked a question that’s often asked in pitch meetings which is: If you were successful, what will the underside be of that success, and how will you manage it? And he said something… He gave a bit of an answer and he said, “But those are unintended consequences,” as if you’re not responsible for unintended consequences.

我的意思是，我记得我当时正在跟这个人，无论是好是坏，都是非常典型的创始人，最近斯坦福大学商学院毕业生，聪明的人曾在一家高科技公司blah-blah-blah工作，我问在推销会议上经常问到的一个问题是：如果您成功了，那么成功的底蕴是什么，您将如何应对？ 然后他说了些什么……他给出了一个答案，他说：“但是那是意想不到的后果，好像您对意想不到的后果不承担任何责任。

Right. If you know they’re going to happen, you can’t call them unintended consequences.

对。 如果您知道它们将要发生，则不能称它们为意外后果。

Real leadership is whether or not you know they’re going to happen, you’re responsible for the consequences of your actions. I just think that the leaders in tech, many of them, not all. Many of them believe deeply that they are responsible. They’re making the world better. They’re not as focused on money and greed or power as people think, but they’re just not fully aware and empathetic to all the consequences that they’ve caused.

真正的领导才能是您是否知道会发生这种情况，您应对自己的行动后果负责。 我只是认为科技领域的领导者，不是很多，而是很多。 他们中的许多人深信自己是负责任的。 他们使世界变得更美好。 他们没有像人们想象的那样专注于金钱，贪婪或权力，但他们只是不完全意识到并同情他们造成的所有后果。

And as a result, they come off like fucking assholes and they… I mean, look, you see a billionaire writing a blog post about income inequality and how people shouldn’t worry about it too much. It’s like, no, maybe they should have thought to ask somebody who wasn’t rich before they did that kind of thing. You end up with that tone deafness combined with a genuine error of calculation.

结果，它们像他妈的混蛋一样冒出来，它们……我的意思是，看，你看到一个亿万富翁写了一篇关于收入不平等以及人们如何不应该过分担心的博客文章。 就像，不，也许他们在做这种事情之前应该考虑问一个不富有的人。 您最终会出现那种音调性耳聋，再加上真正的计算错误。

Real leadership is whether or not you know they’re going to happen, you’re responsible for the consequences of your actions.

真正的领导才能是您是否知道会发生这种情况，您应对自己的行动后果负责。

Now, the problem is if you overcorrect for it, you also fail. Uber would not exist, the entire ride-share industry would not exist had they said, “We will strictly follow the law.” I actually think it’s a way better world, but they didn’t. To admit that we might have better world for people who selectively ignore norms is a really tough one because tech is also in a world of optimization, really good at thinking ad infinitum to absolutes.

现在，问题是如果您对此进行了过度纠正，那么您也会失败。 如果他们说“我们将严格遵守法律”，那么Uber将不存在，整个乘车共享行业也将不存在。 我实际上认为这是一个更好的世界，但事实并非如此。 承认对于可能有选择地无视规范的人们来说，我们可能拥有一个更好的世界，这确实是一个艰难的过程，因为技术也在优化的世界中，这确实善于无限地思考绝对问题。

I think once you are big and powerful, you cannot live in a world where it is always right to go 100% left or 100% right. You have to let in the complexity of actual situations and tech is terrible at that both ways. You don’t listen to the experienced consultant just because they’re experienced because you might fail. But if you never listen to them, you might fail too. And so, that to me the tech paradigm evolving to account for its own power is the kind of the next generation of tech founders. I think that’s one of the things that will distinguish them that the previous generation just doesn’t get.

我认为，一旦您变得强大了，就无法生活在一个向左走100％或向右走100％总是正确的世界。 您必须让实际情况变得复杂，而在这两种方式下技术都是可怕的。 您不会仅仅因为有经验的顾问而听取经验丰富的顾问，因为您可能会失败。 但是，如果您从不听他们的话，您可能也会失败。 因此，对我而言，不断发展以说明自身力量的技术范式就是下一代技术创始人。 我认为这是可以区别上一代人无法理解的东西之一。

So, it’s almost as if what the tech industry produces is also tied up with all of these bad things.

因此，几乎就像高科技行业生产的产品也与所有这些不利因素联系在一起。

100%, inextricably linked.

100％紧密相连。

Then is there a hope for it to change?

那它有改变的希望吗？

Yes. I think that we are going to have to… I mean, look, you have plenty of examples of industries that change. The question is to me whether it would be violent change or thoughtful change. Violent change would be like tech gets something like the Glass-Steagall Act where it’s like, okay, now you—

是。 我认为我们将不得不……我的意思是，看，您有很多行业发生变化的例子。 对我来说，问题是暴力变革还是思想变革。 剧烈的变化就像技术获得了《格拉斯－斯蒂格尔法》一样，好吧，现在，您-

Can you tell us a little bit more about what that is?

您能告诉我们更多有关该内容的信息吗？

The Glass-Steagall was the act in the financial industry that, I forget how many years ago, 80 years let’s say, split apart consumer banking. So banking for humans from wholesale activities, investment banking all that kind of stuff. That’s maybe not a good technical description but that’s my terrible layman’s description of it. And it was ultimately 70 years after it’s passed, so maybe 10 years ago or so I don’t know exactly, overturned or repealed and— not overturned but repealed by some other law and it created lots of issues. It was arguably good but very clumsy solution and certainly not optimal.

Glass-Steagall是金融业的行为，我忘了多少年前(比如说80年)将消费银行业务分开了。 因此，通过批发活动为人类提供银行服务，为所有此类活动提供投资银行服务。 那可能不是很好的技术描述，但这是我可怕的外行对它的描述。 它最终通过了70年，大概是10年前，我不知道是完全推翻还是废除，没有推翻而是被其他一些法律废除，这引发了很多问题。 可以说这是很好的解决方案，但是解决方案却很笨拙，当然也不是最优的。

And so, if we end up with members of Congress who don’t know anything about tech which is not all of them, but it is some of them and we’ll talk about government later, but deciding to break apart the tech industry but doing it in a stupid way. There might be smart ways of doing — it will be really awful. And tech is not immune from all of these powers.

所以，如果我们最后得到的国会议员对科技一无所知，那不是所有人，而是其中的一部分，我们稍后再讨论政府，但决定分拆科技产业，愚蠢地做。 可能有一些聪明的做法-确实很糟糕。 科技并非无法摆脱所有这些力量。

I do think there’s one way. I see one path for tech to grow up that I’m really hopeful about—

我确实认为有一种方法。 我看到我非常希望技术成长的一种途径，

To do it on their own?

自己做吗？

Yeah, I don’t think it’s hopeless. But I do think it’s very much at risk. And I think all of us who care about how the world unfolds, and okay, more parochially if you just care about how the tech world unfolds. We should want that tech paradigm to both be able to create amazing new things and be able to grow up to the effects of its power.

是的，我认为这是没有希望的。 但是我确实认为这很有风险。 我想我们所有人都关心世界的发展，如果您只关心技术世界的发展，那么，更多的话，就是愚蠢的。 我们应该希望该技术范例既能够创造出惊人的新事物，又能够成长为强大的功能。

Right. And then so the way to do that. First of all, I think that if there is any big legislation coming in from the government right now, we will almost certainly have really bad, negative, unintended — to use our term — unintended consequences. It’s a shame that our government is really falling flat on its face in its responsibility to try to rein some of these companies in or at least—

对。 然后这样做的方式。 首先，我认为，如果政府现在有任何重大立法出台，我们几乎肯定会产生非常糟糕，消极和意想不到的后果(用我们的话来说)。 令人遗憾的是，我们的政府真的有责任束手无策，至少要遏制其中的一些公司，

Among many other government responsibilities. I mean, I believe in government but I believe in competent government.

在许多其他政府职责中。 我的意思是，我相信政府，但我相信有能力的政府。

If that’s not the thing that’s going to end up really helping the situation, so what’s it going to take?

如果那不是最终可以真正帮助解决问题的事情，那将要做什么？

I’ll give you two rays of hope. One, which takes a long time, and one which I think could happen faster. The one that takes a long time is the dominant tech companies 15 years from now might not be Facebook, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Netflix. They might be new companies that are arising now. And if that’s the case, the new generation of founders I just think is more aware and one of the reasons for that, I believe, and Uber is not a good example of this or maybe it’s the exception that proves the rule.

我给你两线希望。 一种需要很长时间，而我认为可能会更快。 需要花费很长时间的公司是1​​5年后的主导科技公司，可能不是Facebook，Amazon，Google，Microsoft，Netflix。 他们可能是现在兴起的新公司。 如果是这样的话，我认为新一代的创始人更加了解，并且我相信这是其中的原因之一，Uber并不是一个很好的例子，或者也许是证明规则的例外。

But my dummy’s history of the tech industry is for the first 25 years of the tech industry, they just made tech in the corner, like chips and wires and computers and screens and that was all essential infrastructure for what we have now. The next 25 years with the exception of Amazon, were really about information industries. Facebook, Google—they move bits around. The next generation is about tech expanding to everything else.

但是我的假人在科技行业的历史是在科技行业的头25年，他们只是在角力上制造技术，例如芯片，电线，计算机和屏幕，而这正是我们现在拥有的必不可少的基础设施。 除亚马逊之外，接下来的25年确实涉及信息产业。 Facebook，Google-他们四处走动。 下一代将技术扩展到其他一切。

And what happens when you expand everything else? Like accommodations in the case of Airbnb or logistics, transportation. We’re investors in Flexport—shipping broker—is you need to know the real world and how it works much faster, much earlier in the company’s life than you did when all you did was move bits. Because bits becomes significant but there are issues around privacy and cybersecurity. But the chance of somebody dying with a bad Google search was a rare occurrence. But the chance of somebody dying with a bad Airbnb stay could happen very early in the company’s journey. They even have had it for all I know.

当您扩展其他所有内容时会发生什么？ 就像爱彼迎的住宿或物流，交通一样。 我们是Flexport的投资者(运输经纪人)，您需要了解现实世界以及它如何运作，比您所做的只是移动钻头时要快得多，比公司早得多。 因为比特变得很重要，但是隐私和网络安全问题仍然存在。 但是，有人死于Google搜索错误的机会很少发生。 但是，有人可能会在Airbnb的旅途中很早就死掉。 就我所知，他们甚至都拥有它。

And so, I think that next generation of founders A) out of necessity and B) just culture like not all of the founders were outcasts when they were kids. It’s become a more central normal thing. And as a result, I think they’re… I’m not saying it’s bad to be an outcast, I was one. But I think that there’s a world awareness that the next generation of founders has. But that’s going to take a long time because this current generation is here for a while.

因此，我认为下一代创始人A)出于必要而B)只是一种文化，就像并不是所有的创始人都在孩子时代就被抛弃。 这已成为更重要的正常现象。 结果，我认为他们是……我并不是说被淘汰出局很糟糕，我就是其中之一。 但是我认为下一代创始人已经意识到了世界。 但这将需要很长时间，因为当前这一代已经存在了一段时间。

The second one and this is one of the things—

第二件事，这是其中之一-

The fast one?

快一个？

Yeah, the faster one, is the rising path — is the only constituency, the rise of the only constituency, that actually has power over the big tech companies and that is the employees at those tech companies. Things like the climate organizers at Amazon or the Google walkout or even momentary actions like when a bunch of Uber employees got Travis Kalanick to step off the president’s advisory board because they didn’t want him working with Trump, those moments all show that the only constituency that really has leverage over the big tech companies is the employees of those tech companies.

是的，速度更快，是上升的道路-是唯一的选区，也是唯一的选区的崛起，它实际上具有对大型科技公司的权力，并且是这些科技公司的员工。 诸如亚马逊的气候组织者或Google罢工之类的事情，甚至是一些瞬间的事情，例如一群优步员工让特拉维斯·卡兰尼克(Travis Kalanick)退出总统顾问委员会，因为他们不希望他与特朗普合作时，这些时刻都表明，唯一对大型高科技公司真正有影响力的选区是那些高科技公司的员工。

By the way, not all the employees right now. I mean, it’s really hard to organize Amazon warehouse workers although it is happening. But the kind of midlevel software engineers, as those folks organize and articulate what their interest is, I think they are an enormous power to be reckoned with.

顺便说一下，不是现在所有的员工。 我的意思是，尽管确实如此，但组织亚马逊仓库工人真的很难。 但是，像那些中级软件工程师那样，当那些人组织并阐明他们的兴趣所在时，我认为他们是一个不可忽视的巨大力量。

So, I’m spending time with folks who are doing that. I’m trying to learn about them because I think that if you want to be a successful company in the future, you need to anticipate that your employees as an organized collective, I mean, Kickstarter’s employees just unionized, that they’re going to have more power and I think that power is unbalanced. Not always. It won’t always be good but it is, on balance, a good thing.

因此，我正在与正在这样做的人们共度时光。 我试图了解他们，因为我认为，如果您想将来成为一家成功的公司，您需要预料到作为一个有组织的集体的员工，我的意思是，Kickstarter的员工刚刚加入工会，他们将有更多的权力，我认为权力是不平衡的。 不总是。 并非总是好事，但总的来说，这是一件好事。

One argument against that being a good thing is people might say, “We’re going to move essentially from an unchecked leader to — pardon the expression — a mob.” Which is the word that people use of employees that are pushing tech policy.

有人反对说这是一件好事，人们可能会说：“我们将基本上从不受约束的领导者转变为-赦免表达-暴民。” 人们用这个词来推动技术政策。

I think what’s better is a balance of power. I don’t think either one of them is… I’m not going to hand the keys to the world car to any constituency. But I think that a check makes a lot of sense. I think the same way not all leaders are made the same, not all groups are made the same. So some groups behave like irrational mobs and I think especially when one makes a decision based on perceived sentiment on social media. Twitter is not the world as much as I enjoyed Twitter, it is not the world.

我认为更好的是力量平衡。 我不认为其中任何一个是……我不会将世界汽车的钥匙交给任何选区。 但是我认为支票很有意义。 我认为，并不是所有领导人都一样，不是所有团体都一样。 因此，有些群体的行为就像非理性的暴民，我想尤其是当人们根据社交媒体上的感知情绪做出决定时。 Twitter不是我喜欢Twitter的世界，而是世界。

Those perceived sentiments can be very volatile. But the organized behavior of groups of people who have to come together and decide collectively in some mechanism whether it’s a membership association of employees, an informal group, even a union, those tend to behave more reasonably.

这些感知的情绪可能非常不稳定。 但是，必须聚集在一起并以某种机制集体决定的人员群体的组织行为，是否是雇员会员协会，非正式团体甚至工会，这些人的行为往往会更加合理。

I think it’s hard to look at the economic and social history of the United States without crediting unions for an enormous increase in the welfare and happiness of many people. Not everybody, they were racist for a long time. I mean, it’s bad. I’m not saying it’s unambiguous good, but I do think at this moment in time, it’s an ingredient that if we add it into the mix will make for betterment.

我认为，如果不将工会归功于许多人的福利和幸福的大幅度提高，就很难看一下美国的经济和社会历史。 不是所有人，他们很久以来都是种族主义者。 我的意思是，这很糟糕。 我并不是说这是明确的好处，但我确实认为在此刻，如果我们将其添加到混合物中可以改善的话，它是一种成分。

风险投资激励 (Venture capital incentives)

Venture capitalists want to put investments in people and then have them make a 100x the money, and then you get one of those that work out and you can make a lot smart bets for the rest of your career. And I wonder, is that healthy? It can lead to a lot of downstream effects? What do you think the role of the VC is in all these?

风险资本家想对人进行投资，然后让他们赚100倍的钱，然后您得到其中一个可以解决的方法，您就可以为自己的职业生涯做出很多明智的选择。 我不知道这是否健康吗？ 会导致很多下游影响吗？ 您认为VC在所有这些方面的作用是什么？

Yes, it’s a healthy model. Otherwise, I wouldn’t practice it.

是的，这是一个健康的模型。 否则，我不会练习。

Okay, that’s settled.

好的，已经解决了。

In a sense that I think it’s good. No, it’s not healthy if it’s the only model. And so, I’m really excited about many of these other experiments happening with different forms of capital for early companies. And I can talk about why VC is the way it is because as a founder, I really didn’t understand it. I was like, “Wait, you’d be unhappy if you only made three times your money? How can that be?” But I can explain that now that I’ve been doing it for almost a decade.

从某种意义上说，我认为这很好。 不，如果它是唯一模型，那是不健康的。 因此，我为许多其他针对早期公司采用不同形式的资本而进行的实验感到非常兴奋。 我可以说说为什么VC是这样，因为作为创始人，我真的不明白。 我当时想，“等等，如果只赚三倍的钱，你会不高兴吗？ 怎么可能？” 但是我可以解释的是，我已经做了近十年了。

I also think it’s unhealthy to embrace that model without qualification or reservation and just say, “Hey, the company got good, then it’s great.” I remember I was talking to this VC and he said, “Bloomberg is a terrible company.” I was like, “What are you talking about? By any definition, what do you mean?” He said, “Well, I think it wouldn’t get a very high multiple in the public markets.” And I was like, “That is your definition of good company? Okay, you do you kind of thing,” but it just goes to show how people think. By the way, I don’t that’s true but anyway.

我还认为，不加任何条件或保留而接受这种模式是不健康的，只是说：“嘿，公司业绩不错，那就很棒。” 我记得我当时在和这位风投商交谈，他说：“彭博社是一家糟糕的公司。” 我当时想，“你在说什么？ 无论如何，你是什么意思？” 他说：“嗯，我认为在公开市场上不会有很高的倍数。” 我当时想，“那是您对好公司的定义？ 好的，您会做些事情，”但这只是说明人们的想法。 顺便说一句，我不是真的，但是无论如何。

There is this way in which VCs and some founders but not the best of them have come to accept their model as 100% true in every case without qualification. And that I think is nonsense. Almost anything else is nonsense. That’s my qualifications to the “Is it healthy?” answer.

通过这种方式，风险投资家和一些创始人(但不是最好的创始人)在没有资格的情况下都接受了100％真实的模型。 我认为这是胡说八道。 几乎所有其他事情都是胡说八道。 那就是我的资格“健康吗？” 回答。

But let’s zoom in though on the actual VC element itself.

但是，让我们放大实际的VC元素本身。

Oh, yeah, what responsibility do VCs have in all these?

哦，是的，风投对此有什么责任？

Basically, what’s happening is if you fund people who feel this pressure to grow 10x, 20x, then sometimes we see very often that they all go and do—

基本上，正在发生的事情是，如果您资助那些感到自己承受10倍或20倍增长压力的人，那么有时我们会经常看到他们全都去做-

Yeah, does it have a downside? Of course, it has a downside.

是的，它有缺点吗？ 当然，它有一个缺点。

So, what role can you play to ensure that itself doesn’t happen?

那么，您可以扮演什么角色来确保自己不会发生？

I absolutely think VCs are responsible and it’s not easy to figure out how to act on that responsibility or else they would have acted on it already. And one of the challenges is no VC really has that much power over any company. We own 10%, maybe some VC owns 20% of a company. Oftentimes, we’re going to have voting shares. And that plus the highly competitive nature of the market can be an excuse to let yourself off the hook.

我绝对认为风险投资人是负责任的，要弄清楚如何履行该责任并不容易，否则他们将已经采取行动。 挑战之一是没有VC能够真正对任何公司拥有如此强大的实力。 我们拥有10％的股份，也许某些风投拥有公司20％的股份。 通常，我们会拥有投票权。 加上市场竞争激烈的特性，可以成为摆脱困境的借口。

I remember I was with one of the top five venture capitalists in Silicon Valley at a private dinner years ago, three, five years ago, I don’t know. And he was talking about gender issues in tech and how more companies should be disclosing the gender statistics of their workforce. I was like, “Yeah, but hey, you’re like a super-powerful VC. Can’t you just make that a requirement when you invest in the company?” And he was like, “Oh, but if we do that we’d lose every deal to Sequoia.” And I was like, “Uh, okay.”

我记得几年前，三，五年前的一次私人晚宴上，我曾与硅谷的前五位风险投资家一起，我不知道。 他谈论的是科技领域的性别问题，以及更多的公司应如何披露其员工的性别统计数据。 我当时想，“是的，但是，嘿，您就像一个超级强大的VC。 在投资公司时，您难道不只是一项要求吗？” 他就像，“哦，但是如果我们这样做，我们将失去每笔交易给红杉。” 我当时想，“嗯，好吧。”

By the way, on a certain level, he might be right but he might not be especially now. But on another level, it’s like, “Well, why don’t you just call Sequoia and the five of you get together?” There’s like four or five firms that are the best firms in the Valley that if they do something together and it’s hard for them because they all compete with each other and blah-blah-blah but they’ve done things together. If they do something together, there’s then all of a sudden, it will change the industry in its entirety in a heartbeat.

顺便说一句，在某种程度上，他也许是正确的，但现在可能不是特别正确。 但是在另一个层面上，这就像，“嗯，为什么不只给红杉打电话，你们五个在一起吗？” 有四，五家公司是硅谷最好的公司，如果他们一起做某事，这对他们来说很难，因为他们彼此竞争，等等，但是他们一起做事。 如果他们一起做某事，那么突然之间，它将彻底改变整个行业。

I think some of it requires a little organization among VCs. And some of it requires indirect influence as opposed to direct influence. And I think there are many cases where many VCs, I don’t mean to cast them as like all bad. Of course, great VCs have led many companies in a great direction. Andreessen Horowitz helped Airbnb expand the size of its customer guaranteed dramatically. They’re examples we know about. My guess is there are thousands of examples we don’t know about.

我认为其中一些需要风险投资家之间的组织。 并且其中一些需要间接影响而不是直接影响。 而且我认为，在很多情况下，很多VC并不意味着将它们全部视为坏事。 当然，优秀的风险投资公司已将许多公司引向了一个好的方向。 安德森·霍洛维兹(Andreessen Horowitz)帮助Airbnb扩大了保证的客户规模。 他们是我们所知道的例子。 我的猜测是有成千上万个我们不知道的例子。

But the question is how do you use that influence? And I think the first way you do it is what’s the first contact founders have with VCs is their reputation, is you try to set an example of yourself. The second thing is you set expectations. And we tried Bloomberg Beta to be the most transparent venture investors. You can read so many details on our website of how we work evaluations of the companies we invest in, blah-blah-blah.

但是问题是，您如何利用这种影响？ 而且我认为，做这件事的第一种方式是创始人与风投公司的首次接触就是他们的声誉，是您试图树立自己的榜样。 第二件事是您设定期望。 我们尝试将彭博Beta版作为最透明的风险投资者。 您可以在我们的网站上阅读有关我们如何评估所投资公司的详细信息，等等。

You have a ton on GitHub.

您在GitHub上有很多东西。

Thank you. That’s where we put it because of a good place to manage it. You could look at our section of our website which has our diversity, equity, inclusion and justice plans, and statistics. And you can call us on it. And there’s a number to reach HR if you need to tell somebody that we’ve done something wrong. And so I think that…

谢谢。 那是我们放置它的地方，因为它是管理它的好地方。 您可以查看我们网站的部分，其中包含我们的多样性，公平性，包容性和正义性计划以及统计信息。 您可以致电给我们。 如果您需要告诉某人我们做错了什么，还有很多可以联系到HR的人。 所以我认为...

And by the way, I don’t see us as a leader on those issues. I see us as trying to just be a model citizen on those issues. And so, I guess the short answer to your question, which is a very good one, is organizing among the VCs. And by the way, we saw this with the diversity ride or a bunch of VCs just added to their term sheet about committing to try to get investors from under-represented background.

顺便说一句，我不认为我们在这些问题上是领导者。 我认为我们试图在这些问题上成为模范公民。 因此，我想您的问题的简短答案非常好，正在组织风险投资家。 顺便说一句，我们看到了这种多样性，或者只是在他们的条款清单中加入了一些风险投资公司，这些风险投资公司致力于试图从代表性不足的背景中吸引投资者。

So, organizing is number one. The second is indirect influence and expectation setting. And that’s why I get so pissed off when I see VCs out there sort of flaunting the fact that you can ignore the law, and people and government are stupid and journalists are stupid because what they’re doing is not just oversimplifying what I’m sure or what I really hope is a much more nuanced view that they hold but they’re creating permission for generations of founders to think that way. And that’s not okay with me. We should respect journalists, for example.

因此，组织是第一位的。 第二是间接影响和期望设定。 这就是为什么当我看到风投们冒充你可以无视法律，人民和政府都愚蠢，新闻记者都愚蠢的事实时，我如此生气的原因，因为他们所做的不仅是过分简化了我的行为当然或我真正希望的是他们持有更细微的看法，但他们正在为一代又一代的创始人建立这种想法。 那对我来说不好。 例如，我们应该尊重记者。

Yeah, I’m with you on that one for sure.

是的，我肯定会支持你的。

I assume you would be. Do you think we should respect people in government? I think we should respect elected officials in general. Yes, some of them were stupid. Many of them have bad incentives but nonetheless.

我想你会的。 您认为我们应该尊重政府人员吗？ 我认为我们应该普遍尊重民选官员。 是的，其中有些很愚蠢。 但是，其中许多人的激励机制很差。

There’s a difference between being disrespectful and then being tough on your elected officials and tough on your journalists. And I think that we should definitely be tough on reporters. We should definitely be tough on government officials but I think oftentimes it descends into hate and it descends into disdain. And you never really get something done if the people on the other side or people you hate or people you disdain.

无礼与对当选官员的态度与对记者的态度之间是有区别的。 我认为我们绝对应该对记者采取强硬态度。 我们绝对应该对政府官员采取强硬态度，但我认为，它常常会引起仇恨而变得不屑一顾。 如果对方，您讨厌的人或您鄙视的人，您永远做不到真正的事情。

So, I think it starts with respect and if you actually care about solving the problems you’re talking about, that’s where you begin. You don’t go into campaigns against folks. I mean, you could go into political campaign against a politician you don’t like but the idea of just railing against somebody on Twitter, it’s not really a great way to get your goals pushed ahead.

因此，我认为这是从尊重开始的，如果您真的关心解决您正在谈论的问题，那么这就是您的起点。 您不会参加针对乡亲的运动。 我的意思是，您可以发起与您不喜欢的政治家的政治运动，但是在Twitter上与某人进行栏目的想法并不是真正实现目标的好方法。

You were saying it starts with respect and I agree with that. I do think you can be respectful and critical. I’ll give you an example of another complicated tech in government issue — which I agree with — which is Uber and all of the criticism of how it’s related to people, Lyft too. When I say Uber, I mean all those companies… would not have had an opportunity to exist or certainly not to exist in the same form had governments not done a better job on things like public transportation, taxi regulation.

您是说这始于尊重，我同意这一点。 我确实认为您可以做到尊重和批评。 我将给您举一个政府事务中另一个复杂技术的例子，我对此表示赞同，这就是Uber，以及对Lyft与人的关系的所有批评。 当我说Uber时，我的意思是所有这些公司……如果政府在公共交通，出租车监管等方面做得不好，就不会有机会存在，或者肯定不会以相同的形式存在。

In a way, I guess my point is there’s truth all around and it does start with respect for everybody except for Nazis. No respect for Nazis.

在某种程度上，我想我的意思是周围都有真相，这的确始于尊重除纳粹分子之外的所有人。 不尊重纳粹。

选举 (The election)

Well, what do you think is going to happen? We’re only somewhat qualified to talk about this. We’re two guys in the tech world. But I also think that we follow this stuff pretty closely and there’s a lot of alarm over what’s going to happen when this election comes.

好吧，您认为会发生什么？ 我们只是有资格谈论这个。 我们是科技界的两个家伙。 但是我也认为，我们非常关注这些内容，当选举到来时会发生很多警报。

I have no idea what’s going to happen. I mean despite having worked in government and my wife and I have been really active with her leadership on raising money and devoting a lot of time and effort to trying to move the country in a better direction, I have no idea. So the thing I will say, what I look at, is the prediction markets and it looks as far as I can tell like the price to buy Joe Biden is 59 cents and I think it pays off for a dollar. The price to buy Donald Trump is 45 cents and it pays off for a dollar. But who knows? I literally have no clue whatsoever. Also, Kamala is at four cents which suggests that there are some significant expectations built in there that Joe might die during the campaign.

我不知道会发生什么。 我的意思是，尽管我曾在政府部门工作，而我的妻子和我一直非常积极地与她的领导层一起筹集资金，并花费大量时间和精力来努力使国家朝着更好的方向发展，但我一无所知。 因此，我要说的是预测市场，据我所知，看起来买乔·拜登的价格是59美分，我认为这可以得到1美元。 购买唐纳德·特朗普的价格是45美分，而且还可以得到1美元。 但是谁知道呢？ 我从字面上什么都不知道。 同样，卡马拉(Kamala)的价格为4美分，这表明人们对乔在竞选期间可能会死去抱有很高的期望。

Right. I don’t think anyone is questioning Joe’s physical capabilities.

对。 我认为没有人怀疑乔的身体能力。

Yeah. So I don’t know. I guess the way I think about it is there’s real risk and we have a lot of work. And I am certainly putting tremendous time and effort between now and the election to try to get things to turn up the right way. One thing I’ll say about tech in this is if you go back to 2016, I remember having a conversation with someone, maybe it wasn’t in 2016 but shortly after. Tech used to be much more ignorant about politics than it is and I remember that there was this tech founder who I was talking to who exited for a lot of money, millions and millions and millions of dollars.

是的所以我不知道我想我的想法是存在真正的风险，我们还有很多工作要做。 从现在到大选，我当然要花大量的时间和精力，以使事情变得正确。 关于技术，我要说的一件事是，如果您回到2016年，我记得曾与某人交谈过，也许不是在2016年，而是不久之后。 科技公司过去对政治比现在更加无知，我记得有一位我与之交谈的科技创始人曾以大量金钱，数百万美元和数百万美元退出。

He was complaining about one of the grillings of Zuck on Capitol Hill and he said, “Oh, that guy,” he was talking, I think, about Orrin Hatch. He said, “He didn’t even know what Facebook’s business model was. God, how ignorant.” And by the way, I had a corporate executive once asked me in 2007, what is the difference between email and IM? Let’s not pretend that there’s a deep well of knowledge out there in the world.

他抱怨国会山上扎克(Zuck)的烤肉之一，他说：“哦，那个家伙，”我在谈论奥尔林·哈奇(Orrin Hatch)。 他说：“他甚至不知道Facebook的商业模式是什么。 天哪，多么无知。” 顺便说一句，我有一位公司高管曾在2007年问过我，电子邮件和IM之间有什么区别？ 我们不要假装世界上有丰富的知识。

Oh, it’s a while back. At this point, everyone has—

哦，有一段时间了。 在这一点上，每个人都-

Yeah, but I mean, it wasn’t that long ago. But anyway, fine, fair criticism. And then the meeting that Orrin Hatch didn’t know what he was talking about. And then, we hosted a fundraiser for a political candidate who we really believed in. And this person came and gave and the next day, he asked me when would I get my tax receipt. I was like, “What do you mean tax receipt?” “You know, the tax exemption.” I was like, “Giving money to elected officials is not tax-free.”

是的，但是我的意思是，不久之前。 但是无论如何，很好，公正的批评。 然后是Orrin Hatch不知道他在说什么的会议。 然后，我们为一个我们真正相信的政治候选人主持了一次募捐活动。这个人来了，给了他，第二天，他问我什么时候可以拿到我的税收收据。 我当时想：“您的收据是什么意思？” “你知道，免税。” 我当时想，“向民选官员捐钱不是免税的。”

And the point is that the same things that were obvious in the tech world, like what is Facebook’s business model, like members of Congress didn’t know. And the things that are obvious in the political world which is that giving money to elected officials is not tax-exempt were not clear to this person. And that reminded me of just this. It was just a little moment that reminded me of this enormous gulf in understanding.

关键是，在科技界显而易见的事情，例如Facebook的商业模式是什么，就像国会议员所不知道的那样。 在这个政治世界中，显而易见的事情是，向民选官员献钱并不免税。 这让我想起了这一点。 短短的一刻让我想起了理解上的巨大鸿沟。

We at our fund have tried to learn and bring others along in our learning. We organized these trips where we would take VCs around the country with members of Congress before Covid to learn about their startup ecosystems, the comeback city’s tourists. And we went to places that I’ve never been, Flint, Michigan, Tulsa, a place I had been like Atlanta. Anyway—

我们竭尽所能，努力学习并使其他人参与进来。 我们组织了这些旅行，在与Covid合作之前，我们将与美国国会议员一起在全国各地带风投，以了解他们的初创生态系统，卷土重来的城市游客。 我们去了从未有过的地方，弗林特，密歇根州，塔尔萨，一个我曾经像亚特兰大那样的地方。 无论如何-

Yeah, you did the Zuckerberg tour without posting everything.

是的，您没有发布所有内容就参加了扎克伯格之旅。

Without milking a sheep or whatever. Yes, something like that and although privately and without the fanfare.

不用挤羊或其他东西。 是的，类似的东西，尽管私下里没有大张旗鼓。

It wasn’t a presidential run.

这不是总统竞选。

I was not even dipping my toe.

I was not even dipping my toe.

Zuckerberg did deny to me that he was going to run for president on that one. So, can we have a similar denial from you today?

Zuckerberg did deny to me that he was going to run for president on that one. So, can we have a similar denial from you today?

Yes, I deny that I will run for president. I have been around enough elected officials to know. I certainly don’t want to.

Yes, I deny that I will run for president. I have been around enough elected officials to know. I certainly don't want to.

Anyway, but that’s changing. So after the elections in ’16 when people got freaked out, my wife and I started to have friends coming to us. And given where we live, many of our friends are in tech and just saying, “We want to do something, we don’t know what.” And we were like, “Well, we don’t know what either. Let’s just compare notes and figure it out together.” And I remember in December of 2016, we got a group together we called the Bowling Together. And this was the time where every—

Anyway, but that's changing. So after the elections in '16 when people got freaked out, my wife and I started to have friends coming to us. And given where we live, many of our friends are in tech and just saying, “We want to do something, we don't know what.” And we were like, “Well, we don't know what either. Let's just compare notes and figure it out together.” And I remember in December of 2016, we got a group together we called the Bowling Together. And this was the time where every—

Bowling Alone?

Bowling Alone?

The Putnam book, yes. Every group in tech was getting together, and not every group. Many groups of people were like, “We’re going to go over in Airbnb for the weekend, it’s all fake news.” And I was like, “Good luck. Is Zuck coming with you? Because otherwise, you don’t, I think, have a chance. But sure.”

The Putnam book, yes. Every group in tech was getting together, and not every group. Many groups of people were like, “We're going to go over in Airbnb for the weekend, it's all fake news.” And I was like, “Good luck. Is Zuck coming with you? Because otherwise, you don't, I think, have a chance. But sure.”

Anyway, but the point of this group was just to learn from each other. What emerged was that many of us wanted to figure it out together and we have embarked on this really four-year journey with a number of people we care about and trust of learning together about how to give more effectively. Now, there’s a community of people in tech who have new access to resources. Maybe they’re in a company that’s about to IPO or something that’s called First Principles where we study together about how to give back philanthropically and socially.

Anyway, but the point of this group was just to learn from each other. What emerged was that many of us wanted to figure it out together and we have embarked on this really four-year journey with a number of people we care about and trust of learning together about how to give more effectively. Now, there's a community of people in tech who have new access to resources. Maybe they're in a company that's about to IPO or something that's called First Principles where we study together about how to give back philanthropically and socially.

And so, I think at least in my perspective, this is changing and that makes me feel good. But it has to change fast or else we’re all screwed.

And so, I think at least in my perspective, this is changing and that makes me feel good. But it has to change fast or else we're all screwed.

Let’s wrap up here in talking about the responsibility of social media companies and what they should do. I’m going to pick up on a few things that you said over the course of our conversation.

Let's wrap up here in talking about the responsibility of social media companies and what they should do. I'm going to pick up on a few things that you said over the course of our conversation.

It seems to me that you’d like Facebook to step in a little bit more and take some posts down from politicians. One of the things I worry about is that when we have the social media company step in or actually just addressing the last mile of the problem, it’s always the manifestation, it’s not the root.

It seems to me that you'd like Facebook to step in a little bit more and take some posts down from politicians. One of the things I worry about is that when we have the social media company step in or actually just addressing the last mile of the problem, it's always the manifestation, it's not the root.

And I feel like there’s this tendency to seize onto the fact that this all Facebook’s fault whereas there’s 99% of the stuff underneath the surface before that one 1%.

And I feel like there's this tendency to seize onto the fact that this all Facebook's fault whereas there's 99% of the stuff underneath the surface before that one 1%.

It is not all Facebook’s fault. It is not all YouTube’s fault. It is not all Twitter’s fault or anybody’s fault, the New York Times, random blogger X. It is not all anybody’s fault. It’s all woven together in a fabric and I think that participation in social media. Look, I teach a media course for the MBA students at Berkeley. And I think about this much. I think it’s both cause and manifestation.

It is not all Facebook's fault. It is not all YouTube's fault. It is not all Twitter's fault or anybody's fault, the New York Times , random blogger X. It is not all anybody's fault. It's all woven together in a fabric and I think that participation in social media. Look, I teach a media course for the MBA students at Berkeley. And I think about this much. I think it's both cause and manifestation.

And so, yeah, I do think that people get radicalized by seeing things on YouTube. And I do think that all these companies have a responsibility. I think my most profound wish is I wish I believed that the leadership of those companies was as deeply worried about where things are going as I believe they ought to be. And it’s hard to say, “Look, I just don’t know.”

And so, yeah, I do think that people get radicalized by seeing things on YouTube. And I do think that all these companies have a responsibility. I think my most profound wish is I wish I believed that the leadership of those companies was as deeply worried about where things are going as I believe they ought to be. And it's hard to say, “Look, I just don't know.”

You hear things and it’s not clear if it’s lip service but I mean, a bunch of people had said, “Well, there goes…” who were at Facebook said, “Well, there goes Zuck again,” moving as little as he needs to do to address the issue in the moment and then moving on with his vision. And that scares me, I’ll admit, although I think Zuck is a contemplative, I mean from what tiny interactions I’ve had and from observing from afar, is a contemplative thoughtful person with deeply held beliefs and courage of his convictions, and I really respect a lot of that.

You hear things and it's not clear if it's lip service but I mean, a bunch of people had said, “Well, there goes…” who were at Facebook said, “Well, there goes Zuck again,” moving as little as he needs to do to address the issue in the moment and then moving on with his vision. And that scares me, I'll admit, although I think Zuck is a contemplative, I mean from what tiny interactions I've had and from observing from afar, is a contemplative thoughtful person with deeply held beliefs and courage of his convictions, and I really respect a lot of that.

I’d agree with that.

I'd agree with that.

Yeah. So I think the thing I’m trying to say is I don’t think it’s an easy answer of just take down some more posts and then we’re done. The way I look at it more is technology has its own wants and the Kevin Kelly book on this, What Technology Wants, is amazing.

是的So I think the thing I'm trying to say is I don't think it's an easy answer of just take down some more posts and then we're done. The way I look at it more is technology has its own wants and the Kevin Kelly book on this, What Technology Wants , is amazing.

That’s your number one recommendation on your Amazon booklist. I actually just checked—

That's your number one recommendation on your Amazon booklist. I actually just checked—

It is my number one recommendation on my Amazon booklist.

It is my number one recommendation on my Amazon booklist.

I just checked your list and bought it this afternoon. So, I’m looking forward to reading it.

I just checked your list and bought it this afternoon. So, I'm looking forward to reading it.

By the way, back on the tech paradigm for half-second before I finish this because I think it’s relevant. One of the things in the tech paradigm is it doesn’t matter who you are. You could be sitting anywhere and typing at your computer, sort of on the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog. And that’s the indifference norms things. And I think that’s why tech has been so blind about sexism and racism and all other forms of discrimination because it just doesn’t compute. It’s like, “Well, aren’t that person’s fingers typing on the keyboard the same as mine?”

By the way, back on the tech paradigm for half-second before I finish this because I think it's relevant. One of the things in the tech paradigm is it doesn't matter who you are. You could be sitting anywhere and typing at your computer, sort of on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. And that's the indifference norms things. And I think that's why tech has been so blind about sexism and racism and all other forms of discrimination because it just doesn't compute. It's like, “Well, aren't that person's fingers typing on the keyboard the same as mine?”

And so, there’s this great complexity when you just open up the aperture and look. And so I wish that I felt that more from the leadership of the social media companies and they’ve created something so big and so complex that it’s not Zuck knows the answer. It’s not like it’s like, “Oh, just do X and he can figure it out.” It’s hard. We don’t know as a society how to deal with this new tornado that we’ve unleashed.

And so, there's this great complexity when you just open up the aperture and look. And so I wish that I felt that more from the leadership of the social media companies and they've created something so big and so complex that it's not Zuck knows the answer. It's not like it's like, “Oh, just do X and he can figure it out.” 这个很难(硬。 We don't know as a society how to deal with this new tornado that we've unleashed.

And like any force of weather, we can shape it. We can’t stop it, I don’t think, like the people would just want to put the tornado away like that didn’t happen. And so, to me, the great quest is the quest of figuring out how to shape the power of these tools that we’ve created. And that is not the sole providence of any of those companies. It is not the sole providence of government. We have to figure it all out together.

And like any force of weather, we can shape it. We can't stop it, I don't think, like the people would just want to put the tornado away like that didn't happen. And so, to me, the great quest is the quest of figuring out how to shape the power of these tools that we've created. And that is not the sole providence of any of those companies. It is not the sole providence of government. We have to figure it all out together.

It’s so rare that we actually have these conversations that detail that go into what’s the impact on society? I know journalists spend a lot of time on it but what percent of this stuff is actually—

It's so rare that we actually have these conversations that detail that go into what's the impact on society? I know journalists spend a lot of time on it but what percent of this stuff is actually—

Well, I think it’s true in all times in history that those conversations kind of had to be crammed in among doing regular business. The treaty of Detroit between the auto companies and UAW that set the template for sort of modern American full-time employment, vacations, and health care benefits, and that kind of thing. It’s not like they could just stop everything for six months and work on that. Well, they did it. That’s the nature of action is you got to keep on with the flow.

Well, I think it's true in all times in history that those conversations kind of had to be crammed in among doing regular business. The treaty of Detroit between the auto companies and UAW that set the template for sort of modern American full-time employment, vacations, and health care benefits, and that kind of thing. It's not like they could just stop everything for six months and work on that. Well, they did it. That's the nature of action is you got to keep on with the flow.

As much as I can be a critic on some things, I also use the tools. I got this daily Twitter thing that I’m doing now with giving tips about work, the election thing—

As much as I can be a critic on some things, I also use the tools. I got this daily Twitter thing that I'm doing now with giving tips about work, the election thing—

I’ve been watching it. It’s been great.

I've been watching it. It's been great.

Anyway, but the election project that I was going to say that now I’m going to have to disclose in public before this podcast episode comes out—

Anyway, but the election project that I was going to say that now I'm going to have to disclose in public before this podcast episode comes out—

Great. We’re going to break some news.

Great. We're going to break some news.

Yeah, exactly. I have been working with some folks around the country on a new project that we’ve been working on for just about a little less than two weeks now to try to get more votes out in this election. And as we’ve looked at the issues with the U.S. Postal Service and mail delivery and the safety issues around voting in person, we saw some of the news around ballot drop boxes and how would they work, and could you just bring your vote over?

是的，完全正确。 I have been working with some folks around the country on a new project that we've been working on for just about a little less than two weeks now to try to get more votes out in this election. And as we've looked at the issues with the US Postal Service and mail delivery and the safety issues around voting in person, we saw some of the news around ballot drop boxes and how would they work, and could you just bring your vote over?

And so we are organizing local common voting parades, sort of people in their neighborhoods marching to the polls together. We’re calling it Walk the Vote, #walkthevote.

And so we are organizing local common voting parades, sort of people in their neighborhoods marching to the polls together. We're calling it Walk the Vote, #walkthevote.

And we could not do that but for the existence of all of these tools and platforms including by the way knowing low-code tools. And the whole thing spun up like — what is that effort? It’s not an organization. It’s not incorporated in any way but it is a Google Drive folder. And so, the way to me to think about it is like the weather. It’s a powerful force. You can’t stop it but you can shape it.

And we could not do that but for the existence of all of these tools and platforms including by the way knowing low-code tools. And the whole thing spun up like — what is that effort? It's not an organization. It's not incorporated in any way but it is a Google Drive folder. And so, the way to me to think about it is like the weather. It's a powerful force. You can't stop it but you can shape it.

翻译自: https://onezero.medium.com/a-vc-explains-why-vcs-are-so-pissed-off-right-now-88aee103df16

vc9.vc11.vc14