民主党的硅谷讨伐战
出了美国首都10英里，你很难感受到人们对硅谷有多少愤怒之情。然而，在华盛顿环路以内，大科技公司的垄断力量极少被人们淡忘。
In the space of a few months, the likes of Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s founder, and Eric Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, have gone from heroes to pariahs. The Democratic party’s new big idea is to break up the Silicon Valley groups — or to impose far tougher regulations. The problem is that most voters do not seem to share this passion. For populism to work, it should be popular.
在几个月时间里，Facebook创始人马克•扎克伯克(Mark Zuckerberg)和谷歌(Google)首席执行官埃里克•施密特(Eric Schmidt)等人从英雄沦为贱民。民主党的新的大想法是拆分硅谷企业——或者施行严厉得多的监管。问题在于，大多数选民似乎并不抱有同样的热情。要想搞民粹主义，首先得打动人心。
No doubt America’s voters should be more worried about the threat of Big Tech. But liberals should beware of talking among themselves. Groupthink shields people from counter-narratives. Recall the “demography is destiny” belief that Democrats were assured of winning the White House. Or that women would vote overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton. The idea that Russia — enabled by Facebook, Twitter and others — tipped last year’s election to Donald Trump has become an article of faith. What if voters aren’t listening? Or worse, that they think Democrats are lying?
毫无疑问，美国选民理应更担心大科技公司的威胁。但自由派人士应该提防自娱自乐。群体思维会阻碍人们提出反论。回想一下有关民主党人一定能赢得白宫的“人口结构决定一切论”。或者应该会有压倒性多数的女性把票投给希拉里•克林顿(Hillary Clinton)的设想。关于俄罗斯依靠Facebook、Twitter和其他渠道、让去年的美国大选朝着有利于唐纳德•特朗普(Donald Trump)的方向倾斜的说法，已经变成了一种信念。但如果选民没有听进去呢?或者更糟糕，如果他们认为民主党在撒谎呢?
That hits the nerve of the problem. A generation ago America declared a war on drugs. Tens of billions of dollars and dozens of broken cartels later, most US law enforcement veterans admit defeat. The problem lay in the demand for drugs, rather than its supply. The same applies to fake news. People seek it out. Suppose Facebook could debar any foreign money from making political ads, and Twitter weeded out every Russian bot and troll. Would it alter the tone and content of America’s politics? I very much doubt it. Homegrown entities such as Inforwars, Newsmax and Breitbart would still do their worst. As Mark Twain is supposed to have said, a lie travels halfway around the world before truth has put its boots on.
这触及到了问题的要害。一代人以前，美国对毒品宣战。在花费数百亿美元，打掉数十个毒品集团之后，大多数美国资深执法人员承认他们失败了。问题在于对毒品的需求，而不在于其供应。同样的道理也适用于假新闻。人们会寻觅自己爱看的新闻。假设Facebook能够禁止境外资金被用来做政治广告，Twitter能够封杀每一个俄罗斯自动程序和恶意造谣者。这能够改变美国政治的调子和内容吗?我很怀疑。Inforwars、Newsmax和Breitbart等本土实体依然会努力作恶。就像马克•吐温(Mark Twain)据称说过的，谎言已经传到世界的另一边，而真相才刚刚穿上靴子。
High demand for fake news mirrors the collapse in trust for US institutions. Most newspapers support tough action against Silicon Valley. Software, as they say, is eating the world. Google and Facebook are swallowing the revenues of professional media. Journalists are thus part of the same antitrust bubble that Democrats inhabit. Beware of basking in media consensus. Mrs Clinton was endorsed by virtually every newspaper in the country — conservative and liberal. Hard though it is for a journalist to admit, this may actually have helped Mr Trump. It may do so still. Mr Trump profits as much as he loses from the moral outrage he so richly deserves.
对假新闻的旺盛需求反映出人们对美国机构的信任崩塌。大多数报纸支持对硅谷采取严厉行动。它们说，软件正在吞噬这个世界。谷歌和Facebook正在吞噬专业媒体的收入。因此，新闻从业人员成了民主党人所处的反垄断泡沫的一部分。要提防沉迷于媒体共识。当初希拉里得到了美国几乎所有报纸的支持——无论是保守派还是自由派报纸。尽管让一个新闻从业人员承认这一点很难，但这实际上可能帮了特朗普。同样的事情可能还在发生。特朗普引发的道德义愤使他失去了很多，也得到了很多。
As my colleague Rana Foroohar has argued, there are strong economic grounds to step up regulation of Big Tech. Likewise, there is mounting evidence to show that the Silicon Valley groups are abusing their monopoly leverage. Again, however, this should not be confused with good politics. It is a tall order to expect voters to feel ripped off by a social media page or search engine that costs nothing. Most people simply shrug. It is hard to see the economics of personal data ownership catching on. The amount of time it would take to chase up pennies on the dollar is unlikely to ignite the popular imagination.
就如我的同事拉娜•福鲁哈尔(Rana Foroohar)主张的，有充足的经济理由来加强对大科技公司的监管。同样，越来越多的证据表明硅谷的科技集团正滥用它们的垄断支配地位。然而，这不应该与高明的政治策略混为一谈。很难期望选民觉得自己被免费的社交媒体页面或者搜索引擎占了便宜。大多数人只会耸耸肩。难以看出个人数据所有权的经济意义赢得广泛共鸣。在小钱上做文章不太可能激发民众的想象力。
Elizabeth Warren, the 2020 presidential hopeful, has called on Democrats to emulate the trustbusting Teddy Roosevelt. But Facebook is not Standard Oil. Nor is social media a Wall Street bank. Ms Warren was right to point out that America’s bankers got off very lightly from the 2008 crisis. Virtually no senior banker was held criminally liable for defrauding middle America. Ms Warren’s critique also had popular appeal. Left or right, most Americans were outraged by the alacrity with which Wall Street bonuses returned in the wake of the largest bailout in history. Now she has switched her aim to Silicon Valley.
有望角逐2020年大选的伊丽莎白•沃伦(Elizabeth Warren)呼吁民主党人效仿分拆垄断企业的西奥多•罗斯福(Theodore Roosevelt)。但Facebook不是当年的标准石油公司(Standard Oil)。社交媒体也不是华尔街银行。沃伦曾正确地指出，美国的银行家们轻易逃脱了2008年危机的责任。几乎没有高级银行家因为诈骗美国中产阶层而被追究刑事责任。沃伦的批评也有民众感召力。无论是左派还是右派，大多数美国人对于华尔街在史上最大规模纾困之后若无其事地恢复了奖金感到愤怒。现在沃伦把枪口转向了硅谷。
Until recently, liberal America and Big Tech were allies. Democrats acted as if they believed Google’s “Don’t be evil” motto. That was naive. Now they are falling out of love. Companies such as Google may earn their break up. But it should not be because they have subverted democracy. Blame for that must be widely shared. Trust in politics nosedived long before Facebook reached dominance, or Twitter was launched. They have become enablers of fake news. But consumers remain the chief source of demand.
直到不久以前，美国的自由派阵营和大科技公司还是盟友。民主党人貌似相信谷歌的“不作恶”座右铭。那有点幼稚。现在双方的恋情宣告终结。谷歌等公司可能尝到“分手”的苦涩。但这不应该是因为它们拆了民主制度的墙脚。那方面的指责必须由很多机构分担。对政治的信任崩塌在Facebook取得主宰地位，或者Twitter上线很久之前就发生了。社交媒体便利了假消息的传播。但消费者仍是需求的主要来源。
Until Democrats rebuild trust in their brand, good policy will be hard to sell. They should also be wary of fellow travellers. Others calling for the break-up of the tech groups include Steve Bannon, Mr Trump’s alter ego, and Richard Spencer, founder of the alt-right. With allies like these, who needs foes?
在民主党人重建对他们品牌的信任之前，好的政策将依然难以兜售。他们应该对同行者抱有戒心。呼吁拆分科技集团的人还包括特朗普的知己史蒂夫•班农(Steve Bannon)，以及“另类右翼”(alt-right)创始人理查德•斯潘塞(Richard Spencer)。有这样的盟友，谁还需要敌人?
