被科技“五恶人”统治，或许也没那么坏？
科技巨头们太庞大了。但如果这并不是多大的坏事呢?
For a year and a half — and more urgently for much of the last month — I have warned of the growing economic, social and political power held by the five largest American tech companies: Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook and Microsoft.
在过去的一年半里——过去一个月里格外紧迫——我对美国五大科技公司所拥有的日益增长的经济、社会和政治力量发出了警告，这五家公司是：苹果(Apple)、亚马逊(Amazon)、谷歌(Google)、Facebook和微软(Microsoft)。
Because these companies control the world’s most important tech platforms, from smartphones to app stores to the map of our social relationships, their power is growing closer to that of governments than of mere corporations. That was on stark display this week, when executives from two of the five, Facebook and Google, along with a struggling second-tier company, Twitter, testified before Congress about how their technology may have been used to influence the 2016 election.
由于这些公司控制着世界上最重要的科技平台——从智能手机到应用商店，再到我们的社交关系网——它们的力量越来越接近政府，而不是单纯的企业。本周，这种情况明确显现出来：五家公司中的两家——Facebook和谷歌——以及正面临困境的二线公司Twitter的高管们在国会作证，讨论他们的技术在2016年大选中可能起到了怎样的影响。
Yet ever since I started writing about what I call the Frightful Five, some have said my very premise is off base. I have argued that the companies’ size and influence pose a danger. But another argument suggests the opposite — that it’s better to be ruled by a handful of responsive companies capable of bowing to political and legal pressure. In other words, wouldn’t you rather deal with five horse-size Zucks than 100 duck-size technoforces?
不过，自从我开始写我所说的“五恶人”(Frightful Five)以来，有些人说我的假设没有根据。我认为这些公司的规模和影响力已构成威胁。但另一种相反的观点认为，由少数几家能顺应政治和法律压力的公司来统治还更好一些。换句话说，与其应付100个鸭子大小的技术公司，你难道不是更愿意应付5个跟马一样大的扎克吗?
The insatiable appetite of digital technology to alter everything in its path is among the most powerful forces shaping the world today. Given all the ways that tech can go wrong — as we are seeing in the Russia influence scandal — isn’t it better that we can blame, and demand fixes from, a handful of American executives when things do go haywire?
数字技术总是希望改变自己道路上遇到的一切，这种无休止的欲望是塑造当今世界的最强大力量之一。考虑到技术可能出错的所有方式——正如我们在俄罗斯影响丑闻中看到的那样——当事情失控时，我们可以指责并要求几位美国高管解决问题，这难道不是更好吗?
That’s not ridiculous. Over the last few weeks, several scholars said there are good reasons to be sanguine about our new tech overlords. Below, I compiled their best arguments about the bright side of the Five.
这并不荒谬。在过去几周里，有几位学者表示，我们有充分的理由对我们的新技术霸主持乐观态度。下面，我整理了他们就“五恶人”良性的一面给出的最佳论述。
The Five Can Be Governed
“五恶人”可以被管理
Tech is inherently messy. The greatest human inventions tend to change society in ways that are more profound than anyone ever guesses, including the people who created them. This has clearly been true for the technologies we use today, and will be even more true for the stuff we will get tomorrow. The internet, mobile phones, social networks and artificial intelligence will make a mess of the status quo — and it will be our job, as a society, to decide how to mitigate their downsides.
捣乱是科技的本性。人类最伟大的发明往往会以一种出乎所有人意料的方式改变社会，包括创造它们的人。我们今天使用的技术显然就是这样，我们明天会得到的技术更是如此。互联网、手机、社交网络和人工智能将会把现状弄得一团糟——作为一个社会，我们的工作将是决定如何减轻它们的负面影响。
One benefit of having five giant companies in charge of today’s tech infrastructure is that they provide a convenient focus for addressing those problems.
由五家大型公司掌控如今的技术基础设施有一个好处，那就是，它们为解决这些问题提供了一个方便的重点。
Consider Russian propaganda. People have worried about the internet’s capacity to foster echo chambers and conspiracy theories almost since it began; in fact, in several cases over the last two decades — from 9/11 to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to birtherism — the internet did play a key role in the propagation of misinformation. But because those rumors and half-truths spread in a digital media landscape that was not owned and operated by giant companies — one in which information was passed along through a Wild West of email, discussion boards and blogs — it was never conceivable to limit that era’s equivalent of fake news.
以俄罗斯的政治宣传为例。几乎从一开始，人们就为互联网培育回音室和阴谋论的能力感到担忧，事实上，在过去20年的几个案例中——从9·11到快艇老兵寻求真相组织(Swift Boat Veterans for Truth)，再到“奥巴马身世论”——互联网确实在传播错误信息方面发挥了关键作用。但是，由于传播这些谣言和半真半假消息的数字媒体平台并非由这些巨头拥有并运营——有一条信息是在电子邮件、论坛和博客构成的蛮荒世界里传播的——所以人们从未想过限制那个时代的假新闻。
Today, it suddenly is. Because Facebook, Google and Twitter play such a central role in modern communication, they can be hauled before Congress and either regulated or shamed into addressing the problems unleashed by the technology they control.
今天，这种限制突然成为可能。由于Facebook、谷歌和Twitter在现代通信中扮演着如此重要的角色，它们可以被带到国会，迫于监管规定或出于羞辱，解决它们控制的技术所带来的问题。
This does not mean they will succeed in fixing every problem their tech creates — and in some cases their fixes may well raise other problems, like questions about their power over freedom of expression. But at least they can try to address the wide variety of externalities posed by tech, which may have been impossible for an internet more fragmented by smaller firms.
这并不意味着，它们能成功地解决它们的技术带来的所有问题——在某些情况下，它们解决问题的同时可能引发其他问题，比如对它们限制言论自由的质疑。但它们至少可以尝试解决技术带来的各种各样的外部问题，在互联网由更小的公司瓜分的时代，这几乎是不可能的。
“This is new stuff everybody is dealing with — it’s not easy,” said Rob Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a think tank, and co-author of “Big Is Beautiful,” a coming book that extols the social and economic virtues of big companies. (The foundation is funded, in part, by donations from tech companies.) “So when you discover a problem, scale makes that easier. You’ve got one or two big firms, and they have a lot of public pressure to be a responsible actor.”
“这是每个人都在应对的新事物——它并不容易，”信息技术创新基金会(Information Technology and Innovation Foundation)的总裁罗布·阿特金森(Rob Atkinson)说。该智库即将出版自己参与撰写的一本赞扬大公司社会和经济价值的书，名为《大即是美》(Big is Beautiful)(该基金会的部分资金来自科技公司捐助)。“所以，当你发现一个问题时，规模会让它变得更容易解决。如果有一两家大公司，它们面临很大的公众压力，就会负起责任。”
The Five Hate One Another’s Guts
五恶人强烈厌恶彼此
Over the last few weeks, many people at large tech companies have repeatedly responded to my questions about the dangers posed by big tech with a funny argument: Yes, they would say, the other tech giants really are worrisome — so why was I including their company in that group?
过去几个星期里，面对我提出的关于高科技巨擘会带来威胁的问题，很多身在大科技公司的人做出了一种有趣的回应：是的，他们会说，其他科技巨头真的令人担忧——不过我为什么要把他们的公司放在这个群体里?
It was an odd line. As an outsider to these companies, I tend to worry about the collective power of the Five, especially the way they have managed to control the fortunes of innovative start-ups. But none of the Five see themselves as part of a group — each of them worries about the threat posed by start-ups and by the other four giants, which means that none feels it has the luxury to slow down in creating the best new stuff.
这话挺怪的。作为身在这些公司之外的人，我往往会担心五恶人联合起来的力量，尤其是他们会设法控制有创新力的初创企业的未来。但五恶人中没有谁觉得自己是这个群体的一员——它们每一个都忧心于初创企业和其他四大巨头带来的威胁，这意味着，放慢脚步去创造新东西，对所有人都是一件太过奢侈的事。
This dynamic — where each company competes mightily against the others — suggests some reason for optimism, said Michael Lind, who wrote “Big Is Beautiful” with Mr. Atkinson. “As long as their innovation rents are recycled into research and development that leads to new products, then what’s to complain about?”
与阿特金森合著《大即是美》的迈克尔·林德(Michael Lind)说，这种每家公司都在奋力与其他公司一争高下的态势，让我们有理由保持乐观。“只要他们的‘创新租金’被重新投入到会带来新产品的研发工作中去，那还有什么可抱怨的?”
You can see this in their product road maps. None of the Five has slowed down investing intended to further expand its area of control — for instance, Google keeps investing in search, Facebook is still spending heavily to create new social-networking features, and Amazon remains relentless in creating new ways to let people shop.
你透过它们的产品规划可以看出这一点。五恶人中，没有哪一家放慢了旨在拓展对本领域控制力的投资——例如，谷歌持续投资于搜索业务，Facebook仍在为新社交网络功能投入巨资，亚马逊仍在孜孜不倦地创造让人购物的新方法。
At the same time, they are all locked in intense battles for new markets and technologies. And not only do they keep creating new tech, but they are coming at it in diverse ways — with different business models, different philosophies and different sets of ethics.
与此同时，为了获取新市场、新技术，它们全都投身于激烈的战斗。另外，它们不仅不断创造新技术，还有着多种多样的追寻方式——因循不同的商业模式、不同的哲学、不同的伦理。
“So, why pre-emptively say that maybe we’ll be harmed in the future — that in 2030 they’ll jack up their prices or something?” Mr. Lind asked. “Well, deal with that as it comes.”
“那么，为什么要早早下结论说，我们在未来或许会受到伤害，说它们到2030年会抬高价格之类的?”林德问道。“兵来将挡，水来土掩嘛。”
The Five Are American Grown
五恶人是美国的产物
The Five achieved their dominance because they operate in areas that provide massive returns to scale. Thanks to economic dynamics like network effects — where a product, like Facebook, gets more useful as more people use it — it was perhaps inevitable that we would see the rise of a handful of large companies take control of much of the modern tech business.
五恶人之所以能取得主导地位，是因为它们所运营的领域能产生相称的巨大回报。由于一些经济动态的存在，比如网络效应——Facebook之类的产品会因为有更多用户而变得更有用——少数大公司崛起并控制相当一部分的现代科技产业，或许是无可避免的。
But it wasn’t inevitable that these companies would be based in and controlled from the United States. And it’s not obvious that will remain the case — the top tech companies of tomorrow might easily be Chinese, or Indian or Russian or European. But for now, that means we are dealing with companies that feel constrained by American laws and values.
但有一点并非必然：这些公司以美国为大本营，控制者也在美国。尚不清楚这种情况是否会持续下去——未来的顶级科技公司也许很可能是中国公司，或印度、俄罗斯、欧洲的公司。但眼下，这意味着与我们打交道的是受制于美国法律和价值观的公司。
Yes, this is jingoistic; the idea of a handful of American tech giants controlling much of society has helped push regulators internationally to try to limit their power. But we would almost certainly do the same if a bunch of foreign companies attempted to take over our economy. At least it’s our own giants that we have to fear.
没错，这带有沙文主义色彩;在某种程度上，少数美国科技巨头对社会具有很大控制力的观点，已促使世界各地的监管机构设法限制它们的力量。但如果一些外国公司企图接管我们的经济，我们几乎肯定会采取同样的举措。至少，我们现在不得不害怕的是我们自己的巨头。
I don’t mean this list to get the Five off the hook. How we deal with their efforts to capture more power over the economy and our society is perhaps the next great question facing America. But this is a complex problem precisely because there are both advantages and disadvantages to their size.
我列出这些并不是表示应该放过五恶人。它们想要获得对经济和社会的更多控制，对此我们该作何反应，或许是美国要面临的下一个大问题。但这是一个复杂的问题，因为它们的规模既有好处，也有害处。
As I said, tech is messy. 正如之前所说，科技是会捣乱的。
