Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • So Kara Swisher is one of the leading voices in journalists in the US when it comes to


  • big tech and its connection with power and politics. She has covered Silicon Valley and


  • the major players that have made the industry as powerful as it is today, with big tech


  • becoming a major influence in today's political world. It's important to understand where


  • we are and where the industry is going. Now let's hear from Kara herself. Think of Kara


  • and welcome Villers writing it out, because I think all of always could say it. Very good.


  • Social media obviously played a big role in the preparation of storming the Capitol. Do


  • you agree? January six is kind of the 9/11 for social media.


  • Well, I don't know, I think it's a 9/11. You know, it's not I don't want to compare those


  • crisis's, you know, because that was the amount of the amount of deaths that that thing was

    危機的,你知道的,因為那是量的 死亡的數量,那東西是。

  • really quite amazing. But it was it is a moment to reflect on the impact of not just social


  • media, but media in general on on on getting people amplified and weaponized. And I think

    媒體,但媒體在一般的 在得到人們的放大和武器化。而我認為

  • that's really what it was in a lot of, you know, look, Donald Trump being down at the

    這真的是它在很多, 你知道,你看,唐納德-特朗普是在下來的

  • down at the White House, yelling at them to do that was just as important as what had


  • prepared them to feel that way and act once. He said, you know, gave the go word, essentially.

    準備好他們的感覺 這樣的方式和行動一次。他說,你知道,給了去的字,基本上。

  • And so what these people have been doing is they've been inhaling and and been flooded


  • with all kinds of misinformation, lies a lot by Donald Trump, but a lot everywhere. And

    與各種錯誤的資訊, 謊言很多由唐納德・特朗普, 但很多無處不在。而

  • so they've been surrounded by lies. And therefore, when he said, go fix it, it was he had soften


  • them up. He and others had soften them up to do what they did. And I don't think people


  • I do think people have free will. But when you get into a mindset and you believe it


  • because you're surrounded by media, that's telling you that what's happening is being


  • taken to it's not as confusing to understand why they did what they did. You know, they


  • look like idiots, but are they or are they people that were just incredibly manipulated?


  • And that's something obviously Germans know about really well. And so this idea of constant


  • reaffirmation of things that are untrue created the situation that led to that for sure.


  • OK, so let's stick with the tech industry for a moment. You think they're all complicit


  • in allowing the storming to occur? Are you here? I think I lost you. A single


  • lost to. So here we are again, sorry for that. So we


  • had some some technical problems, obviously. So my question is, you get it. OK, let's maybe


  • we can go back. OK, go ahead. What do you want me to go back? I just wanted you to know.


  • So I wanted to go back to the big tech industry frozen again. And now it's so interesting


  • to people. Is the tech industry that all complicit in allowing the storming to occur? What's


  • your what's your take on that? Yeah, I think one thing that you have to separate


  • is two things. They may have done the right thing by by platforming Donald Trump at this


  • moment, but everything has led up to it has been because they haven't done anything and


  • they have allowed everything to go on, including all this misinformation, including the behavior


  • of Donald Trump and his minions. You know what I mean? It's it's an entire network where

    唐納德・特朗普和他的爪牙。你知道我的意思嗎?這是... ...它是一個完整的網絡,在那裡

  • misinformation bubbles up and bubbles back down. And so, yes, the way they built their


  • platforms has caused this situation to happen, giving them kudos for finally doing the right


  • thing. I'm not sure you got a kudos for doing the right thing, which is in this case, it's

    的事情。我不確定你是否因為做了正確的事情而得到了嘉獎,在這種情況下,這是... ...

  • the correct answer. But it also points the fact that how much power these companies have


  • and way too much power, that sometimes they make the right decision. But boy, do we not

    和太多的權力,有時 他們做出正確的決定。但是,孩子,我們不

  • like that. It took two companies to shut this down, just two people. And that's problematic


  • in this country. Do they have to rethink their whole model?


  • I mean, is there kind of also taking over all these conspiracy theories? And, you know,

    我的意思是,是有一種也接管 所有這些陰謀論?而且,你知道,

  • would you say that and how? Well, you know, everyone's sort of like, how


  • could this happen? Everything was built this way. The way it is built is the way it is


  • behaving because it reflects humanity. And anytime humanity gets any kind of tool like


  • this, the abuse of it is usually right away. And so I think one of the things that's built


  • around advertising, it's built around engagement, it's not built around community, even though


  • they say it is. And so therefore, what has happened is what should happen, because this

    他們說這是。是以,已經發生的事情就是應該發生的事情,因為這... ...

  • is this is the kind of tools they build. And so the question is, is their engagement


  • oriented business plan a good business plan in this way, in this highly politicized age?


  • And also if engagement along with addiction of these platforms and things like that lead


  • to this enragement is not really a business we need to be in, and it leads to enragement


  • inevitably and not to the the better outcomes that they say they could lead to it, doesn't


  • it? There's so much proof of where this goes,


  • but it is their business model. So what how could they change that?


  • Well, you can imagine like I could think about, you know, TV has a business model of advertising

    好吧,你可以想象 像我可以想想,你知道,電視有一個 商業模式的廣告。

  • and you could have you know, you saw the movie network, you know, you could make it into

    你可以有 你知道,你看到的電影網絡, 你知道,你可以使它成為

  • if it was the only thing people were getting and they were getting the individual messages

    如果它是唯一的事情,人們得到 而他們得到的個別消息

  • aligned to them, you could see how that could be because, well, we have we have government


  • entities that control the airwaves in some way. And there are there's there's there's


  • lawsuits that happen when you break a rule. And in this case, the Internet industry doesn't


  • have any laws governing them and therefore they can do whatever they want. Every other


  • major media, as much as we go on about freedom of speech here, every media has some strictures


  • on it. And we have to figure out what the strictures are for this media.


  • And it's going to have to come from government, not from them, because they can't sell self-regulation.


  • So, Carol, we often talk about we need more regulation on these big, big, overpowerful

    所以,卡羅爾,我們經常談論我們需要更多的監管 這些大的,大的,超強的。

  • companies that were actually allowed to become so big in the past. Like maybe we can focus


  • or talk a little bit about the mistakes which are happening now. You know, maybe you can


  • give us a couple of examples of where governments need to be taking action right now that we


  • don't kind of run into the same situation. Well, the European Union has, you know, Margaret


  • Vestager and others have tried on lots of different things, not just not just around


  • speech, but actually around power. And that's what this is about. Like, let's just be it's

    言,但實際上是圍繞著權力。而這是什麼 這是關於。就像,讓我們只是成為它的。

  • like not about speech. Every all the right wing goes on or about speech and they never


  • shut up. That's a fascinating kind of development, is that they talk about being censored and


  • you can't stop listening. You can't they never stop broadcasting. So I think it's an issue


  • of that. There's not been any regulation and the regulation should be around market concentration,


  • market power, because with innovation and the ability to have more companies, you have


  • more voices. It solves the problem. If you don't have two companies in charge, one company


  • in charge of social media, one company in charge of search, one company in charge of


  • commerce, you're going to inevitably lead to abuses. And then the lack of innovation


  • means the lack of voices. And so we need regulation, you know, around privacy. We need regulation

    意味著缺乏聲音。所以我們需要監管,你知道, 圍繞隱私。我們需要監管

  • around liability for some of these companies, et cetera, et cetera. And so there's there


  • aren't any rules. That's like in 20 years there's there's one rule that helps them.


  • And so I don't mean to say we should get rid of Section 230, which is that is the one that's


  • always controversial. But we need to reform it because it was it was done at a time when


  • these are international laws. Explain to our international audience what


  • that is. Section 230 is a law that was part of another


  • act that largely was declared unconstitutional, but not this part of it, which gives broad


  • immunity to Internet platforms for third party material on there. You know, so they're not


  • liable for everything everybody says on Facebook that would just put it out of business instantly.


  • Facebook was not in existence when this happened, by the way. It was way before any of these


  • companies. And so it was because if these companies were not really media, but they

    的公司。所以它是因為如果這些公司 不是真正的媒體,但他們

  • weren't really platforms. And so how do you how do you protect them from being sued out

    是不是真的平臺。所以,你怎麼做 你怎麼保護他們 從被起訴了。

  • of business? Well, now they've used that to grow to great proportions and not had enough


  • responsibility around what's on their platforms. And so it suggests you don't have responsibility.


  • And so now we have to sort of move the responsibly back to these very wealthy companies, because

    所以現在我們必須把責任感轉移到這些非常富有的公司身上,因為... ...

  • each of these companies is now the biggest companies in the world. Now, they're not nascent.


  • They are powerful. They are the most powerful, the richest. Their owners are the richest


  • people in the world. And therefore, the rule has to be rewritten for the reality of the


  • situation today. But there are so powerful. Do you think this


  • will really happen? Well, John D. Rockefeller was powerful. Somehow


  • they got him in, you know what I mean? They ran. Everybody in government is the only solution


  • in this case because, you know, consumer pressure is important. Media pressure is important.

    在這種情況下,因為,你知道, 消費者的壓力是重要的。媒體的壓力是重要的。

  • Grassroots activists efforts is important. But the only thing that's going to rein these


  • people in is the government. And you know what? We got rid of AT&T. We had Microsoft,


  • we got John D. Rockefeller, Big Oil. It's the trains. This is something that's, you


  • know, Teddy Roosevelt was a trustbuster. And therefore, there is a way to to do this. And


  • there's a history in this government, this company country, of doing that. So two people


  • say they're too powerful. Well, you know, so are a lot of people.


  • You just mentioned Margaret Vestager, you you, commissioner, she's probably the most

    你剛才提到瑪格麗特-維斯塔格,你 你,局長,她可能是最...

  • powerful woman in the world when it comes to her. If you would be in her shoes for one


  • day, which executive order? Now, what what would you do?


  • Like doing all the things? I think sometimes she goes a little far, but that's OK. You


  • know, I think Europe has a very different idea about privacy in the U.S. does, I think

    知道,我認為歐洲有一個非常不同的想法 關於隱私在美國不,我想。

  • First Amendment issues. You can't do a lot of things in the U.S. that she's allowed to

    第一修正案的問題。你不能做很多事情 在美國,她被允許的。

  • do. The First Amendment does get in the way with government. You know, it's very clear


  • government she'll make you know, Congress shall make no law governing freedom of speech.


  • So among other things. And so you have to work within those boundaries here. But in


  • her case, she has power in Europe and the areas she's regulating. She doesn't have power


  • in the U.S. And these companies are largely U.S. based companies. And so it has to be


  • the U.S. government, not the state governments. California has been trying to do has done


  • a privacy bill. California is the one leading a lot of this legislation around all the Internet

    一個隱私法案。加利福尼亞州是一個領先的許多這種立法 圍繞所有的互聯網。

  • companies, whether it's Uber or anybody else. So it has to come from the, ah, the U.S. federal


  • government to govern U.S. companies. And even though we're in a global society and these


  • are global companies, are U.S. companies, and so it has to come from here. So I don't


  • know what else she can do except continue when they move over into her area to regulate


  • them and then maybe set the tone like GDP did for the rest of the world.


  • What do you expect from the incoming Biden administration regarding these topics we're

    你對即將上任的拜登政府有什麼期待呢 關於這些我們正在討論的話題

  • just talking about? I think it's going to be bipartisan. There's


  • a lot of people knowing that this is a problem. I think there'll be more action. Although,


  • you know, it's interesting, I was waiting for lawsuits. The Justice Department antitrust

    你知道,這很有趣, 我一直在等待訴訟。司法部的反壟斷

  • lawsuit suing the Obama administration never happened. Trump is Trump's bill. Barr is the


  • one who started the who initiated the Google. The FTC in this era is moving against Facebook.


  • Now, these things take a while to do, but I do see people like David Cicilline and some


  • others on the Hill being really active in terms of figuring out what to do here. And


  • I don't think the bottom is I think my decision is, is as much as they get called socialist,


  • they're very centrist. They're very accommodating to the middle. And so I don't expect to see


  • enormous amounts. I think the antitrust lawsuits will go on. They'll be more they'll be fines,


  • there'll be regulations, etc. And that's where you're going to see. I think Trump tried to


  • do it in weird ways, but like attack tactic talk. But he didn't really because he was


  • so superficial. He just like to type out executive orders that were badly written and had no


  • had no force, no force of law. And so I think it has to be a bipartisan effort by a lot


  • of people to just the way all the other regulations of big companies were. And then that's and


  • to remove the politics out of it and talk about the body politic of this country and


  • how badly they're hurt by this power. And if we if we do it in terms of power and not

    他們被這種權力傷害的有多嚴重。如果我們... ...如果我們從權力的角度出發,而不是... ...

  • partisanship, everybody gets that. There's not a Republican or Democrat to understand


  • too much power in the hands of too few people leads to abuses, no matter how nice those


  • people are, you know, and usually they're not so nice.

    人們是,你知道, 通常他們不是那麼好。

  • Some of them aren't so nice. Why was Chancellor Angela Merkel wrong about


  • banning Trump on Twitter? You know, I think she I was surprised by that.


  • I'm not sure it was really odd because I. I was like, you know, he he lies almost incessantly,


  • he's using a forum, not a public forum, a private forum. I'm not sure that was, you


  • know, look, Twitter and Facebook are private companies that can do whatever they want.


  • For some reason. I think she thinks the public square and they're not their private money


  • making institution and companies and and I and they can do whatever they please. I think


  • what she was talking about was that that newsworthy figures deserve to be heard all the time.


  • But you know what I always said about Donald Trump, I'm like, it's not like he lived in

    但你知道我總是說什麼 關於唐納德-特朗普,我想,這不是像他住在。

  • a house. You know, we're downstairs. There was a podium that reached every media outlet


  • in the world. This guy had plenty of chances to do that. And in this case, he just violated


  • the rules of a several different companies, one too many times. I don't think it's more


  • complex than that. Why did you say that?


  • I don't know, you ask her, I was I want to ask her. I didn't even understand it. I don't


  • think she was. I think she thinks so. The public square. And that's what she was talking


  • about. Don't shut down the public square. I'm like, sure. Don't it's not shut down.


  • The public square is not shut down. Donald Trump is shut down on Twitter and Facebook


  • at a time of crisis because he was fomenting sedition and inciting violence. Very bright


  • red line. I wonder which he said if he had said something about pornography, child pornography


  • or something like, oh, no, let's leave that up to like they they he violated rules of

    或類似的東西, 哦,不,讓我們離開了,像他們 他們,他違反了規則的。

  • their platform multiple times. And then he did it at the very wrong time again. And they


  • had had it they had given him huge amounts of space to make mistakes.


  • And he continued to abuse that privilege card to challenge you a little bit in that regard.


  • So on the one hand, you say there are far too powerful to say, but they still should


  • have the power to regulate and ban I'm talking about.


  • So shouldn't I think there should be more of them? There should be more of them. So


  • people have options, right? That's what I'm talking. Do you have to separate out the two?


  • There's there's if they made the right decision the moment based on the fact they're private


  • companies, this guy violated at the time. They don't want to have terrorism on their


  • hands. Right. They don't want to have facilitated terrorism. And that's what this was. And so


  • they can make that business decision in the moment. I don't I think they have that. But


  • the fact that it was two people that stopped it and that's the only two people we could


  • go to is the problem. And so you have to separate in the in the in the anger of the moment,


  • you have to separate out what the problem is. The problem ultimately is power, too much


  • power in the hands of too few. That said, they did the right thing. You know


  • what I mean? It's hard to like. I don't know. But they're the only people we could go to.

    我是什麼意思?這很難喜歡。我不知道,但他們是我們唯一能找的人 I don't know.但他們是唯一的人 我們可以去。

  • If there were dozens of places, it wouldn't have had the impact. But it was one place.


  • Right. And so that's the problem is one or two people, Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey

    對,所以問題就出在一兩個人身上,馬克-扎克伯格和傑克-多西所以,這就是問題是一兩個人, 馬克・扎克伯格和傑克・多西。

  • had the on this case. It was someone else that Twitter had the power to shut something


  • down. That's scary to anybody who thinks about power.


  • Thank you, lost kind of a question. I mean, do you are journalist yourself and to know


  • that you've experienced that yourself? I'm sure this country here is like people are


  • living really in two worlds. I mean, I've never seen this country being not only so

    真正生活在兩個世界。我的意思是,我從來沒有見過這個國家 被不僅如此。

  • divided, but I mean, when I talk to two people, they have totally different information and

    分裂,但我的意思是,當我跟兩個人, 他們有完全不同的資訊和。

  • takes. Yeah. What does all that mean for democracies? I think you think we were together before.


  • We weren't. I don't think we were. I think that people talk about that a lot. I'm it's


  • just what's happened is a lot of people have that information, Diet Sprite, and that's

    只是發生了什麼事是很多人 有資訊,健怡雪碧,那是

  • used to have three networks. And that was what everybody consumed. Right. By the way,


  • those three networks were run by 16 men on the Upper East Side of New York, all of whom


  • are white and rich. So I'm not so sure that was great. Right. In this case, it's bad information


  • diets is what's happening. And just like our obesity crisis, people are eating bad food.


  • They're fat and they're dying of hypertension or whatever, their diabetes or this and that.