扎克伯格的誤區(qū)

Here is what Mark Zuckerberg learned from his 30-state tour of the US: polarisation is rife and the country is suffering from an opioid crisis. Forgive me if I have to lie down for a moment. Yet it would be facile to tease Mr Zuckerberg for his self-evident observations. Some people are geniuses at one thing and bad at others. Mr Zuckerberg is a digital superstar with poor human skills.

馬克•扎克伯格(Mark Zuckerberg)考察美國(guó)30州之后的收獲是：兩極分化嚴(yán)重，同時(shí)一場(chǎng)阿片危機(jī)肆虐全國(guó)。原諒我，我必須得躺一會(huì)兒。然而，取笑扎克伯格的結(jié)論顯而易見(jiàn)將是膚淺的。有些人在某一方面是天才，但在其他方面很差勁。扎克伯格是一個(gè)人際技能較差的數(shù)字巨星。

Facebook’s co-founder is not the first Silicon Valley figure to show signs of political inadequacy — nor will he be the last. But he may be the most influential. He personifies the myopia of America’s coastal elites: they wish to do well by doing good.

這位Facebook的聯(lián)合創(chuàng)始人不是硅谷第一個(gè)表現(xiàn)出政治悟性不足跡象的人士，也不會(huì)是最后一個(gè)。但他可能是最有影響力的。他是美國(guó)沿海地區(qū)精英人士短視的象征：他們希望通過(guò)做善事來(lái)取得事業(yè)成功。

When it comes to a choice, the “doing good” bit tends to be forgotten.

在面對(duì)選擇的時(shí)候，“做善事”的部分往往被遺忘。

There is nothing wrong with doing well, especially if you are changing the world. Innovators are rightly celebrated. But there is a problem with presenting your prime motive as philanthropic when it is not. Mr Zuckerberg is one of the most successful monetisers of our age. Yet he talks as though he were an Episcopalian pastor.

事業(yè)成功沒(méi)有什么錯(cuò)，尤其是如果你在致力于改變世界的話。創(chuàng)新者得到歡呼也沒(méi)錯(cuò)。但問(wèn)題是，你要把自己的主要?jiǎng)訖C(jī)說(shuō)成是做慈善，而其實(shí)不是。扎克伯格是當(dāng)今時(shí)代最成功的套利者之一，但他的言論聽(tīng)上去像是一位圣公會(huì)牧師。

“Protecting our community is more important than maximising our profits,” Mr Zuckerberg said this month after Facebook posted its first ever $10bn quarterly earnings result — an almost 50 per cent year-on-year jump.

扎克伯格本月表示：“保護(hù)我們的社區(qū)比讓利潤(rùn)最大化更重要。”此前Facebook報(bào)告首次實(shí)現(xiàn)100億美元的季度盈利，同比躍升近50%。

When a leader goes on a “listening tour” it means they are marketing something. In the case of Hillary Clinton, it was herself. In the case of Mr Zuckerberg, it is also himself. Making a surprise announcement that Mr Zuckerberg would be having dinner with an ordinary family is the kind of thing a Soviet dictator would do — down to the phalanx of personal aides he brought with him.

一個(gè)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者展開(kāi)“傾聽(tīng)之旅”意味著，他們?cè)谕其N什么東西。就希拉里•克林頓(Hillary Clinton)來(lái)說(shuō)，她推銷的是她自己。就扎克伯格來(lái)說(shuō)，他推銷的也是他自己。突然宣布扎克伯格將會(huì)與一個(gè)普通家庭共進(jìn)晚餐，有點(diǎn)像是蘇聯(lián)獨(dú)裁者做的事情——甚至包括身邊帶一群助手這樣的細(xì)節(jié)。

This is not how scholars find out what ordinary families are thinking. Nor is it a good way to launch a political campaign.

這不是學(xué)者們發(fā)現(xiàn)普通家庭想法的方法，也不是發(fā)起政治活動(dòng)的好辦法。

Ten months after Mr Zuckerberg began his tour, speculation of a presidential bid has been shelved. Say what you like about Donald Trump but he knows how to give the appearance of understanding ordinary people.

在扎克伯格開(kāi)始傾聽(tīng)之旅10個(gè)月后，有關(guān)其競(jìng)選總統(tǒng)的猜測(cè)已經(jīng)消散。不管你怎么說(shuō)唐納德•特朗普(Donald Trump)，至少他懂得如何表現(xiàn)得了解普通人。

More to the point, Facebook has turned into a toxic commodity since Mr Trump was elected. Big Tech is the new big tobacco in Washington. It is not a question of whether the regulatory backlash will come, but when and how.

更加關(guān)鍵的一點(diǎn)是，自特朗普當(dāng)選以來(lái)，F(xiàn)acebook已經(jīng)淪為一種有毒商品。在華盛頓，大型科技公司現(xiàn)在是新的煙草巨頭。問(wèn)題已經(jīng)不是監(jiān)管反彈會(huì)不會(huì)來(lái)，而是何時(shí)來(lái)臨以及如何來(lái)臨。

Mr Zuckerberg bears responsibility for this. Having denied Facebook’s “filter bubble” played any role in Mr Trump’s victory — or Russia’s part in helping clinch it — Mr Zuckerberg is the primary target of the Democratic backlash. He is now asking America to believe that he can turn Facebook’s news feed from an echo chamber into a public square. Revenue growth is no longer the priority. “None of that matters if our services are used in a way that doesn’t bring people closer together,” he says.

扎克伯格對(duì)此負(fù)有責(zé)任。扎克伯格否認(rèn)Facebook的“過(guò)濾氣泡”在特朗普的勝選中起了作用——或者俄羅斯在幫助他勝出方面起到了作用——因此成為民主黨人反彈的主要目標(biāo)。他現(xiàn)在要求美國(guó)相信，他可以把Facebook的信息流從回音室變成公共廣場(chǎng)。收入增長(zhǎng)不再是優(yōu)先事項(xiàng)。他說(shuō)：“如果我們的服務(wù)被使用的方式無(wú)助于拉近人與人之間的距離，那么這些都不重要。”

How will Mr Zuckerberg arrange this Kumbaya conversion? By boosting the community ties that only Facebook can offer. Readers will forgive me if I take another lie down. Mr Zuckerberg suffers from two delusions common to America’s new economy elites. They think they are nice people — indeed, most of them are. Mr Zuckerberg seems to be, too. But they tend to cloak their self-interest in righteous language. Talking about values has the collateral benefit of avoiding talking about wealth. If the rich are giving their money away to good causes, such as inner city schools and research into diseases, we should not dwell on taxes. Mr Zuckerberg is not funding any private wars in Africa. He is a good person. The fact that his company pays barely any tax is therefore irrelevant.

扎克伯格將如何實(shí)現(xiàn)這種圣歌般的角色轉(zhuǎn)換?通過(guò)增強(qiáng)只有Facebook能帶來(lái)的社區(qū)聯(lián)系。讀者們請(qǐng)?jiān)徫?，我要再躺一下了。扎克伯格有著美?guó)新經(jīng)濟(jì)精英們身上常見(jiàn)的兩個(gè)認(rèn)識(shí)誤區(qū)。他們認(rèn)為自己是善良的人;的確，他們當(dāng)中的多數(shù)人是好人。扎克伯格似乎也是如此。但他們傾向于用冠冕堂皇的語(yǔ)言來(lái)遮蓋自己的私利。討論價(jià)值觀的間接好處是避免討論財(cái)富。如果富人把他們的錢捐出去用于公益事業(yè)，例如內(nèi)城區(qū)學(xué)校和疾病研究，我們就不應(yīng)糾結(jié)于稅收問(wèn)題。扎克伯格沒(méi)有把錢花在非洲的私人戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)上。他是一個(gè)好人。他的公司幾乎沒(méi)有繳稅的事實(shí)因此是無(wú)關(guān)的。

The second liberal delusion is to believe they have a truer grasp of people’s interests than voters themselves. In some cases that might be true. It is hard to see how abolishing health subsidies will help people who live in “flyover” America. But here is the crux. It does not matter how many times Mr Zuckerberg invokes the magic of online communities. They cannot substitute for the real ones that have gone missing. Bowling online together is no cure for bowling offline alone.

自由派的第二個(gè)認(rèn)識(shí)誤區(qū)是認(rèn)為他們對(duì)公眾利益的把握要比選民自己還要準(zhǔn)確。在某些情況下，事實(shí)可能確實(shí)如此。很難看出廢止醫(yī)保補(bǔ)貼怎么能夠幫助美國(guó)內(nèi)陸各州的居民。但是關(guān)鍵也在這里。無(wú)論扎克伯格多少次夸耀在線社區(qū)的魔力，它們都無(wú)法取代已消失的真實(shí)社區(qū)。一起在線上玩保齡球，無(wú)法化解一個(gè)人在線下玩保齡球的孤獨(dú)。

The next time Mr Zuckerberg wants to showcase Facebook, he should invest some of his money in an actual place. It should be far away from any of America’s booming cities — say Youngstown, Ohio. For the price of a couple of days’ Facebook revenues, he could train thousands of people. He might even fund a newspaper to make up for social media’s destruction of local journalism. The effect could be electrifying. Such an example would bring a couple more benefits. First, it would demonstrate that Mr Zuckerberg can listen, rather than pretending to. Second, people will want to drop round to his place for dinner.

下一次扎克伯格想展示Facebook的時(shí)候，他應(yīng)該把他的一部分錢投資于實(shí)實(shí)在在的地方。地點(diǎn)應(yīng)該遠(yuǎn)離美國(guó)任何一個(gè)繁榮的城市，例如俄亥俄州的揚(yáng)斯敦(Youngstown)。依靠Facebook兩天的收入，他就能培訓(xùn)數(shù)千人。他甚至可以為一家報(bào)紙出資，以彌補(bǔ)社交媒體對(duì)本地新聞業(yè)造成的破壞。其效果可能是令人振奮的。這種榜樣將帶來(lái)另外兩個(gè)好處。首先，它將證明扎克伯格能夠傾聽(tīng)，而不是假裝在聽(tīng)。其次，人們會(huì)希望到他的家里串門吃飯。

[email protected] 譯者/何黎