What to make of Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony
Both the Facebook boss and his questioners in Congress fail to reassure
Apr 14th 2018
SAYING sorry can be an enriching experience. For Mark Zuckerberg, who this week endured two days of questioning in front of Congress, the rewards of contrition are not just metaphorical. Over the course of his testimony, as the Facebook boss apologised for the leakage of data on 87m users to a political-campaign firm, his company’s shares rose by 5.7% and his own net worth by $3.2bn.
Shareholders were doubtless relieved by Mr Zuckerberg’s robotic but gaffe-free display. And even the firm’s fiercest critics ought to acknowledge the distance that it has travelled since the Cambridge Analytica story broke in March. Mr Zuckerberg welcomed the idea of regulation and cautiously endorsed a forthcoming European law on data protection. By saying explicitlythat Facebook was responsible for the content on its platform, he has opened the door to bearing greater liability for the material it carries. But the bounce in the share price also signals something worrying: that neither the firm nor American legislators have grasped the need for radical change.
explicit: very clear and complete: leaving no doubt about the meaning
Facebook老板Mark Zuckerberg在听证会上道歉，就让它公司股票涨了5.7%，个人资产增长32亿！
Start with Facebook. Mr Zuckerberg told Congress that any firm that has grown at the speed of Facebook was bound to make mistakes. But the dorm-room excuse is wearing thin.Facebook is the sixth-most-valuable listed firm on the planet. It spent $11.5m on lobbying in Washington in 2017. Its endless guff about “community” counts for little when it has repeatedly and flagrantly disregarded its users’ rights to control their own data. The company has carried out lots of fiddles in recent weeks—from making privacy settings clearer to promising an audit of suspicious apps. But it should go much further.
An internal investigation into how third-party apps have been using Facebook users’ data is not enough to restore trust: it should appoint an outside firm to conduct a full independent examination of its own conduct. That would help address lingering questions; Cambridge Analytica may be just one of many such outfits to have got hold of user data, for example. The appointment of an independent chairman would be another way to improve the quality of debate and scrutiny within Facebook. Along with other tech firms, it should create an industry ombudsman whose jobs would include making access to platforms easier for independent researchers.Instead of opening up, however, the risk is that Facebook will throw up walls: its decision to kick third-party data-brokers off the platform has the convenient effect of both protecting users’ data and entrenching its power as a source of those data.
fiddle: a dishonest way of getting money: swindle, scam
ombudsman: a person such as a government official or an employee who investigates complaints and tries to deal with problems fairly
Wanted: well-informed legislators
Even if Facebook did all this, there would still be a need for data-protection regulation in America. Mr Zuckerberg has a majority of the voting rights at the company: an independent chairman would not stop him wielding ultimate control. The firm’s advertising-led business model incentivises it to turn users’ personal data into targets for ads. Facebook has said nothing about allowing people to opt out of being tracked across the web. It is inherently hard for users of online services to make informed choices about how their data should be stored. In any case, these issues span more firms than Facebook.
That leads to the other concern raised by this week’s hearings: the capacity of policymakers to put together good legislation. Where Mr Zuckerberg was competent, his interrogators were often clueless (see article). One seemed not to know that the firm made money from advertising; another was more interested in getting Facebook to build fibre-optic cable in her state. To work for its users, the data economy requires thoughtful policy and a sea-change in the way tech firms are run. On this week’s evidence, neither looks likely.
这周听证会那些人根本没有能力制定出一条监管信息的法律法规，其中一个提问者不知道Facebook可以从广告中赚钱，一个提问者对Facebook能不能做出她喜欢的缆线更感兴趣???
总结：听证会像是要发难Facebook老板，但却给它带来了那么多的好处... 然而对保护用户的法律，却连影子都看不到
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results
Lexile®Measure: 1100L - 1200L
Mean Sentence Length: 15.18
Mean Log Word Frequency: 3.23
Word Count: 607
这篇文章的蓝思值是在1100-1100L， 是经济学人里普通难度的文章~
使用kindle断断续续地读《经济学人》三年，发现从一开始磕磕碰碰到现在比较顺畅地读完，进步很大，推荐购买！点击这里可以去亚马逊官网购买~