贷前审查和贷中审查_大技术受到审查

贷前审查和贷中审查

On Wednesday, the CEOs of Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Alphabet appeared before the US Congress, which has been studying hundreds of hours of interviews and more than 1.4 million documents as part of efforts to try to understand the business practices of these companies and their impact on innovation, competition and society. At least on this occasion we did not see a repeat of April 2018, when several members of Congress showed their ignorance of the basics of these companies’ business.

周三， 亚马逊，苹果，Facebook和Alphabet的首席执行官出席了美国国会 ，该国会一直在研究数百小时的采访和140万份文件 作为试图了解这些公司的业务惯例及其对创新，竞争和社会影响的努力的一部分。 至少在这次情况下，我们没有看到2018年4月的重演，当时几位国会议员对这些公司的业务基础不了解。

To begin with, these are four very different companies, but that between them add up to a market capitalization of almost $5 trillion, annual revenues of almost $800 billion, and a cash flow of almost $500 billion. They are among the most innovative companies in the world (Apple is the first, Alphabet the second, Amazon the third, and Facebook the tenth), and leaving out Microsoft, which will no doubt be very grateful for not being invited, they represent that group that has been called big tech, and that the pandemic has even benefited greatly: two of the four quizzed by Congress, who, in addition to being CEOs, are founders of their companies, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg, have seen their fortunes grow by up to 60% since mid-March, from $113 billion to $181 billion and from $55,000 to $86,000 respectively.

首先，这是四家截然不同的公司 ，但它们之间的市值总和接近5万亿美元，年收入近8000亿美元，现金流近5000亿美元 。 他们是世界上最具创新力的公司之一 (苹果是第一，字母表是第二，亚马逊是第三，Facebook是第十)，而微软(不包括微软)无疑是非常感激的 ，因为他们不被邀请 ，他们表示：这个被称为大型技术的组织，这种流行病甚至已经从中受益匪浅：国会四次被问及的问题中，有两个是首席执行官的，他们是公司的创始人，杰夫·贝索斯(Jeff Bezos)和马克·扎克伯格(Mark Zuckerberg)，他们的财富在增长自3月中旬以来，涨幅高达60％，从1130亿美元增至1810亿美元，从55000美元增至86000美元。

Making a lot of money is always synonymous with wrongdoing, although the business practices that have contributed to generating those fortunes and the contribution they should make to society as a whole are the subject of debate. But what Congress is interested in is the dominance obtained by these companies in their industries: advertising, retail, electronics or services.

赚很多钱总是做错事的代名词，尽管促成产生这些财富的商业惯例及其应为整个社会做出的贡献是辩论的主题。 但是国会感兴趣的是这些公司在其广告，零售，电子或服务行业中的主导地位。

This deserves public discussion. The fact that Apple has a monopoly on its App Store and imposes terms that some people consider abusive on developers who intend to use this channel to reach users deserves discussion, as might Google, Facebook and Amazon’s share between them 70% of digital advertising in the United States, or that Amazon makes sure its vendors do not compete with it or that Facebook is a threat to democracy.

这值得公众讨论。 苹果在其App Store上拥有垄断地位，并强加一些人认为对打算使用该渠道来吸引用户的开发人员的侮辱性条款，这一点值得讨论，谷歌，Facebook和亚马逊在它们之间的70％的数字广告份额也应引起讨论。美国，或者确保亚马逊确保其供应商不与之竞争，或者确保Facebook 对民主构成威胁 。

But above all, the debate is about the extent to which the dominance of these companies may now be blocking innovation: if every time one of them detects that some new entrant has come up with a product that might threaten their hegemony, they can simply use their infinite resources to acquire it or copy it, then our future is at stake and we must apply antitrust laws.

但最重要的是，争论的焦点是这些公司的主导地位现在在多大程度上阻碍了创新：如果其中每一个公司每次发现新进入者提出了可能威胁其霸权的产品， 他们都可以使用他们无限的资源来获取或复制它 ，那么我们的未来就处于危险之中，我们必须应用反托拉斯法。

Perhaps the best way to protect ourselves against the omnipotence of big tech is not to think about forcing it to break up into smaller companies. In fact, it may well be that this view of antitrust laws is quite outdated, and that today it would actually be useless or even have negative effects. But from there, as some think tanks funded by those same big tech companies claim, there is nothing to be done. Nevertheless, something will have to change in the way the market and innovation are protected from the power of companies that dominate their sectors.

保护我们自己不受大型技术的全能的最好方法也许就是不要考虑强迫其分裂成较小的公司 。 实际上，很可能这种对反托拉斯法的看法已经过时了，而今天它实际上将是无用的，甚至会产生负面影响。 但是从那以后，就像那些由那些大型高科技公司资助的智囊团所说的那样 ，没有什么可做的。 然而，在保护市场和创新不受主导其行业的公司的力量的影响方面，必须做出一些改变。

That said, we’re going to need to hear better arguments than Mark Zuckerberg’s bogus patriotism: “if you regulate me, you will be benefiting China”. In reality, we are talking about how to rebuild the anti-monopoly guarantees that the United States itself and neoliberal thinking nullified a few decades ago, and create an environment in which anyone with a good idea can launch it and operate it without being harassed by players who are beyond competition.

就是说，我们需要听到比马克·扎克伯格的虚假爱国主义更好的论点：“ 如果你规范我，你将使中国受益 ”。 实际上，我们正在谈论如何重建几十年前美国本身和新自由主义思想无效的反垄断保证 ，并创造一种环境，使任何有好主意的人都可以发起和运作它，而不会受到骚扰。超越竞争的玩家。

How to approach a complex regulatory process? We are talking about rebuilding the regulatory landscape destroyed by Robert Bork under Ronald Reagan that neutralized antitrust legislation and created an anything goes environment that has brought us to where we are now. To do this will possibly require measures to break these companies up, possibly overturn some acquisitions and create new supervision mechanisms, new taxes and close loopholes, or force them to open up their data gathering, or even some strategic algorithms. We are talking about rewriting the rules of the game for the data economy, for an economy that has rewritten its own rules and that has led us into an increasingly unsustainable situation.

如何处理 复杂的监管流程 ？ 我们谈论的是重建罗伯特·博克(Robert Bork)在罗纳德·里根(Ronald Reagan)的统治下所破坏的监管格局，该格局中和了反托拉斯法，并创造了一种让我们走到现在的无所不能的环境。 为此， 可能需要采取措施将这些公司拆散，可能推翻一些收购并创建新的监管机制 ， 新的税收和弥补漏洞 ，或迫使他们开放数据收集 ， 甚至一些战略算法 。 我们正在谈论的是为数据经济重写游戏规则，对于一个已经重写了自己的规则并导致我们陷入越来越不可持续的局面的经济 。

Given what’s going on in the world, and if you’re not American, you might be forgiven for thinking that Wednesday’s events were a largely internal affair with little real impact. But you’d be wrong, because what’s at stake here is our future.

考虑到世界上正在发生的事情，并且如果您不是美国人，您可能会认为周三的事件在很大程度上是内部事务，几乎没有真正的影响，这是可以原谅的。 但是您会错的 ，因为这里关乎我们的未来。

(En español, aquí)

( Enespañol ， aquí )

翻译自: https://medium.com/enrique-dans/big-tech-under-scrutiny-9fc224858853

贷前审查和贷中审查