In the beginning — and by that I mean, say, 20 years ago — all was simple. The internet belonged to everyone and no one. It was a space free of state interference, a place for individuals to make their voices heard. The billions upon billions of digital connections defied national borders or crusty arguments about competing systems of political organisation. Oh, and the web promised untold riches for the technology geeks of Silicon Valley and beyond.最初（我的意思是说道，比如，20年前），一切都很非常简单。互联网归属于每一个人，又不属于任何人。

它是一个不不受政府介入的空间，是一个让个人的声音获得倾听的地方。数不清的数字化相连超越了国家之间的边界，也消弭了关于有所不同政治的组织体系的长久争辩。还有，互联网还曾为硅谷和硅谷以外的科技极客们许下数不清的财富。This idealised story of cyber space as an independent, anarchic realm still has great resonance. To suggest there might be a need for national regulation is to be accused of “Balkanisation” of the one truly global community. To blame Google or Facebook for publishing vile propaganda soliciting the murder of innocents is to challenge the liberties of everyone with a smartphone or a tablet.这种将网络空间视作独立国家的无政府王国的理想化说词，仍能引发很多人回响。

似乎各国也许有适当对网络空间实行监管，你不会被指控为将这个确实全球化的社区“分化化”。指责谷歌(Google)或Facebook公布恶魔的宣传内容、煽动别人去滥杀无辜，你就是挑战每个享有智能手机或平板电脑的人的权利。You can see why. The web has been a source of empowerment and freedom. It serves as an ally of the individual against the overmighty and a channel of influence for those denied a say. It has broken the information monopoly of the elites and nurtured new communities across borders. It is completing the global political awakening that began with satellite television.可以看见这其中的原由。互联网是一个彰显人们力量和权利的地方。

它是个人的盟友——联合对付强权，是被褫夺发言权的人们充分发挥影响力的渠道。它超越了精英的信息独占，并促成了新的跨国界社区。

它正在已完成始自卫星电视的这场全球政治唤醒。It is no accident that the governments most eager to control the web have been those most fearful of liberty and democracy. Wherever you see an unpleasant autocrat you will find teams of technicians censoring social networks and shutting down digital dissent.最意图掌控互联网的政府也是最惧怕权利和民主的政府，这一点并非无意间。只要是有喜欢的独裁者不存在的地方，你就不会看见由技术人员构成的团队，在审查社交网络、歼灭数字世界中的异议人士。There has, of course, been an element of pretence. Some rules have always applied. No one complains when websites promoting brazen criminality are shut down, when child pornography is expunged or when cyber fraudsters are caught. Democracy distinguishes between liberty and licence — free speech does not extend to shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre.这其中当然仍然不存在托辞的成分。

有些规则一直是限于的。当鼓动痛骂罪行的网站被重开时、当儿童色情内容被清理时、或者当网络诈骗分子被逃跑时，没有人责怪。民主制度懂权利和肆意妄为的有所不同——言论自由并不限于于在挤迫的剧院里喊出“起火了”的情况。

For their part, the technology companies have positioned themselves adroitly. Even as they have become global behemoths, they have cast themselves as guardians of the powerless against the state. When Apple refuses a legal request to break the encryption on one of its expensive gadgets, it wraps itself in the mantle of freedom.科技公司仍然纯熟地掌控着自己的定位。即便它们已是了全球巨无霸，它们仍将自己定位为对付国家的无权者的守护人。

当苹果(Apple)拒绝接受密码其一个便宜手机上加密文件的法律拒绝时，它把权利当成了自己的挡箭牌。When Google or Facebook are accused of publishing illegal incitements to violence they claim, straight-faced, that they are not media companies at all. No, they are libraries or post offices — mere agents at the mercy of their own algorithms. Of course, if someone else complains about this or that web page they will consider taking it down — and then expect applause for their social responsibility.当谷歌或Facebook被控公布鼓动暴力的非法内容时，它们一本正经地声称它们显然不是传媒公司。不，它们是图书馆或邮局，它们不过是任自己的算法冷落的代理人。

当然，如果其他人滋扰这个或那个网页，它们不会考虑到删除该网页，并且期望人们为它们的社会责任感起立掌声。These nonsenses are born of a mindset that says such companies must be set above the rest of us. After spending a recent weekend with a significant slice of the Silicon Valley set, I think they actually believe their own advertising这种可笑逻辑出自于这样一种思维，即这些公司必需低于我们其他人。

在最近与一些硅谷最重要人士童年一个周末之后，我指出他们实质上坚信他们自己促销的众说纷纭。The web cannot pay homage to national preferences or cultural sensitivities. Why should mere politicians decide where, for example, the border should be set between national security and the right to publish videos delineating the finer points of bomb-making?互联网无法遵从国家的爱好或者文化敏感性。

区区政治人士凭什么要求，比如，国家安全性与公布说明炮弹制作细节视频的权利之间的界线确有？By these lights, Apple has a stronger claim than government or the courts to decide if society is better served by unbreakable encryption or by arrangements to allow law enforcement agencies access to iPhones when they are chasing down terrorists.从这些角度抵达，苹果公司比政府或法庭更加有权要求哪一种情况对社会更加不利——无法密码的加密方式，还是让执法人员机构在迎击恐怖分子时需要采访iPhone。So you must be on the side of the “deep state”, is the response to seditious thoughts otherwise. To suggest, say, that the spooks be permitted to monitor the digital traffic of extremists such as those responsible for the Manchester and London murders is to be in favour of “mass surveillance”.对于不这样指出的煽动性观点，对此是：那么你一定是车站在“暗深势力”(deep state)那一旁了。

比如，指出应当容许特工们监测极端分子（比如那些对曼彻斯特和伦敦攻击事件负责管理的人）的网络动向，就是反对“大规模监控”。In this Alice in Wonderland world, the technology companies scrape every detail of personal information from the accounts of their users in order to sell it on to advertisers. Then they rail against any state intrusion as a charter for snoopers or a march towards authoritarianism.在这个有如“爱丽丝梦游仙境”的反转世界里，科技公司从用户账号里挖出每一丝个人信息，为的是将这些信息卖给广告商。然而它们却大骂任何政府介入，称之为这是在允许窥视个人隐私，或称之为这是朝威权主义迈进的一步。

In truth, of course, the anarchic promise of an internet under the benign oversight of entrepreneurs, innovators and well-meaning geeks was always an unachievable ideal. Today’s web is dominated by a handful of global corporations whose self-serving sense of “otherness” has become an excuse to avoid the responsibilities demanded of everyone else. One-time disrupters — think of Amazon — are now rent seekers.事实上，对互联网的如下无政府主义期待：互联网正处于创业家、创新者和愿意极客的良性监督之下，当然是一个无法构建的理想。今天的互联网由少数几家跨国公司支配，这些公司贪婪地以“尤其”自称为，这是它们规避其他每个人都要分担的责任的借口。曾多次的颠覆者——看看亚马逊(Amazon)——现在出了寻租者。This market power — Google has three-quarters of global search; Google and Facebook together account for three-fifths of digital advertising revenues — allows the companies to set their own tax rates, to shut out competitors, and to choose what rules to apply.谷歌掌控着全球搜寻的四分之三；谷歌和Facebook两家占到数字广告收益的五分之三——这样的市场能量让这些公司原作自己的税率、将竞争对手回避独自、并自行自由选择遵从什么规则。

The answer provided by the economics textbook is to break them up. No such concentrations of power would be tolerated in other sectors of the economy — witness past antitrust rulings in the oil and telecoms sectors. We also need, though, a statement of political intent: they cannot operate beyond the values and standards of our societies.经济学课本获取的答案是将这些公司合并。在经济的其他领域，显然会容许市场能量如此集中于——想到石油和电信业过去的反垄断判决就明白了。然而，我们也必须声明政治意图：这些公司无法凌驾于我们社会的价值观和标准之上。

For a nation such as Britain, under attack from terrorists who have been inspired by propaganda on the web, there will never be a “right” answer on where to fix the balance between security and privacy, or free speech and licence. It seems clear enough, though, that this is a judgment that should be made in Westminster rather than on some Californian campus. Some call this Balkanisation. I think democratisation is a better description.对于像英国这样，遭遇不受网络宣传灵感的恐怖分子攻击的国家，如何确认安全性和隐私、或者言论自由和肆意妄为之间的均衡，总有一天没一个“准确”答案。然而，有一点或许很确切，作出这个辨别的应当是威斯敏斯特，而不是一些身在加利福尼亚州大学校园的人。

一些人说道这是“分化化”。我指出，更加适合的众说纷纭是民主化。

本文来源：澳门bet356体育在线官网安装-www.bdhongluo.com