评论
打印
With echoes of the trustbusting of U.S. Steel and Standard Oil more than a century ago and AT&T in 1984,
此次听证会不禁让人回想起一个多世纪前美国钢铁和标准石油公司以及1984年AT&T受到反垄断调查时的情形，
the hearing underlined the government's recognition that this cohort of tech companies —
此次听证会也凸显了政府已经认识到，这群科技公司——
which wield immense control over commerce, communications and public discourse —
他们对美国的商业、通信和公共言论都拥有着巨大的控制权——
had become the new trusts of the internet age.
早已成为互联网时代的托拉斯。
President Trump also used the event to rail against tech power.
特朗普总统还企图利用此次听证会将科技巨头们痛斥一番。
In a post on Twitter before the hearing began,
听证会开始前他就在推特上发帖称，
he said that he would issue executive orders to rein in the companies if Congress did not.
如果国会没能控制住他们，他也会颁布行政令控制他们。
From its conception, the House antitrust hearing was set to be a spectacle, lining up four of the world's most powerful executives —
从构想开始，众议院这次举行的反垄断听证会的场面就必然十分壮观，因为全世界最有权势的四位高管——
with two of them among the planet's richest individuals —to answer largely hostile questions together.
其中两人还是全世界首屈一指的富豪——都被召集到了一起，回答各种充满敌意的问题。
While the joint appearance limited sustained questioning of any one executive,
尽管四人的同时露面限制了对他们中间的任何一员进行长时间盘问的机会，
it created a side-by-side image that recalled the 1994 congressional hearing of top American tobacco executives,
但此次听证会还是给了人一种似曾相识之感，不仅让人想起1994年国会召集美国烟草高管举行听证会时的场面，
who said they did not believe that cigarettes were addictive.
那次听证会上，高管们纷纷表示，他们并不认为香烟会让人上瘾。
House lawmakers, who had opened an investigation into the tech companies in June 2019, made the most of it.
众议院议员，他们于2019年6月开始了对这些科技公司的调查，可谓充分利用了这一点。
Representative Jerry Nadler, Democrat of New York, confronted Mr. Zuckerberg with the C.E.O.'s own emails,
纽约州民主党众议员杰里·纳德勒以扎克伯格自己的电子邮件为据向这位CEO发起了对峙，
saying they showed a plot to take out a young competitor.
称那些邮件表明他正阴谋消灭一个年轻的竞争对手。
Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio, said Google was biased
俄亥俄州共和党众议员吉姆·乔丹表示谷歌存在偏见，
and asked Mr. Pichai whether the company would change its products to help elect Joseph R. Biden for president.
他质问皮查伊，谷歌是否会对其产品做出调整，以帮助约瑟夫·R·拜登竞选总统。
In one of the sharpest exchanges, Representative Pramila Jayapal, a Washington Democrat,
最激烈的交锋时刻之一便是华盛顿民主党众议员普拉米拉·贾亚帕尔与贝佐斯对质的时刻，
confronted Mr. Bezos on accusations that an Amazon lawyer had lied to the committee about how the company develops its own products.
她指控亚马逊的一名律师在公司如何开发产品问题上对委员会撒了谎。
She asked him to answer whether it misused data with a yes or no.
她要求他回答亚马逊是否存在滥用数据问题，他只需回答有或没有。
"I can't answer that question yes or no," said Mr. Bezos, appearing rattled.
“这个问题我没办法回答有或没有，”贝佐斯，面露慌色地，说道。
Yet while the hearing was ripe with theater,
然而，尽管听证会充满了戏剧性的时刻，
any impact will be limited by antitrust laws that were created a century ago and that are imperfect for corralling internet firms.
约束所有操作的是一个世纪前制定的反垄断法，要论围堵互联网公司，这些法律还算不上天衣无缝。
Since the 1980s, enforcement officials have used the notion of consumer welfare as the predominant test for antitrust violations —
自20世纪80年代以来，执法官员一直拿“消费者福利”这一概念作为反垄断违规行为的主要检验标准——
generally meaning that if prices are not going up, the markets are most likely competitive enough.
一般来说，这就意味着如果价格没有上涨，市场竞争很有可能十分激烈。
The tech giants have generally not driven up prices of digital services or consumer goods;
事实上，科技巨头们通常都没有抬高数字服务或消费品的价格；
many do not charge at all for services like Google Maps or Instagram.
他们中间有很多甚至都是免费提供服务的，比如谷歌地图，Instagram。
译文由可可原创，仅供学习交流使用，未经许可请勿转载。
