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