How Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google manipulate our emotions | Scott Galloway

譯者: Shizumi Ch 審譯者: congmei Han

[This talk contains graphic language Viewer discretion is advised]

【本演說含有誇張略帶粗俗的語言， 請觀眾自行斟酌】

So, this is the first and the last slide

這是我上課時的第一張 也是最後一張投影片，

each of my 6,400 students over the last 15 years has seen.

過去十五年間，我的 6,400 名學生都看過。

I do not believe you can build a multibillion-dollar organization

我不相信你能建立起 數十億元的組織，

unless you are clear on which instinct or organ you are targeting.

除非你清楚你的目標 是哪一種本能或器官。

Our species has a need for a superbeing.

我們人類對神明是有所求的。

Our competitive advantage as a species is our brain.

人類這物種的競爭優勢就是頭腦，

Our brain is robust enough to ask these really difficult questions,

我們的頭腦夠健全， 能問真正有難度的問題，

but, unfortunately, it doesn't have the processing power to answer them,

遺憾的是，它並沒有足夠的處理能力 來解答這些有難度的問題，

which creates a need for a superbeing

於是就產生了對神明的需求。

that we can pray to and look to for answers.

我們可以向神明禱告並請求答案。

What is prayer?

禱告是什麼？

Sending a query into the universe,

就是把問題發送到宇宙中，

and hopefully there's some sort of divine intervention --

盼望能有某尊神明顯靈。

我們不需要了解發生什麼事，

we don't need to understand what's going on --

from an all-knowing, all-seeing superbeing

只要等待這位全知、全見的神明，

that gives us authority that this is the right answer.

告訴我們這就是權威的正確答案。

"Will my kid be all right?"

比如你會問神明： 「我的孩子會好起來嗎？」

You have your planet of stuff,

你有一大堆雜事、

you have your planet of work,

一大堆工作要做，

you have your planet of friends.

你有一堆朋友。

If you have kids,

如果你有孩子，

you know that once something comes off the rails with your kids,

你就能理解，一旦孩子脫離正軌，

everything melts,

一切都會被打亂。

in your universe to the Sun that is your kids.

在你的宇宙中，你的孩子是太陽。

"Will my kid be all right?"

「我的孩子會好起來嗎？」

"Symptoms and treatment of croup" in the Google query box.

你會跑去谷歌搜尋： 「喉炎的症狀與療法」。

谷歌搜尋的問題中，每六則就有一則

One in six queries presented to Google have never been asked before

是人類史上從來沒被問過的。

in the history of mankind.

What priest, teacher, rabbi, scholar, mentor, boss has so much credibility

有哪位牧師、老師、拉比、 學者、導師、老闆

能回答這六分之一從未被問過的問題

that one in six questions posed to that person

並且給出足夠令人信服的答案？

have never been asked before?

Google is our modern man's God.

谷歌就是我們現代人的神。

Imagine your face and your name above everything you've put into that box,

想像你的臉和你的名字 高於一切你敲進搜尋盒子的內容，

and you're going to realize you trust Google more than any entity

你會意識到你相信谷歌

勝過相信歷史上的任何實體。

in your history.

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Let's move further down the torso.

讓我們沿著軀幹繼續往下看。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

One of the other wonderful things about our species

另一件關於我們人類的妙事是

is we not only need to be loved, but we need to love others.

我們不只需要被愛， 我們還需要愛別人。

Children with poor nutrition but a lot of affection

營養不足但內心有愛的孩子，

have better outcomes than children with good nutrition and poor affection.

會比營養充足但內心 沒什麼愛的孩子長得好。

However, the best signal that you might make it

然而，有三種最好的信號

to be part of the number-one fastest growing demographic in the world --

可以顯示你可能成功地

加入了世界上成長最快速的人群──

centenarians, people who live to triple digits --

百歲人瑞，歲數有三位數的人── 有三種信號。

there are three signals.

In reverse order: your genetics -- not as important as you'd like to think,

我們倒著來看： 「基因」沒有你認為的那麼重要，

所以你可以繼續糟踏你的身體，

so you can continue to treat your body like shit

and think, "Oh, Uncle Joe lived to 95,

然後心想：「喔， 喬叔活到 95 歲已成定局。」

the die have been cast."

基因沒你想的那麼重要。

It's less important than you think.

Number two is lifestyle.

第二項是「生活方式」。

別抽煙、別過胖、預先篩檢，

Don't smoke, don't be obese, and prescreen --

get rid of about two-thirds of early cancers

這樣能避免三分之二的早期癌症

and cardiovascular disease.

以及心血管疾病。

The number one indicator or signal that you'll make it to triple digits:

你會活到百歲的首項指標、信號是：

How many people do you love?

「你愛多少人」。

Caretaking is the security camera --

關懷就好比是一種監控鏡頭，

we call the low-resolution security camera in our brain --

它是我們腦中的低解析度監控鏡頭

deciding whether or not you are adding value.

關懷別人決定了你是否會多活幾年。

Facebook taps into our instinctive need not only to be loved,

臉書正是利用這點，

我們不只是需要被愛， 也需要關愛他人，

but to love others,

mostly through pictures that create empathy,

臉書多半透過照片來引起共鳴、

catalyze and reinforce our relationships.

催化，並鞏固我們之間的關係。

Let's continue our journey down the torso.

我們再繼續向軀幹更下方前進。

Amazon is our consumptive gut.

亞馬遜直擊我們的消費本能。

The instinct of more is hardwired into us.

渴望擁有更多是我們的內在本性。

The penalty for too little is starvation and malnutrition.

擁有太少的懲罰 是餓肚子和營養不良。

Open your cupboards, open your closets,

但打開你的食櫥、衣櫃，你會發現，

you have 10 to 100x times what you need.

你所擁有的東西超過 你需要的十倍到百倍。

Why?

為什麼？

Because the penalty for too little is much greater

因為擁有太少的懲罰 遠遠超過擁有更多的。

than the penalty for too much.

So "more for less" is a business strategy that never goes out of style.

所以「用更少的錢買更多」 是永遠不會過時的商業策略。

It's the strategy of China,

採用該策略的有中國、

it's a the strategy of Walmart,

有沃爾瑪，

and now it's the strategy of the most successful company in the world,

還有世界上最成功的企業：

Amazon.

亞馬遜。

You get more for less into your gut;

你把「用更少的錢買更多」變成直覺，

digest, send it to your muscular and skeletal system of consumption.

將之內化到你那消費的 肌肉和骨骼系統中。

Moving further,

再向前進一步，

once we know we will survive, the basic instinct,

一旦我們解決了生存的問題，

我們就會去運用第二強大的本能，

we move to the second most powerful instinct,

and that is to spread and select the strongest, smartest and fastest seed

也就是去散播、篩選

最強壯、最聰明、最快速的種子， （註：指配對、傳宗接代）

to the four corners of the earth,

到地球各地，

or pick the best seed.

或是撿起最好的種子。

This is not a timepiece.

這不是一個時鐘。

I haven't wound it in five years.

我有五年沒有給它上發條了。

It's my vain attempt to say to people,

這是我徒然的嘗試，想對人們說：

"If you mate with me, your children are more likely to survive

「如果你和我配對，會比 和戴著斯沃琪手錶的人配對

than if you mate with someone wearing a Swatch watch."

生下更有可能生存的孩子。」

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

The key to business is tapping into the irrational organs.

做生意的關鍵在於利用 不理性的器官，

"Irrational" is Harvard Business School's and New York Business School's term

「不理性」是哈佛商學院 和紐約商學院的用語，

for fat profit margins and shareholder value.

指的是豐厚的利潤和股東價值。

"High-caloric paste for your children."

「給你的孩子高熱量的醬料。」

No?

不要？

You love your choosy mom.

你愛你挑剔的老媽。

Why choosy moms choose Jif: you love your kids more.

為什麼挑剔的老媽選 Jif 花生醬：你更愛你的孩子。

The greatest algorithm for shareholder creation from World War II

從二次大戰之後到谷歌出現之間，

最偉大的股東創造演算法，

to the advent of Google

was taking an average product and appealing to people's hearts.

就是拿普通的產品來迎合人們內心。

You're a better a mom, a better person, a better patriot

你可以當個較好的母親、 較好的人、較愛國的人，

if you buy this average soap versus this average soap.

只要你購買的是這個普通肥皂， 而非那個普通肥皂。

Now, the number one algorithm for shareholder value isn't technology.

如今股東價值第一的演算法 並不是科技。

Look at the Forbes 400.

看看福布斯四百富豪。

Take out inherited wealth, take out finance.

去掉繼承的財富，去掉金融業，

The number one source of wealth creation:

創造財富第一名的來源：

appealing to your reproductive organs.

迎合你的生殖器官。

The Lauders; the number one wealthiest man in Europe, LVMH.

路威酩軒集團的勞德 是歐洲最有錢的人。

Numbers two and three: H&M and Inditex.

第二名和第三名：H&M 、印地紡。

You want to target the most irrational organs for shareholder value.

你會想要把股東價值目標 設定在最不理性的器官上。

As a result, these four companies -- Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google --

因此，這四間公司 蘋果、亞馬遜、臉書、谷歌，

have disarticulated who we are.

讓我們與自我脫節了。

God, love, consumption, sex.

神、愛、消費、性愛。

The proportion in your approach to those things is who you are,

你接觸這些東西的比例， 決定了你是什麼樣的人。

and they have reassembled who we are in the form of for-profit companies.

這些東西以逐利公司的形式， 將我們變成另一種樣貌。

At the end of the Great Recession,

經濟大衰退晚期，

the market capitalization of these companies was equivalent

這些公司的總市值已經等同 尼日的國內生產總值。

to the GDP of Niger.

Now it is equivalent to the GDP of India,

現在他們的總市值已等同 印度的國內生產總值，

having blown past Russia and Canada in '13 and '14.

且在 2013、2014 年 便已超越俄羅斯和加拿大。

There are only five nations

現在只有五個國家

that have a GDP greater than the combined market capitalization

能在國內生產總值上超過

那四間公司的總市值。

of these four firms.

Something is happening, though.

不過，某事正在發生。

The conversation just a year ago was, which CEO was more Jesus-like?

一年前，人們的對話還是： 哪個執行長更像聖人？

Who was running for president?

誰要競選總統？

Now the worm has turned.

現在，風向變了。

Everything they're doing is bothering us.

他們所做的一切都困擾著我們。

We're worried they're tax avoiders.

我們會擔心他們企圖避稅。

Walmart, since the Great Recession, has paid 64 billion dollars

從經濟大衰退開始算， 沃爾瑪已經繳了 640 億美金

in corporate income tax;

用以支付公司所得稅；

Amazon has paid 1.4.

亞馬遜付了 14 億。

How do we pay our firefighters, our soldiers and our social workers

我們怎麼養得起 消防人員、軍人還有社工？

if the most successful companies in the world don't pay their fair share?

如果這些世界上最成功的公司 不付他們應當付的錢？

Pretty easy.

很簡單，這意味著

That means the less successful companies have to pay

那些沒那麼成功的公司 必須付出比他們應付的更多的稅錢。

more than their fair share.

Alexa, is this a good thing?

Alexa，這樣好嗎？

This is despite that fact --

這還沒算──

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

This is despite the fact

這還沒算

that Amazon has added the entire market capitalization of Walmart

亞馬遜的市值增長了 一整個沃爾瑪的市值，

to its market cap in the last 19 months.

就在過去的 19 個月中。

Whose fault is it? It's our fault.

這是誰的錯？是我們的錯。

We're electing regulators who don't have the backbone

我們選出的管理者沒有骨氣

to actually go after these companies.

真去追查這些公司。

Facebook lies to EU regulators

臉書對歐盟管理者說謊，

and says, "It would be impossible for us to share the data

臉書說：「我們不可能

在核心平台與我們的想要收購的對象 WhatsApp 之間分享資料。

between our core platform and our proposed acquisition of WhatsApp.

Approve the merger."

同意併購吧。」

They approve the merger and then -- spoiler alert! -- they figure it out.

歐盟同意了併購案。

然後爆雷了！他們發現了真相。

And the EU says, "I feel lied to.

歐盟就說：「我覺得被騙了。

We're fining you 120 [million] dollars,"

要罰你 1.2 億美金。」 （註：1.1 億歐元，1.22 億美金）

about .6 percent of the acquisition price of 19 billion dollars.

罰金約是收購價 190 億的 0.6%。

If Mark Zuckerberg could take out an insurance policy

若馬克·祖克柏花收購價的 0.6% 買個保險，

that the acquisition would go through for .6 percent,

就能讓收購案安然通過，

wouldn't he do it?

難道他會不做嗎？

Anticompetitive behavior.

這是反競爭的行為。

A two-and-a-half-billion-dollar fine,

25 億美金的罰款、

three billion of the cash flow,

30 億的現金流量，

three percent of the cash on Google's balance sheet.

只佔谷歌財務狀況表上的 3％。

We are telling these companies, "The smart thing to do,

我們告訴這些公司的是：

「聰明的做法、

以股東利益為導向的做法，

the shareholder-driven thing to do,

is to lie and to cheat."

就是要說謊、要作弊。」

We are issuing 25-cent parking tickets

我們正用每小時耗資 100 美元的測量儀，

on a meter that costs 100 dollars an hour.

發行價值美金 25 分的停車券。

The smart thing to do is lie.

聰明的做法就是說謊。

Job destruction!

沒工作啦！

Amazon only needs one person for two at Macy's.

亞馬遜只需要 1 位員工時， 梅西百貨公司需要 2 位。

If they grow their business 20 billion dollars this year, which they will,

若亞馬遜今年銷售成長 200 億， 他們很可能會達成這數字，

我們就會少掉 53,000 位 收銀員和店員。

we will lose 53,000 cashiers and clerks.

This is nothing unusual;

這事很常見；

this has happened all through our economy,

這在我們的經濟體中到處發生，

we've just never seen companies this good at it.

我們只是沒見過 如此善於這樣操作的公司。

That's one Yankee Stadium of workers.

那些丟掉工作的人的數量 可以塞滿整個洋基球場。

It's even worse in media.

媒體業的情況更糟。

If Facebook and Google grow their businesses

若臉書和谷歌今年的營業額 成長 220 億美元，

22 billion dollars this year, which they will,

他們會達到這數字，

we're going to lose approximately 150,000 creative directors,

我們就會少掉大約 150,000 位創意主管、

planners and copywriters.

規劃師和文案人員。

Or we can fill up two-and-a-half Yankee Stadiums

我們又能塞滿兩個半洋基球場，

and say, "You are out of work, courtesy of Amazon."

說：「感謝亞馬遜，你們失業啦。」

We now get the majority of our news from our social media feeds,

我們現在主要從社群媒體接收消息，

and the majority of our news coming off of social media feeds is ...

而社群媒體最多的訊息就是⋯⋯

fake news.

假消息。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

I am not allowed to be political or use curse words,

我不能在課堂上談政治、罵髒話，

or talk about religion in class,

或談宗教，

so I can definitely not say,

所以我當然也不能說：

"Zuckerberg has become Putin's bitch."

「祖克柏已經成為普京的婊子。」

I definitely cannot say that.

我絕對不能說這話。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Their defense:

他們的辯解：

"Facebook is not a media company; it's a technology company."

「臉書不是媒體公司，是科技公司。」

You create original content,

你寫出了原創的內容，

you pay sports leagues to give you original content,

你付錢給運動聯盟取得原創的內容，

you run advertising against it -- boom! -- you're a media company.

你與它對立刊登廣告── 賓果！你就是個媒體公司。

Just in the last few days,

就在幾天前，

Sheryl Sandberg has repeated this lie, that "We are not a media company."

雪柔·桑德伯格又重述了這個謊言： 「我們不是媒體公司。」

Facebook has openly embraced the margins of celebrity

臉書公開擁抱名人帶來的利潤，

and the influence of a media company

以及媒體公司的影響力，

yet seems to be allergic to the responsibilities

但卻似乎對

媒體公司應負的責任很感冒。

of a media company.

Imagine McDonald's.

用麥當勞來想像看看。

We find 80 percent of their beef is fake,

我們發現它們 80% 的牛肉是假的，

and it's giving us encephalitis,

會讓我們得腦炎，

and we're making terrible decisions.

我們在做可怕的決定。

And we say, "McDonald's, we're pissed off!"

我們說：「麥當勞，我們很生氣！」

And they say, "Wait, wait --

麥當勞說：「等等、等等──

we're not a fast-food restaurant,

我們不是速食餐廳，

we're a fast-food platform."

我們是速食平台。」

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

These companies and CEOs wrap themselves

這些公司及他們的那些執行長

in a neon-blue pink rainbow and blue blanket

將自己用霓虹藍、粉色、彩虹 和藍色的布將自己包裝起來，

to create an illusionist trick from their behavior each day,

為他們每日的行為製造出一種幻覺，

which is more indicative of the spawn of Darth Vader and Ayn Rand.

更像是黑武士和艾因·蘭德的產物。 （註：星際大戰角色；哲學家、小說家）

Why? Because we as progressives are seen as nice but weak.

為什麼？我們進步論者 看起來很好但很弱。

If Sheryl Sandberg had written a book on gun rights

若雪柔·桑德伯格寫書討論擁槍權

or on the pro-life movement,

或討論反墮胎運動，

would they be flying Sheryl to Cannes?

她會因此被吹捧去坎城嗎？

No.

不會。

And I'm not doubting their progressive values,

我不是在質疑他們的進步價值觀，

but it foots to shareholder value,

但它符合股東價值利益，

because we as progressives are seen as weak.

我們被視為虛弱的進步論者。

They're so nice -- remember Microsoft?

他們真好──還記得微軟嗎？

They didn't seem as nice,

當時他們看似沒那麼好，

and regulators stepped in much earlier than the regulators now,

而當時的監管者 比現在的監管者更早介入，

who would never step in on those nice, nice people.

現在的監管者絕不會介入 那些看似很好、很好的人們。

I'm about to get on a plane tonight,

我今天晚上要搭飛機，

and I'm going to have a guy named Roy from TSA molest me.

運輸安全管理局有個 叫羅伊的傢伙會騷擾我。

If I am suspected of a DUI on the way home,

若我在回家的路上被懷疑酒醉駕駛，

I can have blood taken from my person.

我可能會遭到驗血。

But wait! Don't tap into the iPhone --

但慢著！不要檢查我的 iPhone，

it's sacred.

iPhone 是很神聖的。

This is our new cross.

這就是我們現在的十字架。

It shouldn't be the iPhone X,

我們不應該講 iPhone X，

it should be called the "iPhone Cross."

應該講「iPhone 十字架」。

We have our religion; it's Apple.

我們有了信仰：就是蘋果。

Our Jesus Christ is Steve Jobs,

我們的耶穌就是史提夫·賈伯斯，

and we've decided this is holier than our person, our house

我們覺得這比我們本身、房子或電腦

or our computer.

還要神聖。

We have become totally out of control

我們已經完全失去控制了，

with the gross idolatry of innovation and of youth.

充滿了對創新和青春的 愚蠢偶像崇拜。

We no longer worship at the altar of character,

我們不再崇拜品格、仁慈，

of kindness,

but of innovation and people who create shareholder value.

而是崇尚創新和創造股東價值的人。

Amazon has become so powerful in the marketplace,

亞馬遜在市場上變得如此強大，

it can conduct Jedi mind tricks.

能像絕地武士那樣控制心靈，

It can begin damaging other industries just by looking at them.

只要使個眼神就能摧毀其他產業。

Nike announces they're distributing on Amazon, their stock goes up,

Nike 宣布登上亞馬遜 銷售平台，股價就上漲，

every other footwear stock goes down.

其他鞋廠的股價則全部下跌。

When Amazon stock goes up, the rest of retail stocks go down,

亞馬遜的股價上漲時， 其他零售商的股價就會下跌，

because they assume what's good for Amazon is bad for everybody else.

因為大家預設，對亞馬遜有利的 必然對其他的零售商有害。

They cut the cost on salmon 33 percent when they acquired Whole Foods.

亞馬遜收購全食超市後 將鮭魚價格打 6.7 折。

In between the time they announced the acquisition of Whole Foods

從宣布收購全食 到收購完成的這段期間內，

and when it closed,

美國最大的、單一只經營食品的 克羅格連鎖超市（Kroger）的

Kroger, the largest pure-play grocer in America,

shed a third of its value,

股票市值下降了三分之一，

because Amazon purchased a grocer one-eleventh the size of Kroger.

因為亞馬遜買下了

相當於克羅格十一分之一 規模的食品雜貨商。

I got very lucky.

我很幸運。

I predicted the acquisition of Whole Foods by Amazon

我在亞馬遜收購全食超市的

the week before it happened.

一星期前便預測了這件事。

This is me boasting; I said this publicly in the media.

讓我自誇一下； 我公開在媒體上說過。

This was the largest acquisition in their history,

這是亞馬遜歷史上最大型的收購案，

他們之前的收購從未花超過十億，

they'd never made an acquisition over a billion,

人們問：「你怎麼知道的？」

and people asked, "How did you know this?"

我要讓這群優秀的觀眾 了解這個秘密。

So I'm letting this very impressive audience in on the secret.

How did I know this?

我怎麼知道的？

I'm going to tell you how I knew.

我這就告訴你們我怎麼知道的。

I bark at Alexa all day long

我整天都在喊 Alexa，

and try to figure out what's going on.

設法明白發生了什麼事。

(Scott Galloway) Alexa, buy whole milk.

加洛威（SG）：Alexa， 買瓶全脂牛奶。

(Alexa) I couldn't find anything for whole milk,

Alexa：沒有符合全脂牛奶的選項，

so I've added whole milk to your shopping list.

所以我將全脂牛奶 加入了你的購物清單。

SG: Then I asked,

SG：我再吩咐，

(SG) Alexa, buy organic foods.

SG：Alexa，買有機食品。

(Alexa) The top search result for organic food

Alexa：搜尋到有機食品的第一品牌是

is Plum Organics baby food, banana and pumpkin,

香蕉和南瓜口味的 Plum （品牌）有機嬰兒食品，

12-pack of four ounces each.

每袋十二份，一份 4 盎司。

It's 15 dollars total.

總共 15 美元。

Would you like to buy it?

請問您要購買嗎？

SG: And then, as often happens at my age,

SG：接著，如同我這年紀 常會有的現象，

I got confused.

我把詞組搞混了。

(SG) Alexa, buy whole foods.

SG：Alexa，買份全食。

(Alexa) I have purchased the outstanding stock of Whole Foods Incorporated

Alexa：我購買了全食超市 有限公司的流通股票

at 42 dollars per share.

每股 42 美元。

I have charged 13.7 billion to your American Express card.

我已經用你的美國運通卡 刷了 137 億美元。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

SG: I thought that'd be funnier.

SG：我覺得應該更有趣些。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

We've personified these companies,

我們將這些公司擬人化，

and just as when you're really angry over every little thing someone does

就像你對他人在你人生 和人際關係中做的每件小事

感到生氣一樣，

in your life and relationships,

you've got to ask yourself,

你應該問問自己，

「發生了什麼事？ 為什麼我們對科技如此失望？」

"What's going on here? Why are we so disappointed in technology?"

我相信這是因為原本的比例是

I believe it's because the ratio of one-percent pursuit

追求 1% 的股東價值

of shareholder value

and 99 percent the betterment of humanity

和 99% 用於改善人類，

that technology used to play

但科技追求的比例被翻轉了，

has been flipped,

and now we're totally focused on shareholder value instead of humanity.

現在我們完全著重於股東價值， 而非改善人類。

One hundred thousand people came together for the Manhattan Project

10 萬人參與了曼哈頓計劃，

並真的拯救了世界，科技拯救了世界。

and literally saved the world.

Technology saved the world.

當年我母親是四歲猶太人，

My mother was a four-year-old Jew living in London at the outset of the war.

戰爭初期，她住在倫敦。

如果我們沒先一步 贏得原子分裂的競賽，

If we had not won the footrace towards splitting the atom,

would she have survived?

她會存活嗎？不太可能。

It's unlikely.

Twenty-five years later,

25 年後，

the most impressive accomplishment, arguably, ever in all of humankind:

可以說是人類史上最棒的成就： 將人類送上月球。

put a man on the moon.

Four hundred thirty thousand Canadians, British and Americans came together,

43 萬加拿大人、英國人 和美國人再次聚在一起，

again, with very basic technology,

用非常基本的科技技術， 將人類送上了月球。

and put a man on the moon.

Now we have the 700,000 best and brightest,

現在我們有 70 萬最優秀、 最聰明的人才，

and these are the best and brightest from the four corners of the earth.

他們來自世界各地， 是最優秀、最聰明的人。

They are literally playing with lasers relative to slingshots,

他們玩的是雷射，

而不是彈弓，也不是水槍。

relative to the squirt gun.

他們可用的預算 和印度的國內生產總值一樣多。

They have the GDP of India to work at.

And after studying these companies for 10 years,

研究這些公司 10 年後，

I know what their mission is.

我搞懂了他們的任務。

Is it to organize the world's information?

是整理全世界的資訊嗎？

Is it to connect us?

是要連接我們嗎？

Is it to create greater comity of man?

是為增進人類的友誼嗎？

It isn't.

都不是。

I know why we have brought together --

我知道為什麼我們會聚在一起，

I know that the greatest collection of IQ capital and creativity,

我知道這群 IQ 最高、 最有創造力的人，

that their sole mission is:

唯一的任務是什麼了：

to sell another fucking Nissan.

就為了再賣一臺 Nissan。

My name is Scott Galloway, I teach at NYU, and I appreciate your time.

我是斯科特·加洛威，任教於紐約大學，

謝謝你花時間聆聽。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

克里斯·安德森（CA）： 原本沒有本環節，

Chris Anderson: Not planned,

but you prompted some questions in me, Scott.

但，斯科特，你讓我產生了些疑問。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

That was a spectacular rant.

你剛剛的演說真是慷慨激昂。

SG: Is this like Letterman?

SG：這像賴特曼的脫口秀，

When you do well, he calls you onto the couch?

當你表現好，他就會請你坐上沙發？

CA: No, no, you're going to the heart of the conversation right now.

CA：不是、不是，

你現在才正要講到關鍵。

Everyone's aware that after years of worshipping Silicon Valley,

大家發現，

在崇拜了矽谷科技新貴好幾年後，

suddenly the worm has turned

風向突然變了，

and in such a big way.

還變得那麼多。

To some people here, it will just feel like you're piling on,

對這裡的一些人來說， 只會覺得你在火上加油，

you're kicking the kids who've already been kicked to pieces anyway.

你是在落井下石。

Don't you feel any empathy for them at all?

你都完全不會同情他們嗎？

SG: None whatsoever.

SG：完全不會。

Look, this is the issue:

聽著，事情是這樣的：

it's not their fault, it's our fault.

這不是他們的錯，是我們的錯。

They're for-profit companies.

他們是以追求盈利為目的的公司，

They're not concerned with the condition of our souls.

不在乎我們心靈的狀況。

They're not going to take care of us when we get older.

他們不會在我們年老時照料我們。

We have set up a society that values shareholder value over everything,

我們建了股東價值至上的社會，

and they're doing what they're supposed to be doing.

他們正在做他們該做的事。

但我們得選出些人，

But we need to elect people,

and we need to force ourselves to force them

我們得逼自己去逼他們

to be subject to the same scrutiny

承受相同的監督，

和其他的公司一樣，就這樣。

that the rest of business endures, full stop.

CA: There's another narrative

CA：還有另一種論述

that is arguably equally consistent with the facts,

可以說同樣與事實一致。

which is that there actually is good intent in much of the leadership --

確實有不少領導秉持著好意──

I won't say everyone, necessarily --

當然，我不會說所有人都是這樣──

many of the employees.

但很多員工都是。

We all know people who work in those companies,

我們都認識在那些公司工作的人，

and they still are pretty convincing that their mission is to --

他們仍然相信他們的任務是──

so, the alternative narrative is that there have been

替代的論述是

有些結果並不是他們有意造成的，

unintended consequences here,

that the technologies that we're unleashing,

例如我們在發展的科技、

the algorithms, that we're attempting to personalize the internet, for example,

演算法、

將網路私有化的嘗試，

have A, resulted in weird effects like filter bubbles

結果

一是造成「過濾氣泡」等怪現象，

that we weren't expecting;

不是我們事先預期的；

and B, made themselves vulnerable to weird things like --

其次，讓其本身很容易被 奇怪的東西破壞，像是──

oh, I don't know, Russian hackers creating accounts

呃，俄羅斯駭客建立帳號

and doing things that we didn't expect.

來做我們沒預料到的事。

Isn't the unintended consequence a possibility here?

這不是意外的後果嗎？

SG: I don't think --

SG：我不覺得──

I'm pretty sure, statistically,

從統計的角度，我很確定

they're no less or better people than any other organization

那些公司的員工素質

和其他十萬人以上公司的 員工素質不分伯仲。

that has 100,000 or more people.

I don't think they're bad people.

我不覺得他們是壞人，

As a matter of fact, I would argue

事實上，我認為

有很多非常有公民意識、 正經的領導人。

that there's a lot of very civic-minded, decent leadership.

但，事情是這樣的：

But this is the issue:

當你控制了 90％ 的搜尋市場，

when you control 90 percent points of share in a market, search,

that is now bigger than the entire advertising market of any nation,

那已經比任何國家的 整個廣告市場還要龐大，

and you're primarily compensated and trying to develop economic security

而你的主要薪酬來自……

還試圖讓你和員工家屬有經濟保障

for you and the families of your employees,

to increase that market share,

是設法增加市場佔有率時，

you can't help but leverage all the power at your disposal.

你不得不利用你掌握的所有力量。

And that is the basis for regulation,

這就是監管的依據，

and it's the basis for the truism throughout history

也被貫穿歷史的箴言概括為

that power corrupts.

「權力使人腐化」。

They're not bad people;

他們不是壞人；是我們讓他們失控的。

we've just let them get out of control.

CA: So maybe the case is slightly overstated?

CA：那麼，或許前面 說得有點誇張了？

I know at least a bit --

我至少知道一點──

Larry Page, for example, Jeff Bezos --

像是賴利·佩吉、傑佛瑞·貝佐斯──

I don't actually believe they wake up thinking,

我並不相信他們早上 醒來的時候會想：

"I've got to sell a fucking Nissan."

「我得再賣一臺 Nissan。」

I don't think they think that.

我不覺得他們這樣想。

I think they are trying to build something cool, and are probably,

我認為他們試圖造出酷的東西，

或許在反思的時刻，

in moments of reflection,

as horrified that some of the things that have happened as we might be.

他們和我們一樣 對於一些已經發生的事覺得驚駭。

So is there a different way of framing this,

有沒有不同的方式來描述這一點，

to say that when your model is advertising,

當你的模型是廣告時，

that there are dangers there that you have to take on more explicitly?

你必須更明確地承擔風險嗎？

SG: I think it's very difficult to set an organization up as we do,

SG：我認為對以追求股東價值 高於一切的公司來說，

要像我們這樣建立組織非常困難。

to pursue shareholder value above all else.

They're not non-profits.

他們不是非營利組織。

The reason people go to work there is they want to create economic security

人們去那邊工作為的是

創造穩定的金源 供他們自己和家人所用，

for them and their families,

mostly first and foremost.

這是最初、最優先的想法。

And when you get to a point where you control so much economic power,

當你能操控如此多的經濟力量時，

you use all the weapons at your disposal.

你會將會利用所有你掌握的力量。

I don't think they're bad people,

我不覺得他們是壞人，

but I think the role of government and the role of us as consumers

但我覺得政府以及我們消費者，

and people who elect our officials

還有我們所選出的官員的角色

是確保檢驗的存在。

is to ensure that there are some checks here.

我們給了他們最高級別通行證，

And we have given them the mother of all hall passes

因為我們覺得他們是那麼地迷人。

because we find them just so fascinating.

CA: Scott, eloquently put, spectacularly put.

CA：斯科特，你說得很傳神、很好。

Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Larry Page, Tim Cook, if you're watching,

馬克·祖克柏、傑佛瑞·貝佐斯、 賴利·佩吉、提姆·庫克，若你們在看，

you're welcome to come and make the counterargument as well.

也歡迎你們來替自己辯駁。

Scott, thank you so much.

斯科特，非常謝謝你。

SG: Thanks very much.

SG：非常謝謝你。

(Applause)

（掌聲）