全部四个

重点 (Top highlight)

没有怜悯没有恶意 (No Mercy No Malice)

The CEOs of Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google are scheduled to testify in front of the U.S. House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee. Some thoughts…

苹果，亚马逊，Facebook和谷歌的吨他的CEO计划在美国众议院司法反垄断小组委员会面前作证。 一些想法...

Big Tech has won before the hearing starts. Agreeing to let all four testify concurrently inhibits the committee’s ability to go deep on any one issue and will leave the American public with a sentiment instead of a viewpoint on Big Tech, much less any conclusions (such as, that the Obama Department of Justice was asleep at the switch and that Instagram and WhatsApp should be divested). The Covid-19-inspired remote format dramatically lessens the likelihood of an unscripted moment that reveals something the American public didn’t previously know. Fabric softener for tough questioning is the deep pockets that keep members in power.

在听证会开始之前，Big Tech已获胜。 同意让所有四个人同时作证将抑制委员会深入探讨任何一个问题的能力，并将使美国公众产生一种情绪，而不是对大科技的看法，更不用说任何结论了(例如，奥巴马司法部的结论是在切换时睡着了，应该剥离Instagram和WhatsApp)。 受Covid-19启发的远程格式极大地降低了无脚本的时间揭示美国公众以前不知道的事情的可能性。 织物柔软剂可以使成员保持掌权，而这些织物柔软剂可用于严峻的质疑。

When the show starts, Mark Zuckerberg will be the target of the most ire as he’s an oligarch minus the charm. Jeff Bezos, on the other hand, will receive the least ire as his command of soft power is second only to China. Being on these committees must be just awesome as every member clings to their office as if they were Puerto Rican rescue dogs clinging to lamb lung fillet. (I see this with my dog, Gangster. It’s a moment that gives you pause—to see how much a living thing can love something else.)

节目开始时，马克·扎克伯格(Mark Zuckerberg)将是最惹火的对象，因为他是寡头，但魅力无穷。 另一方面，杰夫·贝索斯(Jeff Bezos)的愤怒最少，因为他对软实力的控制仅次于中国。 参加这些委员会一定很棒，因为每个成员都紧贴自己的办公室，就好像他们是波多黎各救援犬一样紧贴着羔羊的内圆角。 (我和我的狗黑帮一起看到了这一刻。这是片刻让您停下来，看看有什么生物可以爱上别的东西。)

Bezos has the power to take away the committee’s lamb treats (he owns a powerful arbiter in the WaPo), and, maybe more important, they want invites to the best parties in D.C. (low bar) at the old textile museum — Bezos’s man cave in Kalorama. I think Bezos lacks character and code (he gamifies the commonwealth for his own enrichment #HQ2), but I’d love to roll with him, and so would every first ballot hall of lame panelist questioning him at the hearings. Tim Cook and Sundar Pichai will likely just try to stay out of the line of fire and fawning for Zuck and Bezos, respectively. Expect Zuck to use two words repeatedly in his defense (“tick” and “tock”) as he attempts to wrap himself in the flag and convince the committee that he’s our national champion, singularly able to repel the invading Chinese coming for our children.

Bezos有权撤消委员会的羔羊食品(他在WaPo中拥有强大的仲裁人 )，而且也许更重要的是，他们希望邀请老纺织博物馆的DC最好的聚会(低酒吧)— Bezos的男人洞穴在Kalorama。 我认为贝索斯(Bezos)缺乏品格和代码(他将自己的财富＃HQ2英联邦化)，但我很乐意与他同乐，因此，每一个first脚小组成员的第一个投票大厅都会在听证会上对他提出质疑。 蒂姆·库克(Tim Cook)和桑达尔·皮查伊(Sundar Pichai)可能只会试图分别远离扎克和贝索斯的火线和讨好对象。 希望扎克(Zuck)在试图将自己的旗帜包裹起来并使委员会相信他是我们的全国冠军时，会反复在防御中使用两个单词( “ tick”和“ tock” )，从而能够唯一地击退入侵的中国人为我们的孩子而来。

But there is hope. By limiting the hearing to the antitrust subcommittee, the House gives more time to representatives who have domain expertise. The sharpest of these embers, if they take the right approach, may be able to move the needle from apathy toward outrage and build momentum for future change.

但是有希望。 通过将听证会限制在反托拉斯小组委员会上，众议院将更多时间分配给具有领域专业知识的代表。 这些余烬中的最锋利的人，如果采取正确的方法，也许能够使人们从冷漠转向愤怒，并为未来的变化建立动力。

The key here is to recognize the medium is the message. Exploit the one attribute of the format that can be much improved: visuals. These always look awkward and very ’50s during live testimony, though Rep. Katie Porter does a great job with her mini-whiteboards (note to self: get one). The “share screen” function should be the weapon of choice here. Words will communicate themes (you’re too big and abuse your monopoly power, which suppresses innovation, job growth, and the economy). Little is new here, but points can be communicated more effectively than before. The best opportunity to yield insight into why Big Tech should be broken up is to highlight the scale of the firms and the problem. The winning cocktail is visuals and proportions.

这里的关键是要识别媒介 是消息。 利用可以大大改善的格式的一个属性：视觉效果。 尽管众议员凯蒂·波特(Katie Porter)的迷你白板做得很好，但在现场作证时，这些看起来总是很尴尬且很五十年代。 “共享屏幕”功能应该是此处的选择武器。 言语会传达主题(您太大了，滥用了您的垄断权，抑制了创新，工作增长和经济)。 这里很少有新内容，但是可以比以前更有效地传达要点。 深入了解为何应分解大型技术的最佳机会是突出公司的规模和问题。 获奖的鸡尾酒是视觉效果和比例。

The effective panelists at these hearings use the witness as a prop to stamp their passport on the way to the destination (you’re a monopoly). The strategy is simple: Ask a question, share screen/visual, unshare so public can see an awkward reaction by witness, allow five seconds max for answer, interrupt, and wash, rinse, repeat. So, as I’m hoping to be unanimously approved as U.S. ambassador to Australia in the Biden administration (#ItCouldHappen), here are my suggestions for visuals and questions:

在这些听证会上，有效的小组成员以证人为道具，在前往目的地的路上盖章(您是垄断者)。 策略很简单：提出问题，共享屏幕/图像，取消共享，以便公众可以看到见证人的尴尬React，最多允许五秒钟的时间进行回答，打断以及清洗，漂洗，重复。 因此，由于我希望在拜登政府中获得一致批准成为美国驻澳大利亚大使(#ItCouldHappen)，因此，我对视觉和问题的建议如下：

全部四个 (All four)

Q: Messrs. Bezos, Cook, Pichai, Zuckerberg, your firms have added greater market capitalization in the last five years than the largest retailers and CPG firms have in total. This is a large portion of the entire consumer economy. If you were public servants, would you be concerned that too many of the spoils are being registered by increasingly fewer firms and people?

问：贝索斯(Bezos)，库克(Cook)，皮查伊(Pichai)，扎克伯格(Zuckerberg)先生，您的公司在过去五年中的市值增幅超过了最大的零售商和CPG公司的总和。 这是整个消费经济的很大一部分。 如果您是公务员，您是否会担心越来越多的公司和人员正在登记太多的赃物？

Q: Your market capitalization per employee is thousands of times higher than that of other companies in your sectors. Do you think your companies contribute to income inequality?

问：您的每位员工的市值比您所在行业的其他公司高数千倍。 您认为您的公司加剧了收入不平等吗？

Q: Since the onset of the pandemic, nearly every sector, other than Big Tech and companies deemed too big to fail, has shed substantial value. Instead, since the beginning of the year, your firms and Microsoft have increased in value by an average of 35% while the remaining 495 firms in the S&P 500 are down 5%. Every firm, sector, and economy appears to have incurred a transfer in value and power to your firms. Should we be concerned that your considerable advantage pre-Covid-19 is now unassailable?

问：自大流行开始以来，除大型技术公司和认为太大而不能倒闭的公司以外，几乎每个领域都已失去了可观的价值。 相反，自年初以来，您的公司和Microsoft的价值平均增加了35％，而标准普尔500指数中其余495家公司的价值却下降了5％。 每个公司，部门和经济似乎都已经向您的公司转移了价值和权力。 我们是否应该担心，在Covid-19之前的可观优势现在已经不可动摇了？

Q: Small business formation is at a multidecade low. The fastest-growing sectors receive scant funding from investors. Why should someone invest in a search engine right now or a music-streaming business or a social media platform or an e-commerce firm given the sizes of your companies?

问：小型企业的成立处于几十年来的最低水平 。 增长最快的行业得不到投资者的资金。 考虑到您公司的规模，为什么现在应该有人投资搜索引擎，音乐流媒体业务，社交媒体平台或电子商务公司？

苹果 (Apple)

Q: Mr. Cook, “monopoly rent” is when a monopoly producer lacks competition and thus can sell its goods and services at a price far above what the otherwise competitive market price would be at the expense of consumers. Our information age is often called “the app economy,” denoting how important apps have become to commerce and consumption. Your firm and Google dominate the app ecosystem, with 62% and 38% shares respectively. This chart shows the rents you are able to extract from every streaming video app. Every media company that wants to reach a consumer online must pay you a toll or rent. Do you think any of these firms believe that paying you this rent is a choice?

问：库克先生，“垄断租金”是指垄断生产者缺乏竞争，因此可以以远高于其他竞争性市场价格的价格出售其商品和服务而损害了消费者的利益。 我们的信息时代通常被称为“应用程序经济”，表示应用程序对商业和消费的重要性。 您的公司和Google主导着应用生态系统，分别占有62％和38％的份额。 此图表显示了您可以从每个流式视频应用中提取的租金。 每个想要在线吸引消费者的媒体公司都必须向您支付通行费或租金。 您是否认为这些公司中的任何一家相信向您支付租金是一种选择？

Q: Apple TV+ is offering consumers $1 billion in original content for every $0.80 a month the consumer spends on your Apple TV+ streaming video service. Isn’t it your opportunity to differentiate your $1,300 phones and fund Apple TV+ from the revenues of an unrelated product that allows you to offer a media product at well below cost? In sum, isn’t Apple guilty of “dumping,” that is, buying market share with unfeasibly low prices?

问：Apple TV +向消费者提供的原始内容，即消费者每月在Apple TV +流式视频服务上花费的每0.80美元，就可向其提供10亿美元的原始内容。 您难道不是有机会将1300美元的手机与众不同，并从不相关产品的收入中为Apple TV +提供资金，使您能够以低于成本的价格提供媒体产品吗？ 总而言之，苹果不是犯了“倾销”的罪名，即以不合理的低价购买市场份额吗？

Q: Spotify is consistently rated as a superior music service to your Apple Music, yet Apple Music is growing faster than Spotify in the U.S. Isn’t this a function of you owning the rails and being able to levy a 30% tax on a competitor while illegally reducing their discoverability in the app store?

问：Spotify一直被评为Apple Music的高级音乐服务，但是Apple Music在美国的发展速度比Spotify 快 。这是否意味着您拥有责任并能够向竞争对手征税30％？同时非法降低其在应用商店中的可发现性？

亚马孙 (Amazon)

Q: Mr. Bezos, you are the wealthiest person in the world. Your wealth exceeds the GDP of Kuwait and Luxembourg combined. It exceeds the defense budgets of Israel, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom combined. A common feature among the other wealthiest Americans of the 20th century (Rockefeller, Morgan, Mellon, Carnegie, Gates) is that most/all of these men presided over firms that were eventually tried for monopoly abuse and deemed monopolies. Why should we believe your wealth accumulation is any different?

问：贝索斯先生，你是世界上最富有的人。 您的财富超过了科威特和卢森堡的GDP之和。 它超过了以色列，法国，德国和英国的国防预算之和。 在20世纪其他最富有的美国人(洛克菲勒，摩根，梅隆，卡内基，盖茨)中，一个共同的特征是，大多数/所有这些人主持的公司最终都因垄断滥用和被视为垄断而受到审判。 我们为什么要相信您的财富积累有什么不同？

Q: Last year, Amazon paid $162 million in federal tax while your largest competitor, Walmart, paid almost $3 billion. Do you think this level of participation in our country’s infrastructure and services is appropriate for a company worth $1.5 trillion?

问：去年，亚马逊支付了1.62亿美元的联邦税，而最大的竞争对手沃尔玛则支付了近30亿美元。 您认为这种参与我国基础设施和服务的水平适合于价值1.5万亿美元的公司吗？

Q: Due to Covid-19, U.S. consumers are expected to spend an additional $41 billion on retail e-commerce in 2020. Since you control 38% of U.S. e-commerce revenue, doesn’t this mean that you’ve added at least $16 billion in topline revenue due to Covid-19 while thousands of small businesses have folded?

问：由于Covid-19，预计到2020年美国消费者在零售电子商务上的支出将增加410亿美元。既然您控制了美国电子商务收入的38％ ，这并不意味着您至少增加了Covid-19带来了160亿美元的收入，而数千家小型企业已经倒闭 ？

Q: In a five-week period during the pandemic, your firm added the value of the world’s largest firm by revenue — Walmart. If your firm can accrete the value of the largest firm in the world in five weeks, and money is power, then isn’t your firm the most powerful private entity in history? Hasn’t your firm reached a level of soft and economic power well beyond the point when the DOJ has historically taken antitrust action?

问：在大流行期间的五周时间内，您的公司增加了按收入计算的全球最大公司的价值- 沃尔玛 。 如果您的公司可以在五周内增加世界上最大公司的价值，而金钱就是力量，那么您的公司不是历史上最强大的私人实体吗？ 您的公司难道没有达到司法部历来采取反托拉斯行动的程度的软实力和经济实力吗？

Q: Our understanding is your firm has more full-time lobbyists in Washington than there are sitting U.S. senators. Are you aware of any retailer or tech firm, other than Google, that has this many lobbyists attempting to suppress regulation or antitrust action?

问：我们的理解是，贵公司在华盛顿的专职说客比在职美国参议员多。 您是否知道除Google以外的任何零售商或科技公司，有这么多游说者试图压制监管或反托拉斯行为？

Q: Mr. Bezos, 82% of American homes have Amazon Prime, more than voted in the 2016 election, have a pet, attend church, or decorate a Christmas tree. Can you name any other firm that has a recurring revenue relationship with eight out of 10 households?

问：贝索斯先生，有82％的美国房屋拥有Amazon Prime，比2016年选举中的投票数还要多，养宠物，参加教堂活动或装饰圣诞树。 您能说出其他与10个家庭中有8个家庭具有经常性收入关系的公司吗？

Q: Your video content, as registered by IMDb and the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, is far inferior to the content offered by AT&T’s division (HBO), yet you refuse to distribute HBO Max as a stand-alone offering on your service. Doesn’t this mean you are leveraging your distribution power to weaken the competition (HBO Max) and reduce consumer access to better content?

问：IMDb和美国国家电视艺术与科学研究院注册的视频内容远不及AT＆T部门(HBO)提供的内容，但是您拒绝将HBO Max作为独立的产品分发。 这是否意味着您正在利用发行权削弱竞争( HBO Max )并减少消费者获得更好内容的机会？

Q: Mr. Bezos, the recently released terms of service for your audio and podcast platform say that participants on the service cannot say anything bad about Amazon. Are we to assume that all assets you control, including the Washington Post, are restricted to only positive comments regarding you and your firm?

问：贝佐斯先生，您的音频和播客平台最近发布的服务条款说 ，服务的参与者不能对亚马逊说任何不好的话。 我们是否假设您控制的所有资产(包括《 华盛顿邮报》 )仅限于对您和您的公司的正面评价？

谷歌 (Google)

Q: Mr. Pichai, your search engine is the default on Android devices, and you have a multibillion-dollar contract with Apple to be the default search engine on the iPhone. You’ve also bought digital advertising networks to build your part of the digital advertising duopoly. What company — whether a search business or an advertising firm — can begin to compete with a behemoth with such a massive advantage and such deep pockets?

问：Pichai先生，您的搜索引擎是Android设备上的默认搜索引擎，并且您与Apple 签订了数十亿美元的合同 ，成为iPhone上的默认搜索引擎。 您还购买了 数字广告网络，以构建自己的数字广告双寡头。 哪家公司(无论是搜索公司还是广告公司)可以开始与具有如此巨大优势和如此雄厚财力的庞然大物竞争？

Q: Google owns the dominant digital ad server, DoubleClick Ad Exchange, or AdX. Over 90% of large publishers sell their ad inventory on AdX. And Google owns the dominant tool, Google Ads, through which advertisers purchase inventory on AdX. Don’t you think controlling both the auction house for ad space and the main auction participant for buying those ad spaces allows Google to engage in anticompetitive pricing?

问：Google拥有主要的数字广告服务器，DoubleClick Ad Exchange或AdX。 超过90％的大型发布商在AdX上出售其广告资源。 Google拥有主导工具Google Ads，广告主可通过该工具购买AdX上的广告资源。 您不认为同时控制拍卖行的广告空间和购买这些广告空间的主要拍卖参与者可以使Google参与反竞争定价吗？

Q: You’ve been fined three times by the EU for acting in ways that harm competition. Google searches favor YouTube ahead of other video rivals. Searches often display results just under the question as the user types, making it unnecessary to click any links. This deprives other firms of revenue. You present search results as you see fit, independent of the cost to other businesses. Don’t you think having 71% share in the search business and increasingly locking other companies out of profits through search is unfair use of monopoly power?

问：您因以损害竞争的方式行事而被欧盟罚款三倍 。 Google搜索比其他视频竞争对手更喜欢 YouTube。 当用户键入内容时，搜索通常会在问题下方显示结果，从而无需单击任何链接。 这剥夺了其他公司的收入。 您可以根据自己的意愿显示搜索结果，而与其他业务的成本无关。 您不认为在搜索业务中拥有71％的股份，并通过搜索将其他公司越来越多地限制在利润之外是对垄断权力的不公平使用吗？

Q: YouTube has come under criticism many times in the past for radicalizing our children through an algorithm that suggests increasingly violent and extreme content. A user can start out with “downtown NYC,” and within three videos, they are being offered conspiracy theories about how 9/11 was an inside job. One of your former engineers accused YouTube of perverting civic discussion through radicalizing algorithms. Don’t you think that if YouTube were its own company and had more competitors of similar size that it would be forced to work harder to correct these algorithms that are so toxic to the public good? If the best corrective mechanism of a free market is competition, where is the competition to force you to do better?

问：YouTube过去曾因通过暗示越来越暴力和极端内容的算法激怒我们的孩子而屡屡受到批评。 用户可以从“纽约市中心”开始，在三个视频中，可以看到有关9/11是内部工作的阴谋论 。 您的一位前工程师指责YouTube通过激进的算法来歪曲公民讨论 。 您难道不认为，如果YouTube是自己的公司，并且拥有更多类似规模的竞争对手，那么它会被迫更加努力地纠正这些对公共利益有害的算法吗？ 如果自由市场的最佳纠正机制是竞争，那么迫使您做得更好的竞争在哪里？

Q: Mr. Pichai, can you name any other firm, anywhere in the world, that has this level of market share of a sector greater than $100 billion in size?

问：皮查伊先生，您能说出世界上任何一家在这一领域的市场份额都超过1000亿美元的公司吗？

脸书 (Facebook)

Q: Mr. Zuckerberg, a Princeton University study of Americans’ internet habits leading up to the 2016 presidential election found that Facebook led users to untrustworthy news sites 15% of the time and to trustworthy news sites only 6% of the time. Studies have also found that the underlying Facebook algorithm, which promotes emotion and outrage, benefitted Donald Trump more than Hillary Clinton. Do you feel partially responsible for the erosion in the sanctity of our elections?

问： 普林斯顿大学对扎克伯格的研究表明 ，在2016年总统大选之前美国人的互联网习惯是Facebook导致用户有15％的时间访问不信任的新闻站点，而只有6％的时间导致用户访问了值得信任的新闻站点。 研究还发现，促进情绪和愤怒的底层Facebook算法使唐纳德·特朗普比希拉里·克林顿受益更多。 您是否对我们的选举神圣不可侵犯负有部分责任？

Q: This summer, a number of Facebook’s biggest advertisers announced a boycott of the platform in response to your inadequate handling of hate speech. In response, Nick Clegg, your vice president for public affairs, said, “We’ve made huge strides … But, you know, on an average day, there are 115 billion messages sent on our services around the world, and the vast, vast, vast majority of that is positive.” Clegg’s defense is also an admission that Facebook is too large to safely manage. Are you too big to protect your platform from hate speech and socially divisive messaging?

问：今年夏天，由于您对仇恨言论的处理不当，许多Facebook最大的广告商宣布抵制该平台。 对此，您负责公共事务的副总裁尼克·克莱格(Nick Clegg)表示：“我们取得了长足的进步……但是，您知道，在全球范围内，平均每天有1,150亿条信息通过我们的服务发送，绝大多数是积极的。” 克莱格的辩护也承认 Facebook太大而无法安全管理。 您太大了，无法保护您的平台免受仇恨言论和社交歧视讯息的影响吗？

Q: As we saw in the 2016 elections, Facebook’s power can be exploited to disrupt elections, broadcast viral propaganda, and inspire deadly hate campaigns around the globe. Facebook is an algorithmic rage machine that perpetuates conspiracy theories (including that vitamins will protect you from Covid-19) at a far greater rate than truth. Enragement is engagement. Nearly half of all top-performing posts that mention voting by mail are false or misleading. What good are you offering your users that outweighs the cyberwar Russia fought on your platform and that it is prepared to fight again, the systematic surveillance of users, and the torrent of misinformation on your platform?

问：正如我们在2016年选举中所看到的那样， 可以利用 Facebook的力量来破坏选举，传播病毒宣传以及激发全球范围内的致命仇恨运动。 Facebook是一种算法式的愤怒机器，它使阴谋论(包括维生素将保护您免受Covid-19侵害)的延续远超过真相。 激怒就是参与。 在所有提到通过邮件投票的表现最好的帖子中，几乎有一半是虚假或误导性的 。 您为您的用户提供的好处超过了俄罗斯在您的平台上进行的网络战争，并准备再次战斗，系统地监视用户以及您平台上的大量错误信息？

Q: Teen suicide has skyrocketed — up 77% for older teen girls and up 151% for younger teens. Hospital admissions due to self-harm are up 50% for 15- to 19-year-old girls and up 200% for 10- to 14-year-old girls. Gen Z is on the brink of the worst mental health crisis in decades. Do you think platforms like Instagram, where girls perpetually feel their appearance doesn’t match up to filtered images, has something to do with this mental health crisis?

问：青少年自杀率飙升-年龄较大的少女自杀率上升了77％，而青少年则上升了151％。 15至19岁的女孩因自残而住院的人数增加了50％，而10至14岁的女孩则增加了200％。 Z世代正处于数十年来最严重的心理健康危机的边缘。 您是否认为像Instagram这样的平台，让女孩们永久感觉自己的外貌与过滤后的图像不符，是否与这种心理健康危机有关？

Q: Mr. Zuckerberg, you are in sole control of a platform whose algorithms select and deliver content (news and entertainment) to 2.6 billion people. Your algorithms are opaque to government agencies. You are the principal source of information for a cohort larger than any country or religion — a population greater than that of China and the U.S. combined. You cannot be removed from office and will likely control these algorithms for the next five to seven decades. So, we’d like to get to know you better. You know, get a feel for the real Mark Zuckerberg. A couple of questions:

问：扎克伯格先生，您完全可以控制一个平台，该平台的算法可以选择并向26亿人口提供内容(新闻和娱乐)。 您的算法对政府机构是不透明的。 您是比任何国家或宗教都要大的同龄人(比中国和美国的总和还多的人)的主要信息来源。 您不能被免职，并可能在接下来的五到七十年内控制这些算法。 因此，我们想更好地了解您。 您知道吗，感受一下真正的马克·扎克伯格。 几个问题：

Are you a pathological liar?Do you display a lack of remorse or guilt?And again…Are you a pathological liar?

您是病态的骗子吗？您表现出对悔恨或内的缺乏吗？再说一次……您是病态的骗子吗？

Life is so rich,

生活如此丰富

Scott

史考特

P.S. More about my take on the hearings (or at least, more entertaining) on this week’s Prof G Show.

附言：关于我在本周的G教授节目上进行听证会的更多信息(至少是娱乐性更高)。

翻译自: https://marker.medium.com/big-tech-won-the-antitrust-hearings-before-they-even-started-bdb2f613c398