評論
打印
During the hearings, Zuckerberg touted changes the company is already making to enhance privacy and transparency.
在聽證會上，扎克伯格吹捧公司已經在為提高隱私和透明度做出改變了。
He made promises to root out bad actors,
他承諾會將壞人們連根拔起，
to take responsibility for unsavory content on the platform and to fight meddling in elections that are coming up this year.
還承諾為平臺上令人厭惡的內容負責，以及與干預今年即將到來的選舉的行為作斗爭。
The unanswered question: Who exactly is going to hold him to it?
他沒有回答的問題是：究竟誰會監督他堅持到底?
ALTHOUGH CONGRESS has been loath to regulate big technology firms, many lawmakers are now arguing that legislation is the answer.
盡管國會一直不愿監管大型技術企業，但許多議員現在都辯稱，立法才是解決問題的辦法。
“Congress has an obligation in this moment to protect American citizens and national security,”
“在這個時刻，國會有義務保護我國的公民和國家的安全，”
Representative Ro Khanna, a Democratwho represents Silicon Valley, tells TIME.
代表硅谷的民主黨眾議員羅·坎那告訴《時代》周刊。
“We can’t let that be done, as well-intentioned as they may be, by 30-year-old entrepreneurs.”
“我們不能讓一群30歲的企業家去做這件事，盡管他們可能是出于好意。”
Legislation was brought up repeatedly at the hearings,
在聽證會上立法一事被反復提及，
but sweeping new laws from Congress remain more of a threat than a promise, especially while the GOP is in charge.
但是，全方位訂立新法律與其說是一種承諾，不如說是一種威脅，尤其是在共和黨執政期間。
The party is deeply allergic to business regulation,
因為該黨極度反感商業規則，
and Congress is always playing catchup to technology, so statutes it writes can quickly become outdated.
而且國會總是在追趕技術，所以它制定的法律很快就會過時。
Many fear that a broad law affecting the tech sector
許多人擔心，一項廣泛的，影響科技行業的法律
“might end up freezing us in time so the Internet can’t develop and people don’t feel like they can innovate,”
“最終可能會將我們困住，這樣互聯網就無法發展，人們就會覺得自己無法創新了?！?/div>
says Corynne McSherry, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital-rights advocacy group.
數字權利倡導組織電子前沿基金會的法律總監戈琳·麥克謝利表示。
Some lawmakers worry that rules dictating what’s allowed online could chill free speech
一些立法者擔心，規定網上的行為尺度可能會打消言論自由的積極性，
and stifle companies that have created thousands of jobs, as well as extremely useful tools.
扼殺那些創造了無數就業機會，以及非常有用的工具的企業。
Behemoths like Google and Facebook also have influential arms in Washington
而且，諸如谷歌和Facebook之類的科技巨頭在華盛頓還有
that can try to convince lawmakers that strict rules aren’t necessary, especially if they might compromise some of their constituents’ most-used products.
有機會說服議員們相信沒有必要制定嚴格的規定，特別是那些規定可能會危及選民最常用的產品的時候，的分支機構。
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Facebook spent $11.5 million on lobbying in 2017.
根據響應政治中心的數據，Facebook2017年花了1150萬美元進行游說。
Alphabet, Google’s parent company, spent more than any other single company, at $18 million.
谷歌的母公司Alphabet則花了1800萬美元，超過了其他任何一家公司。
The companies and their employees also contributed millions to the campaigns of Democrats and Republicans in 2016.
這些公司及其員工還為2016年民主黨和共和黨的競選活動貢獻了數百萬美元。
Saying lawmakers should regulate tech, as one Washington veteran put it,
正如一位華盛頓資深人士所說，議員們應該規范科技行業，
is about as simple as saying, “Let’s legislate on energy.”
這話說起來就和說“讓我們為能源立法吧?！币粯雍唵?。
譯文由可可原創，僅供學習交流使用，未經許可請勿轉載。
