分享到:

  • 中英文对照
  • 英语原文

双击原文单词看解释

原文跟读文本阅读

Can you imagine life for that Google, Facebook or Amazon?
你能想象谷歌,脸书或者亚马逊的运作吗?
Chances are.
是有可能的。
You’re actually on one of those platforms right now watching this.
你事实上现在正在这些平台之一上面看这个视频。
These companies have utterly transformed how we buy goods online and consume information online.
这些公司已经彻底转变了我们网上购物以及网上信息消费的方式。
But there’s a growing view that the big web platforms need to be reined in.
但是越来越多的人认为大型网络平台需要受到约束。
Google handles around 90% of searches in many countries.
谷歌在一些国家里处理大约90%的检索内容。
And that gives it unprecedented access over information that people get.
那使得它史无前例地接触到人们所获取的信息。
Facebook connects over 2 billion users or a quarter of the world’s population.
脸书沟通着20亿的用户或者说是全球四分之一的人口。
Both companies dominate online advertising which is how they make their money considering that their services are free.
考虑到它们的服务是免费的,这两个公司的在线广告的地位非常重要,那是他们的赚钱方式。
Amazon accounts for over 40 percent of retail sales in America and has a huge market share elsewhere.
亚马逊占到美国零售销售的40%以上,并且在其它地方它有很大的市场份额。
That lets it dictate terms to suppliers.
那导致它对供应商开列条件。
Of course the companies are successful.
当然这些公司是成功的。
Because they’re innovative, they’re dynamic and they bring a lot of value to consumers.
因为它们创新,有活力,并且为消费者带来很多益处。
Problem is that their size brings worries.
问题是它们的规模引发担忧。
Today the major web companies are among the biggest firms in the world.
而今主要的网站公司身处世界最大公司行列。
A little over a decade ago they barely made the list.
10多年前它们几乎榜上无名。
Critics worry that they’re BAAD.
评论家担心它们会规模庞大,反竞争,沉溺其中,造成破坏。
That’s big, anti-competitive, addictive and destructive to democracy.
那是庞大,反竞争,沉溺其中,破坏民主。
Now most of the concerns are overblown.
现在大多数顾虑是有些夸张的。
Being big isn’t illegal.
大型并不违法。
But the anti-competitive worries are real.
但是对于反竞争的担忧是真的。
And we see early signs in it.
而且我们在它身上发现一些早期迹象。
Google has been fined by European regulators for favoring its own apps.
谷歌被欧洲监管者罚款,因为他们要支持自己的应用软件。
Facebook has bought up startups that could have competed against it.
脸书收购能和它们竞争的新创公司。
The market share of the tech giants, it’s as large as the industrial giants of the past.
科技巨头的市场份额和过去工业巨头的市场份额一样多。
At the time regulators broke up the companies are treated them as utilities.
那时候监管者把公司解散,它们被当做多用途的公共设施。
Neither approach is gonna work today.
今天没有一个方法会起作用。
First they should scrutinize even small mergers for potentially anti-competitive effects.
首先他们应该细致审查,即使是小型并购也有可能造成反竞争影响。
This will prevent the tech giants from buying up firms that could become rivals.
这会预防科技巨头收购可能成为其竞争对手的公司。
And second regulators should consider giving individuals rights over their data.
第二,监管者应该考虑赋予个体权利,获取自身资料。
And potentially require the platforms to share data to encourage competition.
而且有可能的话,要求平台分享数据来鼓励竞争。
It’s hard to imagine how that might work in practice since nothing like that has been done before.
很难想象实际上那是如何作用的,因为之前从来没有做过类似的事情。
But it is not impossible.
但那并不是不可能的。
And just the thread of this compulsory openness might enforce good behavior.
而且这个强制开放的思路或许会产生良性行为。

点击加载更多

上一篇: Succession

下一篇:

评论

64x64
词汇
我的生词本
练习题
Question:
How many people are using Facebook?
A  over 2 billion
B  half of the world's population
C  less than 1 billion
显示答案