Why big tech should fear Europe
To understand the future of Silicon Valley, cross the Atlantic
The Economist 2019-3-23
Article
“THE BIRTHDAY of a new world is at hand.” Ever since Thomas Paine penned those words in 1776, America has seen itself as the land of the new—and Europe as a continent stuck in the past. Nowhere is that truer than in the tech industry. America is home to 15 of the world’s 20 most valuable tech firms; Europe has one. Silicon Valley is where the brainiest ideas meet the smartest money. America is also where the debate rages loudly over how to tame the tech giants, so that they act in the public interest. Tech tycoons face roastings by Congress for their firms’ privacy lapses. Elizabeth Warren, a senator who is running for president in 2020, wants Facebook to be broken up.
Yet if you want to understand where the world’s most powerful industry is heading, look not to Washington and California, but to Brussels and Berlin. In an inversion of the rule of thumb, while America dithers the European Union is acting. This week Google was fined $1.7bn for strangling competition in the advertising market. Europe could soon pass new digital copyright laws. Spotify has complained to the EU about Apple’s alleged antitrust abuses. And, as our briefing explains, the EU is pioneering a distinct tech doctrine that aims to give individuals control over their own information and the profits from it, and to prise open tech firms to competition. If the doctrine works, it could benefit millions of users, boost the economy and constrain tech giants that have gathered immense power without a commensurate sense of responsibility.
Western regulators have had showdowns over antitrust with tech firms before, including IBM in the 1960s and Microsoft in the 1990s. But today’s giants are accused not just of capturing huge rents and stifling competition, but also of worse sins, such as destabilising democracy (through misinformation) and abusing individual rights (by invading privacy). As AI takes off, demand for information is exploding, making data a new and valuable resource. Yet vital questions remain: who controls the data? How should the profits be distributed? The only thing almost everyone can agree on is that the person deciding cannot be Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s scandal-swamped boss.
The idea of the EU taking the lead on these questions will seem bizarre to many executives who view it as an entrepreneurial wasteland and the spiritual home of bureaucracy. In fact, Europe has clout and new ideas. The big five tech giants, Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft, make on average a quarter of their sales there. And as the world’s biggest economic bloc, the EU’s standards are often copied in the emerging world. Europe’s experience of dictatorship makes it vigilant about privacy. Its regulators are less captured by lobbying than America’s and its courts have a more up-to-date view of the economy. Europe’s lack of tech firms helps it take a more objective stance.
A key part of Europe’s approach is deciding what not to do. For now it has dismissed the option of capping tech firms’ profits and regulating them like utilities, which would make them stodgy, permanent monopolies. It has also rejected break-ups: thanks to network effects, one of the Facebabies or Googlettes might simply become dominant again. Instead the EU’s doctrine marries two approaches. One draws on its members’ cultures, which, for all their differences, tend to protect individual privacy. The other uses the EU’s legal powers to boost competition.
The first leads to the assertion that you have sovereignty over data about you: you should have the right to access them, amend them and determine who can use them. This is the essence of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), whose principles are already being copied by many countries across the world. The next step is to allow interoperability between services, so that users can easily switch between providers, shifting to firms that offer better financial terms or treat customers more ethically. (Imagine if you could move all your friends and posts to Acebook, a firm with higher privacy standards than Facebook and which gave you a cut of its advertising revenues.) One model is a scheme in Britain called Open Banking, which lets bank customers share their data on their spending habits, regular payments and so on with other providers. A new report for Britain’s government says that tech firms must open up in the same way.
Europe’s second principle is that firms cannot lock out competition. That means equal treatment for rivals who use their platforms. The EU has blocked Google from competing unfairly with shopping sites that appear in its search results or with rival browsers that use its Android operating system. A German proposal says that a dominant firm must share bulk, anonymised data with competitors, so that the economy can function properly instead of being ruled by a few data-hoarding giants. (For example, all transport firms should have access to Uber’s information about traffic patterns.) Germany has changed its laws to stop tech giants buying up scores of startups that might one day pose a threat.
Europe’s approach offers a new vision, in which consumers control their privacy and how their data are monetised. Their ability to switch creates competition that should boost choice and raise standards. The result should be an economy in which consumers are king and information and power are dispersed. It would be less cosy for the tech giants. They might have to offer a slice of their profits (the big five made $150bn last year) to their users, invest more or lose market share.
The European approach has risks. It may prove hard to achieve true interoperability between firms. So far, GDPR has proved clunky. The open flow of data should not cut across the concern for privacy. Here Europe’s bureaucrats will have to rely on entrepreneurs, many of them American, to come up with answers. The other big risk is that Europe’s approach is not adopted elsewhere, and the continent becomes a tech Galapagos, cut off from the mainstream. But the big firms will be loth to split their businesses into two continental silos. And there are signs that America is turning more European on tech: California has adopted a law that is similar to GDPR. Europe is edging towards cracking the big-tech puzzle in a way that empowers consumers, not the state or secretive monopolies. If it finds the answer, Americans should not hesitate to copy it—even if that means looking to the lands their ancestors left behind.
Notes
Thomas Paine penned those words in 1776,
formal 写下
Tech tycoons
the tech giant, tech tycoon
In an inversion of the rule of thumb
the rule of thumb：经验法则，和一般经验法则相颠倒的是
This week Google was fined $1.7bn for strangling competition in the advertising market.
抑制竞争
give individuals control over their own information and the profits from it, and to prise open tech firms to competition
prise open，撬开，撬开这些科技公司，迫使他们去竞争
a commensurate sense of responsibility
相称的，相当的
EX：As citizens in Nanjing, we should shoulder our commensurate responsibilities.
But today’s giants are accused not just of capturing huge rents and stifling competition, but also of worse sins, such as destabilising democracy (through misinformation) and abusing individual rights (by invading privacy)
当前科技巨头带来的危害，已经不仅仅只是收取高额费用与抑制竞争扰乱市场秩序了（例如，60年代对IBM的制裁和90年代对微软的打击），而是更加严重，直接动摇了民主根基，并且滥用私权，侵犯个体的隐私。这个帽子扣得很高了。这两期经济学人一直在说这个。
As AI takes off, demand for information is exploding, making data a new and valuable resource.
take off：起飞，随着AI的兴起。
seem bizarre to many executives
别再说strange了，bizarre to me
In fact, Europe has clout and new ideas.
影响力
Europe’s experience of dictatorship makes it vigilant about privacy. Its regulators are less captured by lobbying than America’s and its courts have a more up-to-date view of the economy. Europe’s lack of tech firms helps it take a more objective stance.
在作者看来，就科技方面而言，欧洲更为独裁
capping tech firms’ profits
cap做动词，有限额的意思，限制你的利润
you have sovereignty over data about you
你对自己的数据是有自主权的
Ex：For some girls, they think they have sovereignty over their boyfriends.
lock out competition
已经是多少个表达了？stifle competition, lock out competition, strangle competition，别再说作文没得写了。
consumers control their privacy and how their data are monetised.
未来，不，其实现在就已经是了，数据就是金钱，只不过是怎么定价而已
EX：So, you think love can also be monetized?
offer a slice of their profits (the big five made $150bn last year) to their users
注意量词
Views
上一篇就在说tech giants的影响，这期leader里面第一篇就是这个。主题是说：我们得看看欧洲的经验了，他们走在了前列。
For now it has dismissed the option of capping tech firms’ profits and regulating them like utilities, which would make them stodgy, permanent monopolies. It has also rejected break-ups: thanks to network effects, one of the Facebabies or Googlettes might simply become dominant again. Instead the EU’s doctrine marries two approaches. One draws on its members’ cultures, which, for all their differences, tend to protect individual privacy. The other uses the EU’s legal powers to boost competition.
欧洲没有压缩tech firm的利润，像公共事业（水电煤气）那样去管制他们；欧洲也没有采取break-up strategy（上一篇文章美国议员提出的想法）—— 因为小公司（用了很有意思的表达，facebabies和googletters）迟早还是会成长为大巨头，时间问题，治标不治本。欧洲结合了这两种方法。
- 一则，文化上欧洲更倾向于保护隐私
- 二则，欧洲采取法律途径去刺激竞争
The first leads to the assertion that you have sovereignty over data about you: you should have the right to access them, amend them and determine who can use them. This is the essence of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), whose principles are already being copied by many countries across the world. The next step is to allow interoperability between services, so that users can easily switch between providers, shifting to firms that offer better financial terms or treat customers more ethically. (Imagine if you could move all your friends and posts to Acebook, a firm with higher privacy standards than Facebook and which gave you a cut of its advertising revenues.) One model is a scheme in Britain called Open Banking, which lets bank customers share their data on their spending habits, regular payments and so on with other providers. A new report for Britain’s government says that tech firms must open up in the same way.
第一个方面，两步走：
- 你有权支配你的个人数据，法律保护的（GDPR）
- 充分服务之间的interoperability，可以自由地转换服务。
- to allow interoperability between services, so that users can easily switch between providers, shifting to firms that offer better financial terms or treat customers more ethically
这里要提一下英国的Open Banking，可以说是金融方面的创举了。可以将各人的消费记录、支付记录等数据在不同银行进行转换。现在银行，尤其是中小型银行拼的是什么？拼的就是数据。何况在『贷款不出县，资金不出省』的监管要求下，农商银行早就开始跑马圈地，视客户数据为珍宝，这样数据开放共享的举措小行绝对没有动力去做，只能依靠外部力量。
Europe’s second principle is that firms cannot lock out competition. That means equal treatment for rivals who use their platforms. The EU has blocked Google from competing unfairly with shopping sites that appear in its search results or with rival browsers that use its Android operating system. A German proposal says that a dominant firm must share bulk, anonymised data with competitors, so that the economy can function properly instead of being ruled by a few data-hoarding giants. (For example, all transport firms should have access to Uber’s information about traffic patterns.) Germany has changed its laws to stop tech giants buying up scores of startups that might one day pose a threat.
第二个方面，刺激竞争。竞争者数据共享。举了个例子，所有的运输公司都能够访问Uber的交通信息。
欧洲方法听起来不错，但是也遇到了问题。
- The open flow of data should not cut across the concern for privacy. 数据开放了，但是还是没有解决隐私的问题。
- 这方法你自己在那儿土嗨，其他地方和你做法不一样啊。最后很可能自己孤立，自己玩儿自己的，偏离了主流。
