扎克伯格的误区
马克•扎克伯格(Mark Zuckerberg)考察美国30州之后的收获是：两极分化严重，同时一场阿片危机肆虐全国。原谅我，我必须得躺一会儿。然而，取笑扎克伯格的结论显而易见将是肤浅的。有些人在某一方面是天才，但在其他方面很差劲。扎克伯格是一个人际技能较差的数字巨星。
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.
这位Facebook的联合创始人不是硅谷第一个表现出政治悟性不足迹象的人士，也不会是最后一个。但他可能是最有影响力的。他是美国沿海地区精英人士短视的象征：他们希望通过做善事来取得事业成功。
When it comes to a choice, the “doing good” bit tends to be forgotten.
在面对选择的时候，“做善事”的部分往往被遗忘。
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.
事业成功没有什么错，尤其是如果你在致力于改变世界的话。创新者得到欢呼也没错。但问题是，你要把自己的主要动机说成是做慈善，而其实不是。扎克伯格是当今时代最成功的套利者之一，但他的言论听上去像是一位圣公会牧师。
“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：“保护我们的社区比让利润最大化更重要。”此前Facebook报告首次实现100亿美元的季度盈利，同比跃升近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.
一个领导者展开“倾听之旅”意味着，他们在推销什么东西。就希拉里•克林顿(Hillary Clinton)来说，她推销的是她自己。就扎克伯格来说，他推销的也是他自己。突然宣布扎克伯格将会与一个普通家庭共进晚餐，有点像是苏联独裁者做的事情——甚至包括身边带一群助手这样的细节。
This is not how scholars find out what ordinary families are thinking. Nor is it a good way to launch a political campaign.
这不是学者们发现普通家庭想法的方法，也不是发起政治活动的好办法。
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.
在扎克伯格开始倾听之旅10个月后，有关其竞选总统的猜测已经消散。不管你怎么说唐纳德•特朗普(Donald Trump)，至少他懂得如何表现得了解普通人。
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.
更加关键的一点是，自特朗普当选以来，Facebook已经沦为一种有毒商品。在华盛顿，大型科技公司现在是新的烟草巨头。问题已经不是监管反弹会不会来，而是何时来临以及如何来临。
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.
扎克伯格对此负有责任。扎克伯格否认Facebook的“过滤气泡”在特朗普的胜选中起了作用——或者俄罗斯在帮助他胜出方面起到了作用——因此成为民主党人反弹的主要目标。他现在要求美国相信，他可以把Facebook的信息流从回音室变成公共广场。收入增长不再是优先事项。他说：“如果我们的服务被使用的方式无助于拉近人与人之间的距离，那么这些都不重要。”
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.
扎克伯格将如何实现这种圣歌般的角色转换?通过增强只有Facebook能带来的社区联系。读者们请原谅我，我要再躺一下了。扎克伯格有着美国新经济精英们身上常见的两个认识误区。他们认为自己是善良的人;的确，他们当中的多数人是好人。扎克伯格似乎也是如此。但他们倾向于用冠冕堂皇的语言来遮盖自己的私利。讨论价值观的间接好处是避免讨论财富。如果富人把他们的钱捐出去用于公益事业，例如内城区学校和疾病研究，我们就不应纠结于税收问题。扎克伯格没有把钱花在非洲的私人战争上。他是一个好人。他的公司几乎没有缴税的事实因此是无关的。
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.
自由派的第二个认识误区是认为他们对公众利益的把握要比选民自己还要准确。在某些情况下，事实可能确实如此。很难看出废止医保补贴怎么能够帮助美国内陆各州的居民。但是关键也在这里。无论扎克伯格多少次夸耀在线社区的魔力，它们都无法取代已消失的真实社区。一起在线上玩保龄球，无法化解一个人在线下玩保龄球的孤独。
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的时候，他应该把他的一部分钱投资于实实在在的地方。地点应该远离美国任何一个繁荣的城市，例如俄亥俄州的扬斯敦(Youngstown)。依靠Facebook两天的收入，他就能培训数千人。他甚至可以为一家报纸出资，以弥补社交媒体对本地新闻业造成的破坏。其效果可能是令人振奋的。这种榜样将带来另外两个好处。首先，它将证明扎克伯格能够倾听，而不是假装在听。其次，人们会希望到他的家里串门吃饭。
edward.luce@ft.com 译者/何黎
