4月10日，臉書網(wǎng)首席執(zhí)行官馬克?扎克伯格出席了美國參議院司法和商務(wù)委員會的聯(lián)合聽證會，討論數(shù)據(jù)隱私和臉書網(wǎng)上虛假信息等問題。

這場聽證會長達(dá)5小時(shí)，期間參議員們向扎克伯格提出了各種各樣的問題。面對五花八門的提問和各路媒體的層層包圍，扎克伯格的表現(xiàn)不太自然，有些緊張也是情有可原。

不過，眼尖的網(wǎng)友自然不會錯(cuò)過這些尷尬的表情。

“Me when I realize my actions have a consequence”
“當(dāng)我意識到自己闖禍了的表情”

“Don't forget to drink the water, humans like water”
“別忘了喝水，人類喜歡喝水”

有網(wǎng)友戲稱，這場聽證會簡直是電影《社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)》的續(xù)集。而男主角這次顯然不怎么好過。（《社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)》于2010年上映，講述了扎克伯格和埃德華多?薩瓦林如何建立和發(fā)展臉書的發(fā)家史。）

“The Social Network 2: This time it’s personal (data)”
“《社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)2：個(gè)人數(shù)據(jù)》”

不少網(wǎng)友對小扎的遭遇深表同情，因?yàn)檫@場聽證會很容易讓他們聯(lián)想到一場為老年人科普的大會。

“Mark Zuckerberg is now living out every young person's worst nightmare: trying to explain how tech stuff works to the nation's elderly.”
“扎克伯格正在經(jīng)歷所有年輕人最恐怖的噩夢：努力向這個(gè)國家的老年人解釋科技產(chǎn)品的工作原理?！?/p>

一些議員因提出的問題沒有切中要害，而遭到網(wǎng)友吐槽。

“扎克伯格先生，解釋一下，為什么我臉書已經(jīng)注冊10年了，還是沒人通過我的好友請求?！?/p>

“為什么我孫子不加我好友。”

有議員問道，臉書網(wǎng)是否能看到WhatsApp（一款通信軟件）上的聊天記錄。

而參議員奧林?哈奇則質(zhì)疑，臉書網(wǎng)“如何能夠維持對用戶免費(fèi)的商業(yè)模式”。

扎克伯格不得不解釋道：“參議員，我們可以賣廣告。”

雖然網(wǎng)友吐槽得很起勁，但聽證會的氣氛還是十分緊張嚴(yán)肅的。議員們對著會場中心的扎克伯格拋出了很多尖銳的問題，例如：

“你們的競爭對手是誰？”

“我是不是要給你錢，臉書才能不泄露我自己的信息？”

“你們這十幾年都在道歉，今天的道歉有什么不同？”

“臉書是不是在監(jiān)聽用戶？”

當(dāng)然，扎克伯格也是有備而來，這些問題他一一做了解答。下面來看此次聽證會的亮點(diǎn)：

Right to privacy
用戶的隱私權(quán)

“I believe it’s important to tell people exactly how the information that they share on Facebook is going to be used.
“我認(rèn)為，關(guān)鍵是要告訴用戶，他們在臉書上分享的信息將被如何使用?！?/p>

“That’s why, every single time you go to share something on Facebook, whether it’s a photo in Facebook, or a message, every single time, there’s a control right there about who you’re going to be sharing it with ... and you can change that and control that in line.
“這就是為什么每當(dāng)你在臉書上分享一張照片、一條信息等內(nèi)容時(shí)，每一次都有決定分享給誰的權(quán)力，你也可以更改權(quán)限?！?/p>

“To your broader point about the privacy policy ... long privacy policies are very confusing. And if you make it long and spell out all the detail, then you’re probably going to reduce the percent of people who read it and make it accessible to them.”
“關(guān)于您提到的有關(guān)隱私條款應(yīng)該更詳細(xì)的觀點(diǎn)……冗長的隱私條款非常混亂。而且，如果你列得很長，并清楚說明所有細(xì)節(jié)，那很可能會減少閱讀并了解這些條款的人的比例?！?/p>

His own privacy
扎克伯格的隱私

Senator Dick Durbin asked if Zuckerberg would be comfortable sharing the name of the hotel he stayed in last night.
參議員迪克?杜爾濱詢問扎克伯格，是否對公開自己前一晚入住的酒店名稱感到舒服。

“No. I would probably not choose to do that publicly, here” he said. “I think everyone should have control over how their information is used.”
“不，我可能不會選擇在這兒公開。我認(rèn)為每個(gè)人都應(yīng)該有權(quán)決定他們的信息被用于何處?！?/p>

Cambridge Analytica
劍橋分析公司

“Cambridge Analytica wasn’t using our services in 2015, as far as we can tell ... They weren’t an advertiser. They weren’t running pages. So we actually had nothing to ban.”
“劍橋分析公司在2015年沒有使用我們的服務(wù)，據(jù)我們所知，他們不是廣告商。他們沒有運(yùn)營臉書主頁。所以我們實(shí)際上沒什么可禁的?！?/p>

Later Zuckerberg corrected himself.
隨后，扎克伯格糾正了自己的回答。

“I want to correct one thing that I said earlier in response to a question … [on] why we didn’t ban Cambridge Analytica at the time when we learned about them in 2015.
“我想先糾正我剛才的一個(gè)回答，那個(gè)問題是臉書為什么在2015年發(fā)現(xiàn)劍橋分析公司的所作所為后，沒禁止他們訪問臉書。”

“[From] what my understanding was ... they were not on the platform, [they] were not an app developer or advertiser. When I went back and met with my team afterwards, they let me know that Cambridge Analytica actually did start as an advertiser later in 2015.
“我的理解是，他們不在臉書平臺上，他們既不是應(yīng)用開發(fā)者，也不是廣告商。但我后來和我的團(tuán)隊(duì)碰頭時(shí)，他們告訴我，實(shí)際上，劍橋分析公司在2015年晚些時(shí)候成了廣告商?！?/p>

“So we could have in theory banned them then. We made a mistake by not doing so. But I just wanted to make sure that I updated that because I ... I ... I misspoke, or got that wrong earlier.
“所以，理論上我們當(dāng)時(shí)是可以禁止他們訪問的。我們沒有這樣做，這確實(shí)是一個(gè)錯(cuò)誤。我現(xiàn)在想更新一下，我剛才是口誤了，剛才回答時(shí)弄錯(cuò)了。”

“When we heard back from Cambridge Analytica that they had told us that they weren’t using the data and deleted it, we considered it a closed case. In retrospect, that was clearly a mistake. We shouldn’t have taken their word for it. We’ve updated our policy to make sure we don’t make that mistake again.”
“我們從劍橋分析公司得到的反饋是，他們沒有再使用這些數(shù)據(jù)，并已將其刪除。我們以為這件事已經(jīng)結(jié)束了?，F(xiàn)在看來，這顯然是個(gè)錯(cuò)誤。我們不應(yīng)該相信他們的話。我們已經(jīng)更新了公司政策，確保同樣的錯(cuò)誤不會再次發(fā)生。”

Storing and selling personal data
存儲及兜售個(gè)人信息

“Yes, we store data ... some of that content with people’s permission.”
“是的，我們存儲信息……其中部分內(nèi)容是獲得了用戶許可的?！?/p>

“There’s a very common misconception that we sell data to advertisers. We do not sell data to advertisers.”
“很多人有一個(gè)誤解，認(rèn)為臉書將信息賣給了廣告方。我們沒有把信息賣給廣告方?！?/p>

“What we allow is for advertisers to tell us who they want to reach, and then we do the placement … That’s a very fundamental part of how our model works and something that is often misunderstood.”
“我們只是讓廣告商告訴我們，他們想把信息投放給誰，然后由我們來投放……這是我們工作模式中非常重要的一部分，也是經(jīng)常被人誤解的地方。”

Regulations
監(jiān)管

“My position is not that there should be no regulation.
“我不贊同互聯(lián)網(wǎng)不應(yīng)該被監(jiān)管。”

“I think the real question, as the internet becomes more important in people’s lives, is what is the right regulation, not whether there should be or not.”
“由于互聯(lián)網(wǎng)在人們的生活中越來越重要，我認(rèn)為問題的關(guān)鍵在于什么是正確的監(jiān)管，而不在于管還是不管?！?/p>

Russian interference
俄羅斯干預(yù)美國大選

“One of my greatest regrets in running the company is that we were slow in identifying the Russian information operations in 2016.
“在運(yùn)營公司的過程中，我最大的遺憾莫過于沒能在2016年及時(shí)發(fā)現(xiàn)俄羅斯操縱信息的行為?！?/p>

“We have kicked off an investigation … I imagine we’ll find some things.
“我們已經(jīng)展開調(diào)查，我想我們會有所收獲的?！?/p>

“There are people in Russia whose job it is to try to exploit our systems and other internet systems and other systems as well.
“在俄羅斯，有人專門負(fù)責(zé)操縱臉書以及其他互聯(lián)網(wǎng)系統(tǒng)，還有其他系統(tǒng)?！?/p>

“This is an ongoing arms race. As long as there are people sitting in Russia whose job is it to try to interfere in elections around the world, this is going to be an ongoing conflict.”
“這是一場正在進(jìn)行的軍備競賽。只要俄羅斯雇人干預(yù)全世界的競選活動(dòng)，這場對抗就會持續(xù)下去?！?/p>

Taking responsibility
承擔(dān)責(zé)任

“It was my mistake, and I’m sorry.
“這是我的錯(cuò)，我感到很抱歉?！?/p>

“I started Facebook, I run it, and I’m responsible for what happens here.
“我創(chuàng)立了臉書，我負(fù)責(zé)經(jīng)營，我對臉書所發(fā)生的一切負(fù)有責(zé)任。”

“It’s clear now that we didn’t do enough to prevent these tools from being used for harm. That goes for fake news, foreign interference in elections, and hate speech, as well as developers and data privacy.”
“現(xiàn)在很明顯，我們沒有采取足夠的措施來防止有人利用這些工具傷害用戶，包括虛假新聞，國外勢力干涉選舉，仇恨言論，以及開發(fā)者和隱私數(shù)據(jù)?！?/p>

4月11日，扎克伯格參加了第二輪聽證會，第二輪提問的議員們做足了功課，一開始就火藥味十足：

Near the start of Wednesday's congressional hearing, New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. asked Zuckerberg why Facebook didn't just automatically set all users' default settings to minimize data collection. That would mean Facebook's users would have to opt in if they wanted to share their personal data, rather than opt out, which is the way it works today.
周三國會聽證一開始，新澤西州眾議員弗蘭克·帕隆便詢問扎克伯格，為何臉書沒有對用戶默認(rèn)設(shè)置進(jìn)行自動(dòng)設(shè)定，從而盡可能減少數(shù)據(jù)采集量。這意味著臉書的用戶如果想要分享個(gè)人數(shù)據(jù)，需自行加入，而并非按照如今的方式，需要用戶自行退出分享。

小扎的回答也沒能讓議員感到滿意：

"That is a complex issue that deserves more than a one word answer," Zuckerberg responded.
“這是個(gè)復(fù)雜的問題，不是一兩個(gè)字能回答的，”扎克伯格說。

Pallone's response, "That's disappointing to me."
“這令我很失望?！迸谅∪缡谴鸬?。

有議員矛頭直指扎克伯格，問他自己的個(gè)人數(shù)據(jù)有沒有被賣掉：

California Rep. Anna Eshoo asked Zuckerberg if his own data was swept up in the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
加州眾議員安娜·埃肖奧則詢問扎克伯格，他自己的個(gè)人數(shù)據(jù)是否也卷入了劍橋數(shù)據(jù)丑聞當(dāng)中。

扎克伯格表示，自己的數(shù)據(jù)也被賣了。

兩場聽證會下來，一些美國媒體認(rèn)為，扎克伯格對一些問題沒有老實(shí)回答，而是在打躲避球（dodge），搪塞了過去。

最大的一個(gè)特點(diǎn)就是他說了大量的“following up to do”（做些跟進(jìn)）。

But Zuckerberg frequently gave vague answers and often told members of Congress his team would follow up with them at a later time.
但是扎克伯格經(jīng)常給出些模糊不清的答案，經(jīng)常和國會議員們說，他的團(tuán)隊(duì)接下來會做一些跟進(jìn)。

英文來源：BBC，衛(wèi)報(bào)
編譯：董靜
審校：yaning