国会图书馆,下载方法
On July 29th, the House Antitrust Subcommittee brought together the CEOs of Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Apple to examine each company’s dominance in their respective marketplaces. Together, these companies added more than $2 trillion in combined market value during a time when Americans and small businesses have been hit with the worst economic crisis in decades. The shared displeasure of Big Tech brought together congress members from both sides of the aisle in what Rep. Ken Buck called “the most bi-partisan effort that he has been involved within 5.5 years of experience”. How heartwarming to see Big Tech bringing us together in a time when the country is more politically divided than ever.
7月29日，众议院反托拉斯小组委员会召集了Google，Facebook，亚马逊和苹果公司的首席执行官，以研究两家公司在各自市场中的主导地位。 在美国人和小企业遭受数十年来最严重的经济危机之际，这些公司加起来的总市值超过2万亿美元。 大技术公司的共同不满使过道两旁的国会议员聚集在一起，众议员肯·巴克(Ken Buck)称之为“他在5.5年的经验中所参与的最大的两党合作”。 在这个国家比以往任何时候都更加政治分裂的时代，看到大技术使我们走到一起真是令人心动。
The hearing wasn’t a surprise. Congress began its investigation into these companies in 2019 and came to well prepared with “millions of pages of evidence” of internal documents and testimonies from market participants. This was a clear improvement from the 2018 hearing in which Senators asked Mr. Zuckerberg if their e-mails in WhatsApp were monitored by Facebook. Despite whether you believe this investigation will create any real change or not, I think we can all agree that there is hope that Boomers may actually understand youth after all. Although we will have to see what the current administration decides to do with TikTok, but I digress.
听证会不足为奇。 国会于2019年开始对这些公司进行调查，并准备了“数百万页的证据”内部文件和市场参与者的证词。 与2018年的听证会相比，这是明显的改进，参议员在听证会上问扎克伯格先生， 他们在WhatsApp中的电子邮件是否受到Facebook的监控 。 尽管您是否相信这项调查会带来任何真正的变化，但我想我们都可以同意，有希望婴儿潮一代毕竟可以真正理解年轻人。 虽然我们将不得不看看现任政府决定与TikTok做什么，但是我离题了。
The choice to question the CEOs of all four companies concurrently, rather than separately, was an interesting one. Scott Galloway commented that this was a major weakness that prevented the committee from going deep enough into any given issue and leaving the American public with general sentiments rather than real conclusions. Regardless, it generally did not seem to detract from the intensity of the hearing which went something like this: Congress asked Tech CEO if the company ever conducted horrible action X. Tech CEO attempted to deflect the question or reiterate their corporate values. Congress revealed they already knew the answer to their question from their investigations and moved to the next question because they were limited in time. A notable exception was Mr. Bezos who mastered the art of simply talking over the questioner.
选择同时(而不是分别)质疑所有四家公司的首席执行官是一个有趣的选择。 斯科特·加洛韦(Scott Galloway)评论说，这是一个主要弱点 ，它使委员会无法深入研究任何给定的问题，并给美国公众留下了普遍的看法，而不是真实的结论。 无论如何，通常来说，这似乎并没有降低听证会的强度：国会询问Tech CEO，该公司是否曾采取过可怕的行动X。TechCEO试图逃避这个问题或重申其企业价值。 国会透露，由于时间有限，他们已经从调查中知道了问题的答案，并移至下一个问题。 Bezos先生是一个明显的例外，他掌握了简单地与提问者交谈的技巧。
谷歌
A major argument against Google was that the company had transformed from “a turnstile to the web into a walled garden which keeps users on Google’s sites” at the expense of other online businesses. As an example, lawmakers highlighted how Google scraped content from Yelp reviews to build its own business and significantly reduce web traffic to Yelp’s website. This example highlights an important question about ethical product development. Part of Google’s mission is to present information in the most useful way. From a user perspective, it’s useful to have information appear directly in the search page. However, it's economically disastrous for underlying websites that provide the data and rely on the web traffic for their business models.
反对Google的一个主要论点是，该公司已经从“从旋转栅门转到网络，变成围墙花园，使用户可以留在Google的网站上”，而这是以其他在线业务为代价的。 例如，立法者强调了Google如何从Yelp评论中抓取内容以建立自己的业务并显着减少Yelp网站的网络访问量。 此示例突出了有关道德产品开发的重要问题。 Google的使命之一就是以最有用的方式展示信息。 从用户角度来看，使信息直接显示在搜索页面中很有用。 但是，对于提供数据并依赖网络流量作为其业务模型的基础网站而言，这在经济上是灾难性的。
The second major argument was that Google broke its commitment to keep DoubleClick’s user data separate from Google’s user data and effectively “destroyed anonymity on the internet”. Specifically, lawmakers found that merging the two datasets allowed Google to connect user information from Gmail, search history, and location data to users’ browsing data across the rest of the internet collected from DoubleClick cookies. This allowed Google to serve highly targeted ads to increase profit while users had no agency to prevent this intrusion of privacy.
第二个主要论点是，Google违反了将DoubleClick的用户数据与Google的用户数据分开的承诺，并有效地“破坏了互联网上的匿名性”。 具体来说，立法者发现， 合并这两个数据集可以使Google将来自Gmail的用户信息，搜索历史记录和位置数据与通过DoubleClick Cookie收集的其余互联网用户的浏览数据相关联。 这使Google可以投放针对性强的广告来增加利润，而用户没有代理机构来防止这种侵犯隐私的行为。
This was a concern ever since Google acquired DoubleClick in 2007. At the time, the FTC conducted an eight-month investigation into the acquisition to determine whether the deal eliminated competition between the two firms in the digital advertising space, ultimately approving the deal. It is difficult to say whether Google’s purchase was anticompetitive after-the-fact because it's unclear if Google’s superior management or the combined firm’s dominant position should be credited for its rise.
自从Google在2007年收购DoubleClick以来，这一直是一个令人担忧的问题。当时，FTC对收购进行了为期八个月的调查 ，以确定该交易是否消除了两家公司在数字广告领域的竞争，最终批准了该交易。 很难说Google的收购事后是否具有反竞争性，因为目前尚不清楚是否应该以Google的高层管理人员或合并后的公司的主导地位来赞扬Google的收购。
Key Takeaways:
关键要点：
- Evidence shows situations where Google misappropriated content from other companies to keep users within its websites 证据表明，Google滥用了其他公司的内容以将用户保留在其网站中
- Google broke its 2007 commitment to separate Google and DoubleClick user data and infringed on user privacy in order to serve targeted ads Google打破了其2007年分离Google和DoubleClick用户数据的承诺，并侵犯了用户隐私权，以投放有针对性的广告
脸书
Similarly, Facebook was scrutinized for its 2012 acquisition of Instagram which Rep. Jerry Nadler claimed was executed to eliminate competition. As noted by the Verge, Nadler quoted emails from Zuckerberg that revealed Mr. Zuckerberg saw Instagram as a threat that could siphon business away from Facebook. In his response, Mr. Zuckerberg admitted that he believed Instagram was a competitor but asserted Instagram only became the company it is today due to Facebook’s involvement and investment. At the time, Instagram competed with several photo-sharing apps such as VSCO Cam, Path, and PicPLz, none of which have grown to the size of Instagram.
同样，Facebook因2012年收购Instagram而受到审查，众议员杰里·纳德勒(Jerry Nadler)声称这是为了消除竞争而执行的。 正如《边缘报 》(Verge)所述，纳德勒引用了扎克伯格的电子邮件，该邮件显示，扎克伯格认为Instagram是一种威胁，可能会将业务从Facebook上夺走。 扎克伯格在回应中承认 ，他认为Instagram是竞争对手，但他断言Instagram只是成为今天的公司，原因是Facebook的参与和投资。 当时，Instagram与VSCO Cam，Path和PicPLz等几种照片共享应用程序竞争，但这些应用程序都还没有达到Instagram规模。
Facebook was also scrutinized about perceived censorship of speech, a topic especially important for the upcoming election. Although Facebook’s stance has been that it “does not want to become the arbiter for truth”, officials pointed to inconsistencies between the company’s stated approach and actual practice. In fact, earlier this year, Facebook was accused of violating its own narrative for its treatment of coronavirus information and far-right conspiracy theorists.
Facebook还受到有关言论审查制度的审查，这对即将举行的选举特别重要。 尽管Facebook的立场是“不想成为真理的仲裁者”，但官员们指出，该公司既定做法与实际做法之间存在矛盾。 实际上，今年早些时候，Facebook被指控在处理冠状病毒信息和极右翼阴谋理论家时违反了自己的叙述 。
The issue of free speech on social media platforms has been a topic of debate for quite some time. As noted by the American Bar Association, private companies, such as Facebook, are not bound by the First Amendment and are free to limit or control speech to their liking. Although Mr. Zuckerberg has repeatedly asserted that Facebook does not intend to restrict speech on its platform, the company maintains community guidelines that do prohibit some forms of harmful or hateful speech, giving rise to human judgment for edge cases that could be problematic.
社交媒体平台上的言论自由问题一直是争论的话题。 正如美国律师协会所指出的那样，诸如Facebook之类的私人公司不受《第一修正案》的约束，并可以根据自己的喜好限制或控制言论。 尽管扎克伯格一再宣称Facebook并不打算限制其平台上的言论，但该公司仍保留社区准则，该准则禁止某些形式的有害或仇恨言论，从而导致人们对可能有问题的边缘案件做出判断。
Key takeaways:
关键要点：
- Evidence showed that Facebook acquired startups for the purpose of eliminating competition (with Instagram being a prime example) 有证据表明，Facebook收购初创公司是为了消除竞争(Instagram是一个很好的例子)
- Facebook continues to be investigated for its handling of controversial posts on its platform Facebook因其平台上有争议的帖子的处理而继续受到调查
Amazon
亚马孙
For Amazon, its relationship with third-party sellers was the main point of contention. Rep. Lucy McBath played a testimony from a third-party bookseller who was allegedly blocked out of the platform, seemingly to stop them from competing against Amazon’s own book sales. For quite some time, Amazon has been accused of systematically taking advantage of third-party sellers and favoring the sales of its own products, even though these third parties often have no other options to turn to.
对于亚马逊而言，其与第三方卖家的关系是争论的重点。 众议员露西·麦克巴斯(Lucy McBath)从第三方书商处作证 ，据称该第三方书店被封锁在平台之外，似乎是在阻止他们与亚马逊自己的图书销售竞争。 在相当长的一段时间内，亚马逊被指控系统性地利用第三方卖家并偏爱自己产品的销售，尽管这些第三方通常没有其他选择。
Earlier this year, the Wall Street Journal revealed that Amazon used data from independent sellers to develop competing private-label products, a practice that prohibited its own policies. In written statements, employees acknowledged several instances that these actions occurred, simply because the policies were not enforced or monitored. Additionally, the company was pushing to have Amazon brands make up 10% of its retail sales by 2022, providing a clear incentive to favor its private-label business. Mr. Bezos explained, “we have a policy against using seller-specific data” but “could not guarantee that the policy has never been violated.” For further reading, Lisa M. Khan lays out the paradox Amazon faces as both a retailer and platform in this detailed article.
今年早些时候，《华尔街日报》披露，亚马逊利用独立卖家的数据来开发竞争性的自有品牌产品，这种做法禁止了其自己的政策。 在书面声明中，员工仅因未实施或监控策略而承认发生了这些行为的几个实例。 此外，该公司一直在推动到2022年使亚马逊品牌占其零售额的10％，这显然是鼓励其自有品牌业务发展的诱因。 贝佐斯先生解释说：“我们有一项禁止使用卖方特定数据的政策”，但“不能保证从未违反该政策。” 为了进一步阅读，Lisa M. Khan在这篇详细的文章中阐述了亚马逊作为零售商和平台所面对的悖论。
Key takeaways:
关键要点：
- Amazon was accused of blocking third-party sellers on its Marketplace to favor sales of its own products 亚马逊被指控阻止其市场上的第三方卖家支持其自身产品的销售
- Evidence shows that Amazon used data from third-party sellers to develop its own line of competing white-label products, contrary to its own stated policies 证据表明，亚马逊使用第三方卖家的数据来开发自己的竞争性白标产品线，这与其自己制定的政策背道而驰
Apple
苹果
In his testimony, Mr. Cook touted that the App Store was developer-friendly with 84% of apps paying zero commissions, and the remainder paying 15% or 30% of sales depending on the nature of their products. Lawmakers, however, called into question the lack of transparency in Apple’s app review process and lack of consistency in applying commission rates to third-party developers. In fact, their findings showed that developers have no way to know how Apple reviewed apps, and Apple’s decisions to approve or reject apps seemed arbitrarily “made up along the way”. In the EU, lawmakers recently instituted new rules requiring Apple to give developers a chance to appeal decisions to remove apps from the App Store and to provide greater transparency into ranking algorithms. I would expect similar requirements to be implemented in the US as well.
库克先生在证词中吹捧说App Store对开发人员友好，其中84％的应用程序支付零佣金，其余的则根据产品的性质支付15％或30％的销售额。 但是，立法者对苹果的应用程序审查流程缺乏透明度以及向第三方开发人员应用佣金率缺乏一致性提出了质疑 。 实际上，他们的发现表明，开发人员无法知道苹果如何审查应用程序，并且苹果批准或拒绝应用程序的决定似乎是“一路走来”的结果。 在欧盟，立法者最近制定了新规则，要求苹果公司给开发人员一个机会，使其对从App Store中删除应用程序的决定提出上诉，并为排名算法提供更大的透明度。 我希望在美国也将执行类似的要求。
With respect to commissions, evidence showed that Apple made exceptions to its commission structure to favor larger developers, creating an uneven playing field for competition. Further, lawmakers were concerned that there was nothing stopping Apple from significantly raising commissions in the future. In their response, Apple stated that they haven’t changed the commission structure of the App Store since its launch (which is true) because they face fierce competition in attracting developers to the platform (which is laughable). Given that the only other real option to develop mobile apps is Android, its safe to say there isn’t that much “real” competition for talent. For further reading, Ben Thomson posted a fantastic analysis of antitrust issues in Apple’s App Store and how they evolved over time.
关于佣金，证据表明，苹果对其佣金结构作了例外，以青睐更大的开发商，从而为竞争创造了不平衡的竞争环境。 此外，立法者担心，没有任何事情可以阻止苹果未来大幅提高佣金。 苹果在回应中表示，自App Store推出以来，他们并未改变其佣金结构(的确如此)，因为在吸引开发人员加入该平台方面，他们面临着激烈的竞争(这是可笑的)。 鉴于开发移动应用程序的唯一其他真正选择是Android，因此可以肯定地说，人才竞争并不多。 为了进一步阅读，本·汤姆森(Ben Thomson)在Apple的App Store中发布了对反托拉斯问题的精彩分析 ，以及它们随着时间的演变。
Key takeaways:
关键要点：
- As the sole gatekeeper between app developers and users, Apple is accused of arbitrarily rejecting apps to benefit itself at the expense of developers 作为应用程序开发人员和用户之间的唯一看门人，苹果被指控任意拒绝应用程序以使自己受益，而这损害了开发人员的利益
- App developers are overly dependent on the App Store, which remains a closed system, giving Apple incentives to arbitrarily raise commissions as high as it wants in the future App开发人员过分依赖App Store，后者仍然是一个封闭的系统，这给苹果提供了诱因，使其可以随意提高佣金，使其将来达到所需的最高水平。
Conclusion
结论
The hearing was an opportunity for Congress to reveal the preliminary results of the past 12+ months of investigations rather than a chance to get to the bottom of any particular issue. Compared to earlier hearings, I was pleasantly surprised by the level of knowledge the lawmakers displayed about each of the different platforms, an indication that their investigations may bring forth real actions. However, questioning all four CEOs concurrently left many issues unaddressed due to a lack of time.
听证会是国会展示过去12个月以上调查的初步结果的机会，而不是深入探讨任何特定问题的机会。 与以前的听证会相比，立法者对每种不同平台所表现出的知识水平令我感到惊喜，这表明他们的调查可能提出实际行动。 但是，由于时间紧迫，同时对四位CEO进行质疑使许多问题没有得到解决。
For Messrs Pichai, Zuckerberg, Bezos, and Cook, the hearing gave insight into the political forces that can reasonably be expected to affect their enterprises over the next few years. Each faces a unique set of antitrust issues stemming from years of market dominance. In the short term, I expect each of these companies to increase their lobbying efforts to persuade lawmakers that they operate competitively in open marketplaces. Over the long term, there are questions about whether these companies can operate as they are currently structured.
对于Pichai先生，Zuckerberg先生，Bezos先生和Cook先生，听证会深入了解了可以合理预期在未来几年内影响其企业的政治力量。 每个人都面临着源于多年市场主导地位的一系列独特的反托拉斯问题。 在短期内，我希望这些公司中的每一个都加大游说力度，以说服立法者在开放市场中具有竞争优势。 从长远来看，人们对这些公司是否能够按照目前的组织结构运作存在疑问。
国会图书馆,下载方法
2万+
被折叠的 条评论
为什么被折叠?
到【灌水乐园】发言
