Focusing on Facebook and Google’s Monopoly Misses the Point 专注于脸书和谷歌的垄断没有抓住问题关键 【原文赏读】 Ⅰ The heads of four of the U.S.’s biggest technology companies—Alphabet, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon— appeared before Cong
Focusing on Facebook and Google’s Monopoly Misses the Point
专注于脸书和谷歌的垄断没有抓住问题关键
【原文赏读】
Ⅰ The heads of four of the U.S.’s biggest technology companies—Alphabet, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon— appeared before Congress earlier this week to respond to criticism that they have too much market power. The hearing showed that lawmakers are beginning to understand what is and isn’t important when it comes to regulating these large businesses. And it also showed an increased focus on the most important area of antitrust policy — mergers and acquisitions and whether regulators have exercised enough vigilance.
Ⅱ One typical defense against such allegations is that tech companies are not monopolies. Whether this is true depends on how markets are defined—for example, Google is overwhelmingly dominant among search engines, but has only about a third of digital ad revenues. But focusing on whether a company is a monopoly misses the point. Oligopolies, where a few big companies dominate the market, also tend to wield some degree of market power. In theory, that can allow powerful players to jack up consumer prices, underpay workers and squeeze suppliers.
Ⅲ In the case of Big Tech, consumer prices and wages are generally not the issue. A bigger worry concerns suppliers. Platform companies depend on a network of third-party companies -- merchants who sell on Amazon, websites that run Google ads, app developers who sell on Apple’s App Store and so on. The platforms’ size potentially allows them to extract a lot of value from these smaller companies, demanding a larger share of their revenue or even creating and then favoring their own competing offerings. Thus, it’s a good thing that Congress focused some of its attention on the need to maintain fair relationships between platforms and suppliers.
Ⅳ Another concern is the prices that online service companies charge advertisers. By some estimates, more than half of digital ad spending now goes to either Google or Facebook. Advertisers are the true paying customers for free online services for consumers. This is a reason that legislators are worried about platforms buying out the competition. Facebook CEO Zuckerberg admitted in the hearing that he purchased social-networking company Instagram in 2012 as a way to head off other young social networks. Ultimately, that could raise prices for advertisers. Those sorts of buyouts and buyout threats could also have a chilling effect on startup formation and economic dynamism because even the threat of competition from a dominant company can deter new entrants.
Ⅴ So if there’s any case for antitrust action against Big Tech right now, it probably has to do with the acquisition of upstart competitors. Unlike most of the issues surrounding Big Tech which are complicated and confusing, concern over anticompetitive mergers that jack up prices is very old and very common.
VI In any case, it’s a very good thing that Congress is beginning to pay more attention to the problems of industrial concentration and oligopoly in the U.S. economy. These hearings will hopefully be a jumping-off point for a broader re-examination of the value of mega-mergers and huge, dominant companies.
原文解析：
本文为 2020 年 8 月 2 日发表在 Bloomberg(彭博新闻社)上一篇名为《Focusing on Facebook and Google’s Monopoly Misses the Point》的文章。文章开篇以新事件“四大科技公司面对国会的垄断质疑”为切入口，指出当前的反垄断重点已经发生了大改变：大型科技公司的垄
断威胁不是提高消费价格、压低员工工资，而是压榨供应商/广告商、吓退新入者等。
【文章脉络】引出话题“四大科技公司被指控垄断市场”(第一段)——通过“树靶—反驳” 指出“单个科技公司的价格垄断并非问题的关键，寡头垄断是新的关注重点”(第二段)— —具体指出当前反垄断真正关注的两大问题(第三、四段)——总结评述，指出针对科技公司的反垄断调查关注点应与时俱进，并肯定国会的反垄断调查的意义(第五、六段)。
【逐段翻译及点评】
Ⅰ The heads of four of the U.S.’s biggest technology companies—Alphabet, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon— appeared before Congress earlier this week to respond to criticism that they have too much market power. The hearing showed that lawmakers are beginning to understand what is and isn’t important when it comes to regulating these large businesses. And it also showed an increased focus on the most important area of antitrust policy — mergers and acquisitions and whether regulators have exercised enough vigilance.
【翻译】美国四大科技公司——字母控股、苹果、脸书和亚马逊——的掌门人于本周早些时候齐聚国会，回应对他们“拥有太多市场权力”的指责。这次听证会表明，立法者逐渐开始明白，在监管这些大型企业时，什么重要，什么不重要。这也表明他们在更多地关注反垄断政策最重要的领域——并购以及监管机构是否对此保持了足够的警惕。
【逻辑梳理】引出新闻事件“四大科技公司接受国会反垄断调查”并概述其意义。
1段中三句以...appeared before Congress... to respond to criticism ...The hearing showed...And it also showed...衔接，体现“直陈事件——概述意义”的逻辑。②criticism that they have too much market power、antitrust policy 为近义表述，凸显关注点“大科技公司的垄断威胁”。
核心关键词：too much market power; mergers and acquisitions。
Ⅱ One typical defense against such allegations is that tech companies are not monopolies. Whether this is true depends on how markets are defined—for example, Google is overwhelmingly dominant among search engines, but has only about a third of digital ad revenues. But focusing on whether a company is a monopoly misses the point. Oligopolies, where a few big companies dominate the market, also tend to wield some degree of market power. In theory, that can allow powerful players to jack up consumer prices, underpay workers and squeeze suppliers.
【翻译】对此类指控的典型辩词是，科技公司并非垄断企业。这一说辞是否成立取决于如何定义“市场”——例如，谷歌在搜索引擎中有着压倒性优势，却只占了数字广告收入的三分之一。但是，关注一家公司是否是垄断企业并没有抓住问题的关键。寡头垄断，即少数几家大公司主导市场，也往往会掌握某种程度的市场权力。理论上，这可以让那些强大的企业抬高消费价格，压低员工工资，压榨供应商。
【逻辑梳理】指出当前问题关键不是某个大公司是否为垄断企业，而是寡头垄断威胁。
①前三句以 One typical defense against... Whether this is true depends on...But focusing on... misses the point...衔接，体现“介绍公司方对垄断指控的辩词——作者反驳指出该辩词不得要领”的逻辑关系。such allegations 回指首段 criticism;miss the point(不得要领)体现作者反驳。②第四、五句以 Oligopolies... also...承上指出“寡头垄断”也会导致市场权力滥用，是当前关注重点。jack up ..., underpay ... and squeeze ...三个并列动词短语指出寡头垄断会造成多方威胁。
核心关键词：One typical defense; Oligopolies。
Ⅲ In the case of Big Tech, consumer prices and wages are generally not the issue. A bigger worry concerns suppliers. Platform companies depend on a network of third-party companies -- merchants who sell on Amazon, websites that run Google ads, app developers who sell on Apple’s App Store and so on. The platforms’ size potentially allows them to extract a lot of value from these smaller companies, demanding a larger share of their revenue or even creating and then favoring their own competing offerings. Thus, it’s a good thing that Congress focused some of its attention on the need to maintain fair relationships between platforms and suppliers.
【翻译】就大型科技公司而言，消费价格和员工薪酬一般并非问题所在。更大的问题关乎供应商。平台公司依赖于一个由第三方公司构成的网络——在亚马逊上卖货的商家、运行谷歌广告的网站、在苹果应用商店卖应用的开发者等等。平台的(巨大)体量使其能够从这些小公司身上榨取大量价值——索要其收入的更大份额，甚至打造并偏袒自己的竞品。因此，国会将部分注意力集中到“维护平台和供应商之间公平关系的必要性”上是件好事。
【逻辑梳理】分析大型科技公司的具体垄断威胁一：平台对供应商的打压。①第一、二
句以... are generally not the issue. A bigger worry concerns...形成取舍，指出真正问题关乎供应商(suppliers)。②第三、四句用 Platform companies....The platforms’ size potentially allows them...具体解释：平台靠其体量从供应商身上榨取巨大价值。其中 Platform companies、The platforms、them、their (own)同指“大科技公司/平台”一方;suppliers、third-party companies、 these smaller companies、their(revenue)同指“供应商”一方;extract a lot of value、demanding a larger share.. or even ...点明平台对供应商的压榨剥削。③第五句以 Thus 引出小结：国会关注维护平台和供应商的关系是一件好事(a good thing)。
核心关键词：extract a lot of value from; maintain fair relationship。
Ⅳ Another concern is the prices that online service companies charge advertisers. By some estimates, more than half of digital ad spending now goes to either Google or Facebook. Advertisers are the true paying customers for free online services for consumers. This is a reason that legislators are worried about platforms buying out the competition. Facebook CEO Zuckerberg admitted in the hearing that he purchased social-networking company Instagram in 2012 as a way to head off other young social networks. Ultimately, that could raise prices for advertisers. Those sorts of buyouts and buyout threats could also have a chilling effect on startup formation and economic dynamism because even the threat of competition from a dominant company can deter new entrants.
【翻译】另一个值得关注的问题是在线服务公司对广告商的收费。据估计，现在一半以上的数字广告支出都进了谷歌或脸书的腰包。广告商才是为消费者享有免费在线服务的真正付费客户。这也是立法者担心平台买断竞争的一个原因。脸书 CEO 扎克伯格在听证会上承认，他在 2012 年收购社交网络公司 Instagram 是为了拦截其它新兴社交网络。最终，这可能会提高广告商(在平台投放广告)的价格。这种公司收购和收购威胁也会对初创企业的形成和经济活力产生寒蝉效应，因为即便是来自主导公司的竞争威胁也足以让新入者望而却步。
【逻辑梳理】分析大型科技公司的具体垄断威胁二：平台提高对广告商的收费。①首句以 Another concern is..承上启下，引出大型科技公司另一垄断威胁。②第二至五句以...This is a reason that...体现因果逻辑，解释首句“平台可通过买断竞争，提高对广告商的收费，形成垄断威胁”，并以“Facebook 曾通过收购 Instagram 拦截其它新兴社交网络”实例作证。 ③第六、七句以 Ultimately, that could ... Those sorts of buyouts and buyout threats could also...
明确买断竞争的最终效应：平台提高对广告商的收费，且对新入者形成寒蝉效应。
核心关键词：the prices that online service companies charge advertisers; buying out the competition; chilling effect。
Ⅴ So if there’s any case for antitrust action against Big Tech right now, it probably has to do with the acquisition of upstart competitors. Unlike most of the issues surrounding Big Tech which are complicated and confusing, concern over anticompetitive mergers that jack up prices is very old and very common.
【翻译】因此，如果说现在有什么理由要针对大型科技公司采取反垄断行动，那它很可能与收购新兴竞争对手有关。围绕大型科技公司的大多数问题都错综复杂，与此不同的是，对意在抬高价格的反竞争兼并的担忧却非常古老、非常普遍。
【逻辑梳理】明确针对科技公司的反垄断行动的“新”关注点：收购新兴竞争对手。①
首句以 So if... it probably has to do with...总结上文，明确指出当前如果发起反垄断行动，很可能与“收购竞争对手”相关。case for 意为“……的理由”。②第二句以 Unlike ... which are complicated and confusing, concern over ... is very old and very common 对比指出“新关注点”
(当前反垄断关注的是“大型科技公司收购新兴竞争对手”)和“旧特征”(传统反垄断关注是通过并购提高消费价格)。very old and very common 强调关注提高消费价格(jack up prices)的兼并非常古老且非常普遍，从而印证“收购竞争对手”这一关注点之“新”。
核心关键词：acquisition of upstart competitors。
VI In any case, it’s a very good thing that Congress is beginning to pay more attention to the problems of industrial concentration and oligopoly in the U.S. economy. These hearings will hopefully be a jumping-off point for a broader re-examination of the value of mega-mergers and huge, dominant companies.
【翻译】无论如何，国会开始更多地关注美国经济中的产业集中和寡头垄断问题是一件极好的事情。这类听证会有望成为一个新起点，从而对大型并购和大型主导公司(这两者)的价值进行更全面的重新审视。
【逻辑梳理】集中评价听证会的意义。①首句以 In any case, it’s a very good thing that...表示作者对听证会的高度赞同。②第二句用 These hearings will hopefully be ...直接指出了听证会的正面意义。jumping-off point、a broader re-examination of 具体赞扬听证会作为一个新起点，可以重新审视大型并购和大型主导公司价值。??????????、、、、、、、、
核心关键词：pay more attention to; jumping-off point。
【核心词汇】
① criticism [?kr?t?s?z?m] n. 批评，批判
② charge [t?ɑ:d?] vt. 索(价)
③ antitrust [??nti?tr?st] adj. 反垄断的
④ head off: 阻挡
⑤ merger [?m?:d??] n.(公司的)合并
⑥ buyout [?ba?a?t] n. 买断，收购
⑦ acquisition [??kw??z??n] n. 收购
⑧ chilling effect: 寒蝉效应，激冷效应
⑨ allegation [??l??ge??n] n. 指控;陈述
⑩ startup ['stɑ:t?p] n. 初创公司(尤指新兴网络公司)
? monopoly [m??n?p?l?] n. 垄断;垄断企业
? deter [d??t?] vt. 阻止，制止
? overwhelmingly [???v?'welm??l?] adv. 无法抵抗地;压倒性地
? upstart [??pstɑ:t] adj. 暴发的，突然得势的;新兴的
? dominant [?d?m?n?nt] a. 占优势的;支配的
? anticompetitive [?nti:k?m'pet?t?v] adj. 反竞争的
? wield [wi:ld] vt. 运用(权力)，施加(影响)
? concentration [?k?nsn?tre??n] n. 集中;聚集
? jack up: 提高，增加 jumping-off point 起点，出发点
? underpay [??nd??pe?] vt. 付给(雇员等)报酬过低
?mega-mergers 巨型合并
?squeeze [skwi:z] vt. 压迫，压榨·超纲词汇
?supplier [s??pla??] n. 供应商
?vigilance ['v?d??l?ns] n. 警觉;警惕;警戒
?potentially [p?'ten??l?] adv. 潜在地;可能地
?oligopoly [??l?'g?p?l?] n. 寡头垄断
?extract [?k?str?kt] v. 提取，提炼
?entrant [?entr?nt] n. 新成员;参赛者
?revenue [?rev?nju:] n. 收益;收入返回搜狐，查看更多
