Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

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

    所以,卡拉-斯維舍是美國記者中最主要的聲音之一,在談到。

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

    大科技及其與權力和政治的聯繫。她曾報道過硅谷和

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

    的主要參與者,才有了今天行業的強大,大的科技。

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

    成為當今政壇的重要影響。重要的是要了解

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

    我們在哪裡,以及這個行業的發展方向。現在讓我們聽聽Kara自己的看法。想想Kara

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

    並歡迎Villers把它寫出來,因為我覺得所有的總是可以說出來。非常好。

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

    在準備衝擊國會大廈的過程中,社交媒體顯然起到了很大的作用。做

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

    你同意嗎?1月6日算是社交媒體的911事件。

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

    嗯,我不知道,我認為這是一個9/11。你知道,這不是我不想比較那些。

  • 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

    真的相當驚人。但它是它是一個時刻反思的影響,不僅是社會的。

  • 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

    在白宮,大喊他們這樣做,是同樣重要的,因為有

  • 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

    所以,這些人一直在做的是他們已經吸入和和被淹沒

  • 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

    所以,他們一直被謊言包圍著。是以,當他說,去解決它,這是他已經軟化了。

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

    他們了。他和其他人已經軟化了他們,讓他們做了什麼。我不認為人們

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

    我確實認為人有自由意志。但當你進入一種思維模式,你相信它的時候

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

    因為你周圍的媒體,這是在告訴你,正在發生的事情是由

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

    這就不難理解他們為什麼這麼做了。你知道,他們

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

    看起來像白痴,但他們是或他們的人,只是令人難以置信的操縱?

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

    而這一點顯然德國人非常清楚。所以這種不斷的想法

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

    重申不真實的東西,造成了肯定導致的局面。

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

    好吧,我們先說說科技行業。你認為他們都是同謀

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

    在讓暴風雨發生?你在這裡嗎?我想我失去了你。一個人

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

    輸給了。所以我們又在這裡,對不起。所以我們

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

    有一些一些技術問題,顯然。所以我的問題是,你懂的。好吧,讓我們也許

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

    我們可以回去了。好吧,去吧。你要我回去幹什麼?我只是想讓你知道。

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

    所以我想再回到大的科技行業凍結。而現在,它是如此有趣

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

    到人。科技行業,是否都是讓風暴發生的共犯?麼是

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

    你有什麼看法?是的,我認為一件事,你必須分開

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

    是兩件事。他們可能已經做了正確的事情,通過平臺唐納德-特朗普在這個

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

    但所有的事情都是因為他們什麼都沒做而導致的。

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

    他們允許一切繼續下去,包括所有這些錯誤的資訊,包括行為。

  • 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

    誤導性資訊冒出來,又冒出來。所以,是的,他們建立自己的方式。

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

    平臺造成了這種情況的發生,為他們終於做對了點贊。

  • 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

    正確的答案。但這也指出了一個事實,那就是這些公司有多大的權力?

  • 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

    這樣的。兩家公司才把這個關了,就兩個人。而這是有問題的

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

    在這個國家。他們是否要重新思考自己的整個模式?

  • 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

    你會說,如何?好吧,你知道,每個人都有點像,如何?

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

    會發生這種事嗎?一切都是這樣建造的。它被建造的方式就是它的方式。

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

    行為,因為它反映了人性。而只要人類得到任何一種工具,比如

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

    這一點,它的濫用通常是馬上。所以我認為其中一件事是建立在

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

    圍繞著廣告,它是圍繞著參與,它不是圍繞著社區,即使是

  • 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

    是他們打造的這種工具。所以問題是,他們的參與

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

    為導向的商業計劃書,在這個高度政治化的時代,這樣的商業計劃書好嗎?

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

    而且也如果參與隨著這些平臺的上癮等事情導致的。

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

    憤怒不是我們真正需要做的生意,它導致了憤怒

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

    不可避免地,而不是他們所說的可能導致的更好的結果,不。

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

    它?有這麼多的證據證明了這一點。

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

    但這是他們的商業模式。那麼,他們怎麼能改變這種狀況呢?

  • 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

    你可以看到,這怎麼可能,因為,好了,我們有我們的政府,我們有政府的。

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

    實體,以某種方式控制電波。有有有有有有有有有有。

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

    違反規則時發生的訴訟。而在這種情況下,互聯網行業並不。

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

    有任何法律約束他們,是以他們可以為所欲為。每一個其他國家都有自己的法律,所以他們可以為所欲為。

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

    各大媒體,儘管我們在這裡談論言論自由,但每個媒體都有一些限制。

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

    上。而我們要搞清楚這個媒體的束縛是什麼。

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

    而這必須來自政府,而不是他們,因為他們不能賣力自律。

  • 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

    的公司,居然被允許成為如此大的過去。就像也許我們可以關注

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

    或者說一下現在發生的錯誤。你知道,也許你可以

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

    舉幾個例子,說明政府現在需要在哪些方面採取行動,而我們

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

    不一樣的情況。好吧,歐盟有,你知道,瑪格麗特。

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

    維斯塔格等人嘗試過很多不同的東西,不僅僅是在周圍的

  • 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

    喜歡不關於言論。每一個所有的右翼去或關於言論,他們從來沒有

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

    閉上嘴。這是一個令人著迷的一種發展,是他們談論被審查和

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

    你不能停止聽。你不能他們永遠不會停止廣播。所以我認為這是一個問題

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

    的。一直沒有監管,監管應該圍繞市場集中度。

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

    市場力量,因為有了創新,有了更多公司的能力,你就有了。

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

    更多的聲音。它解決了這個問題。如果你沒有兩個公司負責,一個公司

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

    負責社會化媒體,一家公司負責搜索,一家公司負責。

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

    商業,你將不可避免地導致濫用。然後缺乏創新

  • 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

    圍繞這些公司的責任,等等,等等。所以,有有

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

    沒有任何規則。這就像20年後有一個規則,幫助他們。

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

    所以我並不是說我們應該擺脫第230條,就是那條。

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

    總是有爭議的。但我們需要改革它,因為它是它做的時間,當

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

    這些都是國際法。向我們的國際聽眾解釋一下什麼是

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

    即。第230條是另一部法律的一部分。

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

    該法在很大程度上被宣佈為違憲,但這部分卻沒有,它給予了廣泛的支持。

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

    豁免互聯網平臺的第三方材料在那裡。你知道,所以他們不

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

    為每個人在Facebook上說的所有話負責,這隻會讓它瞬間倒閉。

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

    順便說一句,這件事發生時,Facebook還不存在。這是任何這些之前的方式

  • 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

    的業務?好吧,現在他們已經利用這一點發展到了很大的規模,而沒有足夠的

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

    圍繞著他們平臺上的東西的責任。所以這說明你沒有責任。

  • 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.

    這些公司現在都是世界上最大的公司。現在,他們已經不是初生的了。

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

    他們很強大。他們是最強大的,最富有的。他們的主人是最富有的

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

    的人。是以,必須針對現實情況重新制定規則。

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

    今天的情況。但有這麼強大的。你認為這

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

    真的會發生嗎?約翰-D-洛克菲勒很有權勢。不知為何

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

    他們把他弄進來了,你知道我的意思嗎?他們跑了。每個人都在政府是唯一的解決方案

  • 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

    基層活動家的努力很重要。但唯一能控制這些的是

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

    人們在是政府。你知道嗎?我們擺脫了AT&T。我們有微軟。

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

    我們有約翰・D・洛克菲勒,大石油公司。這是火車。這東西是,你

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

    要知道,泰迪-羅斯福是一個信任的破壞者。是以,有一個方法來做到這一點。而且

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

    在這個政府,這個公司的國家,有一個歷史,這樣做。所以有兩個人

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

    說他們太強大了。嗯,你知道,很多人也是如此。

  • 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

    世界上有權勢的女人,當她。如果你願意站在她的立場上

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

    哪一天,哪個行政命令?現在,你會怎麼做?

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

    喜歡做所有的事情?我覺得她有時會有點過火,但沒關係。你呢?

  • 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

    做。第一修正案確實阻礙了政府的發展。你知道,這是非常清楚的

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

    她會讓你知道,國會不得制定任何法律來約束言論自由。

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

    所以在其他事情中,所以你必須在這些界限內工作。但在

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

    她的案子,她在歐洲和她監管的地區有權力。她沒有權力

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

    在美國,而這些公司基本上都是美國的公司。所以它必須是

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

    美國政府,而不是州政府。加利福尼亞州一直想做的是

  • 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

    公司,無論是Uber還是其他任何人。所以,它必須來自,啊,美國聯邦。

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

    政府來管理美國公司。儘管我們處在一個全球化的社會,這些

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

    是全球性的公司,是美國的公司,所以必須從這裡來。所以,我不

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

    不知道她還能做什麼,除了繼續在他們進入她的區域時進行調節外

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

    他們,然後也許會像GDP那樣為世界其他地區定下基調。

  • 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

    只是在談論?我認為這將是兩黨。有

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

    很多人都知道這是一個問題。我想會有更多的行動。雖然。

  • 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

    起訴奧巴馬政府的官司從未發生過。特朗普是特朗普的法案。巴爾是

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

    一個誰發起了誰的谷歌。這個時代的FTC對Facebook動。

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

    現在,這些事情需要一段時間來做,但我確實看到像大衛-西西林這樣的人和一些

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

    山上的其他人都在積極地想辦法解決這個問題。而且

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

    我不認為底子是我認為我的決定是,是他們被稱為社會主義的一樣多。

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

    他們是非常中庸的。他們對中間派非常包容。所以我不希望看到

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

    巨大的金額。我認為反壟斷訴訟會繼續下去。他們會更多,他們會被罰款。

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

    會有相關的規定等等。這就是你要看到的地方。我認為特朗普試圖

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

    做的方式很奇怪,但就像進攻戰術談。但他沒有真正因為他是

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

    如此膚淺。他只是喜歡打出一些行政命令,這些行政命令寫得很糟糕,而且沒有。

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

    沒有力量,沒有法律的力量。是以,我認為這必須是兩黨的努力,由很多的人

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

    的人,只是大公司的其他所有規章制度的方式。然後那是和

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

    去除政治因素,談論這個國家的身體政治和

  • 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

    黨派之爭,大家都懂的。沒有一個共和黨人或民主黨人明白。

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

    權力過大,人多力量大,不管多好的人都會被濫用

  • 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

    有些人並不那麼好。為什麼總理默克爾錯了?

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

    禁止特朗普在Twitter上?你知道,我想她我很驚訝。

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

    我不確定這是不是真的很奇怪,因為我,我就像,你知道,他他幾乎不停地撒謊。

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

    他用的是論壇,不是公共論壇,是私人論壇。我不確定那是,你

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

    要知道,你看,Twitter和Facebook是私人公司,可以做任何他們想要的。

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

    出於某種原因。我想她認為公共廣場和他們不是他們的私房錢。

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

    賺取機構、公司和我,他們可以為所欲為。我想

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

    她說的是,有新聞價值的人物應該一直被聽到。

  • 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

    一所房子。你知道,我們在樓下。有一個講臺,達到每一個媒體機構

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

    在世界上。這傢伙有很多機會這樣做。而在這種情況下,他只是違反了

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

    幾家不同公司的規則,次數太多。我不認為這是更

  • complex than that. Why did you say that?

    比那複雜。你為什麼這麼說?

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

    我不知道,你問她,我是我想問她。我都不明白。我不懂

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

    我想她是。我想她是這麼認為的。公共廣場。這就是她所說的

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

    關於。不要關閉了公共廣場。我想,當然。不要,它不是關閉。

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

    公共廣場沒有關閉。唐納德-特朗普在推特和臉書上被關閉了

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

    在危機時刻,因為他在煽動叛亂和煽動暴力。非常明亮

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

    紅線。我不知道他說的是哪句話,如果他說的是色情、兒童色情的話

  • 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

    他們的平臺多次。然後他又在非常錯誤的時間做了。而他們

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

    有了它,他們給了他巨大的空間來犯錯誤。

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

    而他繼續濫用那張特權牌,在這方面向你提出了一點挑戰。

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

    所以,一方面,你說有太強大的說,但他們還是應

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

    有權監管和禁止我說的。

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

    那麼我是不是應該認為應該多一些呢?應該有更多的人。所以...

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

    人們有選擇,對不對?這就是我說的。你一定要把這兩者分開嗎?

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

    有的有的,如果他們做了正確的決定的那一刻,基於他們是私人的事實

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

    公司,這傢伙當時就違反了。他們不希望有恐怖主義對他們的。

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

    手。是的,他們不想為恐怖主義提供便利。他們不希望有便利的恐怖主義。而這是什麼,這是。所以...

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

    他們可以在當下做出商業決定。我不我認為他們有。但是...

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

    事實上,它是兩個人,阻止了它,這是唯一的兩個人,我們可以。

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

    去的是問題。所以你要在在當下的憤怒中分開。

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

    你要釐清問題是什麼。問題歸根結底是權力,太多的

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

    權力在太少的人手中。也就是說,他們做了正確的事情。你知道嗎?

  • 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.

    如果有幾十個地方,就不會有這樣的影響。但這是一個地方。

  • 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

    了這個案子的。是別人,推特有權力關閉的東西。

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

    下。這對任何一個考慮到權力的人來說都是可怕的。

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

    謝謝你,失去了一種問題。我的意思是,你是記者自己,並瞭解

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

    你自己經歷過嗎?我相信這個國家在這裡就像人們一樣

  • 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.

    需要。是啊,這對民主國家意味著什麼?這對民主國家意味著什麼?我想你認為我們之前是在一起的。

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

    我們沒有。我不認為我們是。我認為人們經常談論這個問題。我是它的

  • 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,

    曾經有三個網絡。這就是大家消費的東西。對了,對了對了

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

    這三個網絡是由紐約上東區的16個男人經營的,他們都是如此。

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

    是白富美。所以我不太確定那是偉大的。是的,在這種情況下,它是壞資訊。在這種情況下,它的壞資訊

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

    飲食是發生了什麼。就像我們的肥胖危機一樣,人們在吃壞的食物。

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

    他們很胖,而且死於高血壓什麼的,他們的糖尿病或者這個那個。