為什么扎克伯格不會(huì)下臺(tái)

A few weeks ago, after Facebook revealed that tens of millions of its users’ accounts had been exposed in a security breach, I began asking people in and around the tech industry a simple question: Should Mark Zuckerberg still be running Facebook?

幾周前，F(xiàn)acebook透露其數(shù)千萬(wàn)用戶的賬戶暴露在一個(gè)安全漏洞之下，隨后我開始向科技行業(yè)內(nèi)外的人們提出一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的問(wèn)題：Facebook還應(yīng)該由馬克·扎克伯格(Mark Zuckerberg)來(lái)管理嗎?

I’ll spare you the suspense. Just about everyone thought Mr. Zuckerberg was still the right man for the job, if not the only man for the job. This included people who currently work at Facebook, people who used to work at Facebook, financial analysts, venture capitalists, tech-skeptic activists, ardent critics of the company and its giddiest supporters.

我就不賣關(guān)子了。幾乎所有人都認(rèn)為扎克伯格仍然是這份工作的合適人選，甚至是唯一的人選。我問(wèn)過(guò)的人包括目前在Facebook工作的人、曾在Facebook工作的人、金融分析師、風(fēng)險(xiǎn)資本家、技術(shù)懷疑論者、該公司的激烈批評(píng)者與最狂熱的支持者。

The consensus went like this: Even if Mr. Zuckerberg — as Facebook’s founder, chief executive, chairman and most powerful shareholder — bore most of the responsibility for the company’s cataclysmic recent history, he alone possessed the stature to fix it.

他們的共識(shí)是這樣的：作為Facebook的創(chuàng)始人、首席執(zhí)行官，董事長(zhǎng)和最有權(quán)力的股東，扎克伯格要為公司近階段的災(zāi)難承擔(dān)大部分責(zé)任，但也只有他擁有這個(gè)聲望，可以去彌補(bǔ)它們。

More than one of his supporters told me it was bad faith to even broach the subject — that Mr. Zuckerberg’s indispensability was so plain that the only reason I might have to ask whether he should still run the company was the clicks I would get on this article. But even critics were not that excited about the idea of Mr. Zuckerberg’s removal. Barry Lynn, executive director of the Open Markets Institute, an organization that fights monopoly power, argued that Facebook’s problems grew out of its business model and the legal and regulatory vacuum in which it has operated — not the man who runs it.

不止一個(gè)扎克伯格的支持者告訴我，甚至連提出這個(gè)問(wèn)題都是居心不良的表現(xiàn)——扎克伯格就是不可或缺的，這一點(diǎn)實(shí)在太明顯了，我之所以會(huì)問(wèn)出這種問(wèn)題，唯一原因就是我想為這篇文章賺點(diǎn)擊率。但即便是批評(píng)者們，也不希望看到扎克伯格去職。打擊壟斷勢(shì)力的組織開放市場(chǎng)研究所(Open Markets Institute)總干事巴里·林恩(Barry Lynn)認(rèn)為，F(xiàn)acebook的問(wèn)題源于其商業(yè)模式，以及它的運(yùn)營(yíng)范疇處于法律和監(jiān)管的真空地帶——而不是運(yùn)營(yíng)它的人。

“To be blunt, if we took Mark Zuckerberg out and we replaced him with Mahatma Gandhi, I don’t think the corporation would change in any significant way,” Mr. Lynn said.

“坦白地說(shuō)，如果我們把馬克·扎克伯格弄走，用圣雄甘地代替他，我認(rèn)為這家公司不會(huì)有任何重大改變，”林恩說(shuō)。

That few can imagine a Facebook without Mr. Zuckerberg, 34, underscores how unaccountable our largest tech companies have become. Mr. Zuckerberg, thanks to his own drive and brilliance, has become one of the most powerful unelected people in the world. Like an errant oil company or sugar-pumping food company, Facebook makes decisions that create huge consequences for society — and he has profited handsomely from the chaos.

扎克伯格今年34歲，很少有人可以想象沒(méi)有他的Facebook，這突顯出對(duì)我們最大的科技公司的行為進(jìn)行問(wèn)責(zé)已經(jīng)變得多么困難。扎克伯格憑借自己的動(dòng)力和才華，已成為世界上非選舉產(chǎn)生的最有權(quán)力的人之一。正如一個(gè)行為不端的石油公司或大量使用食糖的食品公司，F(xiàn)acebook做出的決定會(huì)給社會(huì)帶來(lái)巨大后果——而他從混亂中獲取了豐厚利潤(rùn)。

Yet because of Facebook’s ownership structure — in which Mr. Zuckerberg’s shares have 10 times the voting power of ordinary shares — he is omnipotent there, answering basically to no one.

然而，由于Facebook的所有權(quán)結(jié)構(gòu)——扎克伯格持有股票的投票權(quán)是普通股的10倍——他在公司之中無(wú)所不能，基本上不需對(duì)任何人負(fù)責(zé)。

This fits a pattern. Over the last two decades, the largest tech companies have created a system in which executives suffer few personal or financial consequences for their mistakes. Big tech has turned founders into fixtures — when their companies are working well, they get all the credit, and when their companies are doing badly, they are the only heroes who can fix them.

這符合一種規(guī)律。在過(guò)去的20年中，那些最大的科技公司建立了一個(gè)系統(tǒng)，在這個(gè)系統(tǒng)中，高管們?nèi)绻噶隋e(cuò)誤，幾乎不會(huì)承受個(gè)人或經(jīng)濟(jì)后果。大型科技公司把它們的創(chuàng)始人變成了固定裝置——當(dāng)公司運(yùn)作良好時(shí)，他們獲得了所有的贊譽(yù)，公司做得不好時(shí)，他們則是唯一可以修復(fù)它們的英雄。

There’s another way to put this: For better or worse, Mr. Zuckerberg has become too big to fail.

還有另一種說(shuō)法來(lái)解釋：無(wú)論好壞，扎克伯格已經(jīng)大到不能倒。

In America, it’s not unusual for executives to escape punishment for how they steer their corporations (see Wall Street after the 2008 financial crisis). Still, when companies step in it badly, there are often at least calls for their leaders’ dismissal. The chief executives of Equifax and Target were pushed out after data breaches. The chief executive of Wells Fargo was ousted after a scandal involving sham accounts.

在美國(guó)，高管們因?yàn)榭刂乒镜姆绞蕉颖軕土P，這種事并不罕見(參見2008年金融危機(jī)之后的華爾街)。盡管如此，當(dāng)公司陷入困境時(shí)，通常至少會(huì)有人呼吁解雇其領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人。艾貴發(fā)(Equifax)和塔吉特(Target)的首席執(zhí)行官在數(shù)據(jù)泄露后被迫離職。富國(guó)銀行(Wells Fargo)的首席執(zhí)行官在涉及虛假賬戶的丑聞曝光后下臺(tái) 。

Even in Silicon Valley, where company founders are revered as money-laying rainbow unicorns, there is some limit to corporate patience. In the 1980s, Apple fired Steve Jobs. Last year, Uber ousted Travis Kalanick, who was as closely aligned with his company’s culture as Mr. Zuckerberg is with his.

即使在創(chuàng)始人被視為會(huì)生錢的彩虹獨(dú)角獸的硅谷，公司的耐心也有一些限度。1980年代，蘋果公司解雇了史蒂夫·喬布斯(Steve Jobs)。去年，優(yōu)步(Uber)解雇了特拉維斯·卡蘭尼克(Travis Kalanick)，他和扎克伯格一樣，與自己的公司文化保持高度一致。

Facebook’s problems have not reached the level of lawlessness we saw at Uber, but they have been far more consequential. Besides the breach, Facebook has been implicated in a global breakdown of democracy, including its role as a vector for Russian disinformation during the 2016 American presidential election.

Facebook的問(wèn)題還沒(méi)有達(dá)到優(yōu)步那種無(wú)法無(wú)天的程度，但同時(shí)它們卻又是更為重大的問(wèn)題。除了違規(guī)行為外，F(xiàn)acebook還與全球民主的破壞有關(guān)聯(lián)，比如它在2016年美國(guó)總統(tǒng)大選期間，就成了俄羅斯傳播虛假信息的載體。

Investigators for the United Nations have said Facebook was instrumental to genocide in Myanmar; it has also been tied to violence in India, South Sudan and Sri Lanka. There have been privacy scandals (Cambridge Analytica most recently), advertising scandals (discriminatory ads, fishy metrics), multiple current federal inquiries, and an admission that using Facebook can be detrimental to your mental health.

聯(lián)合國(guó)調(diào)查人員表示，在緬甸的種族滅絕中，F(xiàn)acebook發(fā)揮了作用;它還同印度、南蘇丹和斯里蘭卡的暴力有關(guān)。此外還有隱私丑聞(最近的一起是劍橋分析[Cambridge Analytica])、廣告丑聞(歧視性廣告、可疑指標(biāo))，多起正在進(jìn)行的聯(lián)邦調(diào)查，以及關(guān)于使用Facebook可能對(duì)心理健康有害的承認(rèn)。

Even though Mr. Zuckerberg has apologized and vowed again and again and again to fix Facebook, the company’s fixes often need fixing. In the last week, reporters showed that the company’s recent move to clamp down on political ads has not worked — Vice News bought Facebook ads falsely stating that they were “paid for” by Vice President Mike Pence and ISIS.

盡管扎克伯格一次又一次地道歉并發(fā)誓要修復(fù)Facebook，但公司的修復(fù)措施往往也需要調(diào)整。在上周，記者表明，該公司最近采取的打擊政治廣告行動(dòng)并沒(méi)有奏效——Vice新聞在謊稱是由邁克·彭斯(Mike Pence)副總統(tǒng)和伊斯蘭國(guó)(ISIS)“出資”的情況下買到了Facebook的廣告。

So given such failures, another question might be: Why haven’t any heads rolled at Facebook? Although there have been some high-profile defections — the co-founders of WhatsApp, Instagram and Oculus, all companies bought by Facebook, left in the last few months — Mr. Zuckerberg’s most loyal executives have been with him through thick and thin, many for more than a decade.

所以，考慮到這樣的失敗，另一個(gè)問(wèn)題可能是：為什么Facebook沒(méi)有任何人負(fù)責(zé)任?雖然有一些引人注目的叛逃——所有被Facebook收購(gòu)的公司，WhatsApp、Instagram和Oculus的聯(lián)合創(chuàng)始人，都在過(guò)去幾個(gè)月里離開了——然而扎克伯格最忠誠(chéng)的高管一直與他在一起，很多人都為他效力了十幾年。

If Facebook admits now that its problems were caused by a too-idealistic, move-fast culture, and if it is conceding now that its culture must change, how can we be sure that’s happening if most of the people who run Facebook remain the same?

如果Facebook現(xiàn)在承認(rèn)其問(wèn)題是由一種過(guò)于理想化的、快速發(fā)展的文化引起的，如果它現(xiàn)在承認(rèn)它的文化必須改變，那么在大多數(shù)運(yùn)營(yíng)Facebook的人還保持不變，我們?cè)趺茨艽_定會(huì)有改變?

When I asked Facebook about this, the company argued that things were changing. It just hired Nick Clegg, a former deputy prime minister of Britain, as head of global affairs — a move that the company said imbued it with a serious outsider’s perspective. 當(dāng)我向Facebook詢問(wèn)此事時(shí)，公司認(rèn)為改變正在發(fā)生。它剛剛聘請(qǐng)前英國(guó)副首相尼克·克萊格(Nick Clegg)來(lái)?yè)?dān)任全球事務(wù)負(fù)責(zé)人——公司表示此舉為公司帶來(lái)了嚴(yán)肅的局外人視角。

The social network also put me on the phone with a top executive who argued boisterously for Mr. Zuckerberg’s leadership, but declined to do so on the record. The executive explained that fixing Facebook would involve deep costs. The company is hiring more people to review content, for example, and it might have to slow down some of its most ambitious projects to address its impact on the world. The executive argued that Mr. Zuckerberg’s total domination of Facebook’s equity, plus the reverence in which employees hold him, allowed him to weather the financial consequences of these changes better than any other leader.

這家社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)公司還讓我與一位高管通電話，此人不遺余力地為扎克伯格的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力辯護(hù)，但拒絕我使用這些話。該高管解釋說(shuō)，修復(fù)Facebook將涉及深度成本。例如，該公司正在雇用更多人來(lái)審查內(nèi)容，并且可能不得不放慢一些最雄心勃勃的項(xiàng)目，以解決其對(duì)世界的影響。該高管認(rèn)為，扎克伯格對(duì)Facebook股權(quán)的全面支配，加上員工對(duì)他的崇敬，使他能夠比其他任何領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者更好地經(jīng)受這些變化帶來(lái)的財(cái)務(wù)后果。

Facebook’s stock price plunged nearly 20 percent on a single day this summer after it reported slowing revenue growth and increased operational costs. This week, Facebook repeated its slower-growth warning. A “professional C.E.O.,” one without such a huge stake in the company, would be tempted to try the easy way out, the executive suggested. But Mr. Zuckerberg was free to do what’s right.

今年夏天，在公布營(yíng)收增長(zhǎng)放緩和運(yùn)營(yíng)成本增加后，F(xiàn)acebook股價(jià)在一天內(nèi)暴跌近20%。本周，F(xiàn)acebook再次發(fā)出了增長(zhǎng)放緩的警告。一名在公司里沒(méi)有那么多切身利益的“職業(yè)CEO”會(huì)希望找一條簡(jiǎn)易的出路，該高管表示。但扎克伯格可以自如地去做正確事情。

Mr. Zuckerberg’s supporters also argued that he has shown a deep capacity to understand and address Facebook’s problems. After the company went public in 2012, its stock price languished for months because it had no plan to make money from consumers’ shift to mobile devices.

扎克伯格的支持者也提出，對(duì)于Facebook的問(wèn)題，他已經(jīng)表現(xiàn)出了極大的理解力和解決意愿。在該公司2012年上市后，由于沒(méi)有從消費(fèi)者轉(zhuǎn)向移動(dòng)設(shè)備的趨勢(shì)中賺錢的計(jì)劃，其股價(jià)停止上漲了好幾個(gè)月。

“Mark would tell you that he was too late in understanding the importance of mobile — but when that became apparent, Mark understood its gravity and he understood how to fix it,” said Don Graham, a former Facebook board member and former publisher of The Washington Post. “He changed the direction of that company incredibly fast, in detail, not by one action but by 20 actions — and if you looked at the quarter-by-quarter numbers of what percentage of Facebook’s revenue was coming from mobile, I couldn’t believe how fast it changed.”

“馬克會(huì)告訴你，在明白移動(dòng)設(shè)備的重要性方面，他做的太晚了——但當(dāng)這個(gè)問(wèn)題變得明顯起來(lái)，馬克就明白了它的重要性，也明白了該如何解決這個(gè)問(wèn)題，”Facebook前董事會(huì)成員、《華盛頓郵報(bào)》(The Washington Post)前出版人唐·格雷厄姆(Don Graham)說(shuō)。“他以令人難以置信的速度，從細(xì)節(jié)入手，改變了該公司的方向，這不是用一個(gè)行動(dòng)作出的，而是以20個(gè)行動(dòng)——而且如果你逐季度去看看Facebook利潤(rùn)里百分之多少是來(lái)自移動(dòng)端的，我簡(jiǎn)直不敢相信它改變的速度這么快。”

The question at Facebook now is whether Mr. Zuckerberg has similarly seen the light on its current problems. He has said fixing Facebook was his personal challenge for 2018. But there are signs that its culture remains the same.

如今，F(xiàn)acebook的問(wèn)題在于，扎克伯格是否對(duì)目前的情況持類似看法。他已經(jīng)表示過(guò)，解決Facebook的問(wèn)題是他個(gè)人在2018年面對(duì)的挑戰(zhàn)。但仍有跡象表明，公司文化依舊沒(méi)有改變。

Consider its promise that a new home-hub device, Portal, which it unveiled this month, would not collect information on users that could be used in ads. It had to swiftly walk back that promise because Facebook’s data-collection system is so pervasive that even some of its employees don’t seem to understand it.

比如Facebook本月剛剛推出了新的家庭中心設(shè)備Portal，并且承諾不會(huì)收集可被用在廣告中的用戶信息。然而由于Facebook的數(shù)據(jù)收集系統(tǒng)已經(jīng)遍布于每個(gè)角落，就連公司的一些員工都不能理解它，F(xiàn)acebook只好迅速收回這個(gè)承諾。

“I think he has demonstrably failed over the last two years, and the reason he’s failed is because he’s unaccountable,” said Sandy Parakilas, a former Facebook employee who is now chief strategy officer for the Center of Humane Technology, an activist organization. “Given a scenario where shareholders and board members had more influence, it’s hard to imagine that there would not have been changes faster.”

“過(guò)去兩年來(lái)，他明顯失敗了，而他失敗的原因在于他不需要負(fù)責(zé)，”前Facebook員工、如今在活動(dòng)組織人道技術(shù)中心(Center of Humane Technology)擔(dān)任首席策略官的桑迪·帕拉吉拉斯(Sandy Parakilas)說(shuō)。“假設(shè)在股東和董事會(huì)成員有更多影響力的情況下，很難想象變化不會(huì)更快一些。”

One fix for Facebook might be to give the board greater power over the company. Trillium Asset Management, an investment firm, recently put forward a shareholder resolution supported by several state funds that would require Mr. Zuckerberg to step down as Facebook’s chairman, though he would still maintain majority voting control of the company.

Facebook的一個(gè)解決方案可能是賦予董事會(huì)更多對(duì)公司的權(quán)力。投資公司延齡草資產(chǎn)管理公司(Trillium Asset Management)近期提出了一個(gè)股東會(huì)決議，得到了多個(gè)國(guó)家基金的支持，該決議要求扎克伯格辭去董事長(zhǎng)職務(wù)，盡管他仍將保有對(duì)公司的多數(shù)表決控制權(quán)。

“I think by taking the step to relinquish the position of the board chair, it’s a very important structural change so that he would not have a completely free hand to muscle his way through decisions,” said Jonas Kron, a Trillium senior vice president.

“我認(rèn)為，通過(guò)放棄董事長(zhǎng)職務(wù)這個(gè)舉措，會(huì)帶來(lái)一個(gè)非常重要的結(jié)構(gòu)性改變，這么一來(lái)，他就不能對(duì)許多決策作出全權(quán)決定了，”延齡草高級(jí)副總裁約納·克龍(Jonas Kron)說(shuō)。

A Facebook spokesman said the company had not yet taken a position on the resolution. In the past, similar measures have been voted down by Mr. Zuckerberg and his allies.

一名Facebook發(fā)言人表示，公司尚未對(duì)該決議作出表態(tài)。過(guò)去，類似措施都被扎克伯格及其盟友通過(guò)表決擊退。

Which leaves us here: Either Mr. Zuckerberg fixes Facebook, or no one does. That’s the choice we face, like it or not.

現(xiàn)在情況就是：要么扎克伯格解決Facebook的問(wèn)題，要么就誰(shuí)都解決不了。無(wú)論你喜不喜歡，這都是我們面臨的選擇。