The future is another country

A COUPLE of months or so after becoming Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron wanted a few tips from somebody who could tell him how it felt to be responsible for, and accountable to, many millions of people: people who expected things from him, even though in most cases he would never shake their hands.
当选英国首相大约两个月后，大卫·卡梅伦（David Cameron）希望从某些人获得一些建议：如何才能在首相位置上让人觉得他对数百万民众恪尽职守、为国为民——即便许多时候他都不可能与之握手，人民还是对他寄予厚望。

He turned not to a fellow head of government but to…Mark Zuckerberg, the founder and boss of Facebook, the phenomenally successful social network. (It announced on July 21st that it had 500m users, up from 150m at the start of 2009.) In a well-publicised online video chat this month, the two men swapped ideas about ways for networks to help governments. Was this just a political leader seeking a spot of help from the private sector—or was it more like diplomacy, a comparison of notes between the masters of two great nations?
他没有向任何一个政府部长求助，而是咨询…马克·扎克伯格——获得惊人成功的社交网站Facebook之创立者和老板。（该网站今年7月21日宣布拥有用户数量从2009年初的1.5亿上升至5亿。）在本月一部广泛宣传的在线视频中，两人就网络如何帮助政府问题交换意见。这仅是一位政治领袖向私营企业寻求指点吗，抑或类似外交活动，两大国家元首互换看法呢？

In some ways, it might seem absurd to call Facebook a state and Mr Zuckerberg its governor. It has no land to defend; no police to enforce law and order; it does not have subjects, bound by a clear cluster of rights, obligations and cultural signals. Compared with citizenship of a country, membership is easy to acquire and renounce. Nor do Facebook’s boss and his executives depend directly on the assent of an “electorate” that can unseat them. Technically, the only people they report to are the shareholders.
某些意义上，称Facebook为“国家”而扎克伯格为“统治者”似乎荒诞不羁。这里无疆可守、无警力强制执行法律和命令；甚至无一套清晰权责与文化特征约束的国民。较之国家公民身份，会员身份不仅易取而且易弃。Facebook总裁和各位主管也不直接依靠“全体选民”赞成任免。严格地说，他们仅需向股东汇报。

But many web-watchers do detect country-like features in Facebook. “[It] is a device that allows people to get together and control their own destiny, much like a nation-state,” says David Post, a law professor at Temple University. If that sounds like a flattering description of Facebook’s “groups” (often rallying people with whimsical fads and aversions), then it is worth recalling a classic definition of the modern nation-state. As Benedict Anderson, a political scientist, put it, such polities are “imagined communities” in which each person feels a bond with millions of anonymous fellow-citizens. In centuries past, people looked up to kings or bishops; but in an age of mass literacy and printing in vernacular languages, so Mr Anderson argued, horizontal ties matter more.
但不少网络观察家确实发现Facebook的一些国家特征。“（它）就像某种计划，允许人们聚会，把握自身命运——这非常像一个独立国家。”坦普尔大学（Temple University）法学教授David Post说。如果这番话像是对Facebook“群服务（groups）”（常聚集许多拥有稀奇古怪好恶的人）的吹捧之辞，那么关于现代国家的经典定义就值得回味：如政治学家Benedict Anderson所言，此类政治结构如同“假想社区”，人人都自以为与数百万匿名“同胞”密切联系。在数个世纪前，人民尊重国王或宰相；但以本国文字进行大规模教育和印刷的时代，安德森认为，同一阶级联系更值得重视。

So if newspapers and tatty paperbacks can create new social and political units, for which people toil and die, perhaps the latest forms of communication can do likewise. In his 2006 book “Code: Version 2.0”, a legal scholar, Lawrence Lessig noted that online communities were transcending the limits of conventional states—and predicted that members of these communities would find it “difficult to stand neutral in this international space”.
因此若报纸和粗俗的平装书能创造社会、政治新单位，还有人为此辛劳牺牲，则此最新沟通方式亦可实现。在2006年出版的《代码：2.0版》中，法学家劳伦斯·莱斯格（Lawrence Lessig）指出网络社区已经超出传统国家间界限，他还预测此类社区用户会发现“在这片国际化的网络空间很难保持中立地位”。

To many, that forecast still smacks of cyber-fantasy. But the rise of Facebook at least gives pause for thought. If it were a physical nation, it would now be the third most populous on earth. Mr Zuckerberg is confident there will be a billion users in a few years. Facebook is unprecedented not only in its scale but also in its ability to blur boundaries between the real and virtual worlds. A few years ago, online communities evoked fantasy games played by small, geeky groups. But as technology made possible large virtual arenas like Second Life or World of Warcraft, an online game with millions of players, so the overlap between cyberspace and real human existence began to grow.
对许多人而言，这则预言颇有点虚拟时空的味道。不过Facebook的成功至少暂时停止了思索（何为虚拟时空）。如果Facebook是实体国家，可能是当今全球第三人口大国。扎克伯格自信未来数年网站用户将达10亿。Facebook是前所未有的：不仅是规模，还在于模糊真实和虚拟世界边界的能力。几年前，网络社区诞生了虚拟游戏，仅有少数爱好者能玩。伴随着技术实现了大型虚拟场所，如第二人生（Second Life）或魔兽世界这种数百万在线玩家的游戏，虚拟时空和真实人类生活日渐重叠。

From the users’ viewpoint, Facebook can feel a bit like a liberal polity: a space in which people air opinions, rally support and right wrongs. What about the view from the top? Is Facebook a place that needs governing, just as a country does? Brad Burnham of Union Square Ventures, a venture-capital firm, has argued that the answer is yes. In the spirit of liberal politics, he thinks the job of Facebook’s managers is to create a space in which citizens and firms feel comfortable investing their time and money to create things.
从用户角度，Facebook有点像自由国度：在这里可以畅言、获助及纠错。但高层如何看待呢？Facebook必须如国家般管理吗？风险投资公司合广投资（Union Square Ventures）的Brad Burnham认为这是必然。出于自由政治原则精神考虑，他觉得Facebook管理层的工作是创造一个让公民和公司舒适地投入时间金钱进行创作的环境。

Facebook has certainly tried to guide the development of its online economy, almost in the way that governments seek to influence economic activity in the real world, through fiscal and monetary policy. Earlier this year the firm said it wanted applications running on its platform to accept its virtual currency, known as Facebook Credits. It argued that this was in the interests of Facebook users, who would no longer have to use different online currencies for different applications. But this infuriated some developers, who resent the fact that Facebook takes a 30% cut on every transaction involving credits.
Facebook确实在尝试引领在线经济的发展，方法几乎和现实政府试图通过财政和货币政策影响经济活动的做法一样。今年早些时候，该公司宣布希望在其平台上开发新应用以接受其虚拟货币——Facebook Credits。它宣称这是为了Facebook用户的利益，网站用户将不必为不同应用使用不同在线货币。这种行为却激怒了许多开发者，他们对Facebook在包括虚拟货币在内的各项业务中抽成30%的事实感到异常恼怒。

Like any ruling elite that knows it relies on the consent from the ruled, Facebook seeks advice from its members on questions of governance. It allows users to vote on proposed changes to its terms of service, and it holds online forums to solicit views on future policies. And like any well-intentioned politico, Facebook makes blunders: its members were infuriated earlier this year by changes to its policy that made public some previously private information. If Mr Zuckerberg achieves his goal of creating the world’s favourite “social utility”, he may need to give users a more formal say—a bit like a constitution.
正如所有统治精英了解统治基础在于被统治阶级赞成，Facebook向网站会员征求关于管理存在问题的意见。它允许用户对服务项目被提议的改革进行投票；举办在线论坛搜集未来发展策略。又如所有出于好意的政客，Facebook也会好心犯大错：年初用户对网站公开早期个人隐私的策略改变感到愤怒。如果扎克伯格实现建立全世界喜爱的“社会福利事业”目标，也许他需要为用户提供更正式的话语权——某种类似宪法的方式。

Experience shows that networks which neglect governance pay a price. Take MySpace, which was once much bigger than Facebook: its growth stalled a couple of years ago when its managers let the site become too disorderly. There is a thin line, it seems, between the freedom that spurs creativity and a free-for-all.
经验教训显示忽视管理的网络公司要付出代价。以MySpace为例，该公司曾较Facebook庞大许多：当管理者令网站陷于极度混乱时，业务增长终于在两年前熄火。似乎，在激发创造力的自由和极度放纵之间有层薄薄的边界。

For now at least, real governments still have some aces; they can simply pull the plug on the service. Facebook is blocked in China, and in May it was temporarily cut off in Pakistan, under a court ruling about a page that advertised a contest to draw the Prophet Muhammad. Perhaps Facebook is less a nation than a giant transnational movement—comparable to the Red Cross or the Catholic church—which has an overarching aim and can speak to governments on something like equal terms.
至少现在，真实政府仍然具有不少优势；他们可以轻松阻止这种服务。在中国Facebook被禁；五月份在巴基斯坦又被暂时叫停，因为一家法院在这段时间里要裁决一起“网页案件”，此案中Facebook某个页面宣传一场绘制先知穆罕默德像的斗争。也许Facebook更像一场浩大的跨境运动（规模几乎媲美红十字会或罗马天主教堂）而非一个国家——它拥有全面目标并且能在如平等权利等方面对政府拥有话语权。

As Facebook’s masters present it, their mission is just to make the world more open and connected—and bring closer the “global village” predicted in the 1960s by Marshall McLuhan, a futurologist they love. Their claim to be accelerators has some force. Facebook’s success “raises a lot of issues that we thought were a generation away,” says Edward Castronova, a professor at Indiana University. One of them is how much impact virtual economies and currencies will have on real world ones. The Chinese government has repeatedly curbed virtual currencies. Last year it banned their use to buy real-world goods and services, in part because of concerns about the impact on the yuan.
Facebook的主管提出：他们的使命仅是促进世界更开放、多联系且更接近“地球村”——深受他们喜爱的未来学家Marshall McLuhan于20世纪60年代预言。该公司希望成为发展加速器的想法获得不少支持。印第安纳州立大学（Indianna University）教授Edward Castronova评论，Facebook的成功“重新提出了许多问题，这些问题我们曾经以为要过一代人的时间才会出现”。其中之一是虚拟经济和虚拟货币对于真实的同类事物有多大影响。中国政府多次遏制虚拟货币。去年中国禁止用虚拟货币购买真实商品及服务，部分原因就是担心虚拟币会影响人民币。

Facebook may also influence how governments supply services, and compete to provide them. For instance, the firm allows members to use their Facebook profiles to log into other sites around the web, creating a sort of passport. A similar facility could help people on the move retain access to government services. And then there is the question of how social networks will change politics. Clearly, they help to stimulate discussion and marshal action, and they let governments trawl for and test proposals. When Messrs Cameron and Zuckerberg conferred, the main topic was how to get new ideas for cutting public spending.
Facebook不仅能影响政府提供服务的方式，还能与政府竞争服务质量。例如，该公司允许会员使用Facebook资料登陆挂靠网站的其他站点，形成某种意义上的“护照”。有项类似服务能够帮助争取政府服务的人们。然而，有个关于社交网络将改变政治的问题。显然，他们能帮助促进讨论和整顿运动，还能帮政府全面获取和测试各项提案。在卡梅伦和扎克伯格两位的谈话中，主要话题是如何获得新思路以削减公共支出。

Like many diplomatic relationships, theirs was fickle. Days after the chat, Facebook was rebuked by the British government for allowing tributes to a murderer to be posted. The firm refused to remove the offending page, which was later taken down by its creator. “Facebook is a place where people can express their views and discuss things in an open way, as they can and do in many other places,” it said. Mr Zuckerberg may not have any territory, but he was determined to stand his ground.
类似大多数外交关系，这两位的关系也变化无常。谈话节目结束后数日，英国政府指责Facebook允许赞美一名谋杀犯的言辞发表。该公司拒绝删除冒犯网页，不过稍后被其创始人撤掉。“在Facebook里，人人都可以开放地发表个人观点、讨论问题，就像他们在其他许多地方能够并且确实做过的那样，”公司宣称。也许扎克伯格没有领土，但他决意坚守立场。更多信息请访问：http://www.24en.com/