扎克伯克迎來職業生涯大考問，卻被你表情包刷屏……
少俠聊江湖
美國當地時間10日、11日，臉書（Facebook）首席執行官馬克·扎克伯格來到國會，參加為期兩天的國會聽證會（congressional hearing）。
先來幾張圖感受一下現場的氛圍吧~
首先進場要帥帥噠
剛坐下~
有沒有被「長槍大炮」包圍的恐懼？
坐擁全世界20億的月活用戶（其中14億日活用戶），被封為無國籍的最大kingdom之王，也會緊張吧~
但是緊張也要保持微笑
我應經準備好了，開始吧~
攝影師也準備~
整個聽證會幾百人，提問的幾十人，而小扎，只有一張桌子，一瓶水，一個人而已。
準備舌戰群儒~
好了，喝完水準備開始戰鬥吧。一群政治大佬照本宣科讀問題還常有念錯的時候，小扎回答字句清晰，擲地有聲，鏗鏘有力（練聽力的絕佳教材！在yotub上有完整版本）
少俠截取了其中一小段，大家了解一下~
Is Facebook a financial institution?
Facebook是金融機構嗎？
ZUCKERBERG:Mr. Chairman, I do not consider ourselves to be a financial institution, although you"re right that we do provide tools for people to send money.
小扎：主席先生，我不認為自己是金融機構，但我們確實提供了人們送錢的工具。
WALDEN: So you"ve mentioned several times that you started Facebook in your dorm room in 2004; 15 years, 2 billion users and several — unfortunately — breaches of trust later, Facebook"s today — is Facebook today the same kind of company you started with a Harvard.edu email address?
WALDEN：所以你多次提到你在2004年在你的宿舍里開始創辦Facebook; 不幸的是，今天的臉書Facebook今天已經有20億用戶和幾個用戶，其中有一些人打破了信任，Facebook今天是你開始使用哈佛電子郵件地址的同一家公司嗎？
ZUCKERBERG: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think we"ve evolved quite a bit as a company. When I started it, I certainly didn"t think that we would be the ones building this broad of a community around the world. I thought someone would do it. I didn"t think it was going to be us. So we"ve definitely grown.
小扎：那麼，主席先生，我認為我們已經發展成為一家公司。當我開始的時候，我當然不認為我們會在世界各地建立這樣一個廣泛的社區。我以為有人會這樣做。我不認為這會成為我們。所以我們一定要成長的。
WALDEN: And — and you"ve recently said that you and Facebook have not done a good job of explaining what Facebook does. And so, back in 2012 and 2013, when a lot of this scraping of user and friend data was happening, did it ever cross your mind that you should be communicating more clearly with users about how Facebook is monetizing their data?
I understand that Facebook does not sell user data, per se, in the traditional sense, but it"s also just as true that Facebook"s user data is probably the most valuable thing about Facebook. In fact, it may be the only truly valuable thing about Facebook.
Why wasn"t explaining what Facebook does with users" data a higher priority for you as a co-founder and — and now as CEO?
WALDEN：而且 - 最近你說過你和Facebook在解釋Facebook的功能方面做得不好。所以，在2012年和2013年，當大量這種用戶和朋友數據的泄露發生時，是否曾經想過，您應該更清楚地與用戶溝通Facebook如何將其數據貨幣化？
據我所知，Facebook本身並不銷售傳統意義上的用戶數據，但Facebook的用戶數據也可能是Facebook最有價值的事情，這也是事實。事實上，它可能是Facebook唯一最有價值的東西。
為什麼Facebook不會將用戶數據作為聯合創始人和現在的首席執行官來解釋您對用戶數據的優先考慮？
ZUCKERBERG: Mr. Chairman, you"re right that we don"t sell any data. And I would say that we do try to explain what we do as — as time goes on. It"s a — it"s a broad system.
You know, every day, about 100 billion times a day, people come to one of our products, whether it"s Facebook or Messenger or Instagram or WhatsApp, to put in a piece of content, whether it"s a — a photo that they want to share or a message they want to send someone.
And, every time, there"s a control right there about who you want to share it with. Do you want to share it publicly, to broadcast it out to everyone? Do you want to share it with your friends, a specific group of people? Do you want to message it to just one — one person or a couple of people? That"s the most important thing that we do. And I think that, in the product, that"s quite clear.
I do think that we can do a better job of explaining how advertising works. There is a common misperception, as you say, that is just reported — often keeps on being reported, that, for some reason, we sell data.
小扎：主席先生，你說得對，我們不出售任何數據。而且我會說，我們確實試圖解釋我們做什麼 - 隨著時間的推移。這是一個廣泛的系統。
你知道，每天，每天大約有1000億次，人們來到我們的產品之一，無論是Facebook還是Messenger或Instagram或WhatsApp，都可以放入一段內容，無論是 - 他們想分享的照片或者他們想要發送某人的消息。
而且，每次都有一個關於你想與誰分享的控制權。你想公開分享，向所有人廣播嗎？你想分享給你的朋友，一群特定的人嗎？你想把信息傳達給一個人 - 一個人還是幾個人？這是我們做的最重要的事情。我認為，在產品中，這很清楚。
我認為我們可以更好地解釋廣告的工作原理。正如你所說，有一種常見的誤解，就是剛剛報道 - 通常會不斷被報告，出於某種原因，我們銷售數據。
聽證會內容非常多，還聚焦到一下話題：
Does Facebook track your internet activity outside the app?
臉書會在應用之外追蹤用戶的上網行為嗎？
Who is Facebook"s biggest competitor?
誰是臉書最大的競爭者？
If I delete Facebook, how long will it take for Facebook to purge my data?
如果我刪了臉書，它多久會清除我的數據？
Will Facebook do anything about its confusing privacy policy and terms of service?
對模稜兩可的用戶隱私政策和服務條款，臉書會對此做些什麼嗎？
當然，有媒體評價，第一輪聽證會參議院的提問都很失敗
比如：
有參議員這麼問
小扎內心：嗯？送分題？
So, how do you sustain a business model in which users don』t pay for your service?
用戶不用付錢，這樣的商業模式你們怎麼維持下去？
Senator, we run ads.
參議員先生，我們有廣告啊。
答完，還不忘回一個尷尬又不失禮貌的微笑
再比如：
當有參議員問道，你們臉書從大學宿舍到全球巨頭，這事兒也就可能在美國發生了吧（only in America）？
You couldn"t do this in China, right?
耿直的小扎這麼回答：
Senator, there are some very strong Chinese internet companies.
參議員先生，中國有很多非常強的互聯網公司
這麼時候只能強行挽尊
對對對，你說得對，送你一個微笑
最後奉上小扎在聽證會後的最後一段話，比較容易理解的
... I do worry about the general bias of people in Silicon Valley. But the -- the majority of the folks doing content review are -- are around the world in different places.
To your question about net neutrality, I think that there"s a big difference between Internet service providers and platforms on top of them. And the big reason is that, well, I just think about my own experience.
When I was starting Facebook, I had one choice of an Internet service provider. And if I had to potentially pay extra in order to make it so that people could have Facebook as an option for something that they used, then I"m not sure that we"d be here today. Platforms, there are just many more.
So it may be true that a lot of people choose to use Facebook. The average American, I think, uses about eight different communication and social network apps to stay connected to people. And just as clearly correct or true that there are more choices on platforms. So even though they can reach large-scale, I think the pressure of just having one or two in a place does require us to think a little bit...
針對這次聽證會，儘管小扎做了充分的準備，但是仍然對部分問題進行了迴避，並在多個問題中使用了「後續我們會跟進」，有人會覺得小扎沒有直面問題，但也有人認為這次小扎對於聽不懂、不知道的問題選擇不回復或者採用「我們會後續跟進、完善」類的回答恰好是最恰當的，畢竟小扎對於自己的任何回答都是要負責的，不僅是企業商業價值上的責任、還有法律責任。還有這次聽證會不是"審判，聽證會的目的是看立法機構能否更好的約束這件事情。。
TAG:死磕英語的少俠 |