馬克·扎克伯格想聊聊Facebook的變化。

今年2月初，在Facebook最新建成的大廈里，34歲的首席執(zhí)行官扎克伯格坐在會(huì)議室的沙發(fā)上概括了Facebook未來(lái)調(diào)整方向。新大廈是設(shè)計(jì)師弗蘭克·格里的作品，屋頂有占地3.6英畝的花園，還栽了40英尺高的紅杉。據(jù)扎克伯格介紹，調(diào)整聚焦在“四個(gè)主要領(lǐng)域”。過(guò)去兩年多，F(xiàn)acebook正是因?yàn)橄嚓P(guān)領(lǐng)域而飽受公眾指責(zé)，過(guò)得相當(dāng)艱難。其中之一是“內(nèi)容監(jiān)管，要平衡自由表達(dá)和安全?！钡诙€(gè)領(lǐng)域是“數(shù)據(jù)隱私，所有人都在分享大量信息的當(dāng)今世界里，如何采取一些正確的方式來(lái)保護(hù)隱私信息，向人們提供掌控權(quán)。”另外兩項(xiàng)調(diào)整是關(guān)于“數(shù)字健康和福祉”，他希望解決設(shè)備數(shù)量激增和屏幕使用時(shí)間過(guò)長(zhǎng)的問(wèn)題，還有“保護(hù)選舉公正，避免干擾選舉過(guò)程?！?/p>

此前因?yàn)镕acebook惹下不少麻煩，扎克伯格各處奔走致歉，本次也是其中之一。扎克伯格搭建了5000億美元的網(wǎng)絡(luò)帝國(guó)Facebook，連接了無(wú)數(shù)新老朋友，也在不經(jīng)意間變成了爭(zhēng)議的中心，從仇恨言論到數(shù)據(jù)入侵，各種負(fù)面效應(yīng)紛紛出現(xiàn)。扎克伯格想要證明他明白這一點(diǎn)。他說(shuō)：“未來(lái)Facebook將從被動(dòng)應(yīng)付轉(zhuǎn)為搭建完善的系統(tǒng)，提前預(yù)防問(wèn)題?！?/p>

道歉一個(gè)月后，很明顯扎克伯格只不過(guò)在背稿子，這位科技大佬就像開(kāi)麥夜（酒吧或咖啡館里舉行的卡拉OK晚會(huì)，任何人都可以登場(chǎng)演唱和演奏——譯者注）練臺(tái)詞的喜劇演員。3月初Facebook就發(fā)表過(guò)一篇頗有預(yù)告涵義的公告，文中扎克伯格宣布將打造全新的“保護(hù)隱私通訊產(chǎn)品”，由此前的“廣場(chǎng)”變成更類(lèi)似于“客廳談話”?！叭藗儜?yīng)該享受簡(jiǎn)單親密的角落，要能明確控制誰(shuí)可以加入交流，還要確信分享的內(nèi)容不會(huì)被第三方抓取?！彼麑?xiě)道。換句話說(shuō)，用戶需要跟原來(lái)的Facebook完全不一樣的交流空間。

對(duì)Facebook來(lái)說(shuō)，改變是個(gè)復(fù)雜的話題。一方面Facebook確實(shí)在做大量工作解決問(wèn)題，比如招聘數(shù)萬(wàn)名員工監(jiān)管內(nèi)容。然而另一方面，在可預(yù)見(jiàn)的未來(lái)，F(xiàn)acebook與過(guò)去十年相比不會(huì)發(fā)生本質(zhì)變化，而且仍然會(huì)保持高速發(fā)展。也就是說(shuō)，F(xiàn)acebook還是一個(gè)發(fā)布平臺(tái)，收集23億用戶的數(shù)據(jù)提供給推廣客戶，去年正是這些客戶幫助Facebook實(shí)現(xiàn)了560億美元的收入。Facebook可能確實(shí)在改變，但其目標(biāo)是在找到替代方案之前維持原狀。畢竟調(diào)整太猛可能危害很大。

Mark Zuckerberg wants to talk about how Facebook is changing.

It is early February, and the 34-year-old CEO sits on a couch in his glass-walled conference room in Facebook’s newest complex, a Frank Gehry–designed structure that features a 3.6-acre rooftop garden and 40-foot redwoods. Zuckerberg summarizes Facebook’s changes around “four big categories that we’ve focused on,” all with the subtext of the immense criticism his company has faced over more than two incredibly difficult years. One category, he says, is “content governance, helping to balance free expression and safety.” He continues, “Another is principles around data privacy and, in a world where everyone is sharing a lot of information, what are the right ways to go about protecting that and giving people control.” Zuckerberg’s last two categories are “digital health and well-being,” a nod to device proliferation and screen-time overload, and “election integrity and preventing interference.”

The talking points amount to Zuckerberg’s apology tour for all the damage Facebook has wrought. On the way to building an empire worth half-a-trillion dollars, he and his company have connected friends old and new, sure, but they have also inadvertently found themselves in the middle of controversies from hate speech to data breaches. Zuckerberg wants to show that he gets it. Facebook, he says, “is moving from a reactive model of how we’re handling this stuff to one where we are building systems to get out ahead.”

A month later it becomes apparent that Zuckerberg has been rehearsing his lines, the tech-mogul equivalent of a comedian trying out material at open-mic night. In a much-heralded post on Facebook in early March, Zuckerberg announced his company would build new privacy-friendly messaging products, moving from a “town square” approach to one more akin to a living room conversation. “People should have simple, intimate places where they have clear control over who can communicate with them and confidence that no one else can access what they share,” he wrote. In other words, they should have a place to communicate that is nothing like Facebook.

Change is a complicated topic for Facebook. On the one hand, it certainly is doing a ton to address its problems, like hiring tens of thousands of workers to police its content. Yet on the other hand, for the foreseeable future, Facebook will remain exactly what it has been over the past decade-plus of its meteoric rise: a publishing platform that gathers data on its 2.3 billion users for the benefit of its marketer customers, who helped Facebook record $56 billion in revenues last year. Facebook may be changing, but it aims to preserve what it’s got until it figures out a way to replace the business too much change would jeopardize.

Facebook調(diào)整商業(yè)模式也比很多人想象中更緊迫，不僅僅是應(yīng)付審查。Facebook的核心業(yè)務(wù)增速大幅放緩，還要迎來(lái)有可能“剝皮抽筋”式的監(jiān)管，還有強(qiáng)勁的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手追趕。公司的旗艦產(chǎn)品也就是主平臺(tái)Facebook Blue的人氣逐漸流失，尤其是在年輕用戶群體中。富裕國(guó)家向來(lái)是其利潤(rùn)的主要來(lái)源，用戶增長(zhǎng)有所放緩。當(dāng)然了，相較于巨頭的體量，2018年Facebook的營(yíng)收增速仍然驚人，達(dá)到37%。但增速下滑明顯，2016年還有54%，2017年為47%。S&P Global預(yù)計(jì)，未來(lái)兩年其營(yíng)收增速將繼續(xù)下降，今年降至23%，2020年降到21%。

扎克伯格并未直接評(píng)論Facebook營(yíng)收增長(zhǎng)放緩，轉(zhuǎn)而表示將分兩條路走：一是繼續(xù)維護(hù)Facebook現(xiàn)有產(chǎn)品，另一條則是通過(guò)支付和電商等服務(wù)找新的贏利點(diǎn)?！拔覀兣μ峁┟總€(gè)人都能使用的服務(wù)。”他說(shuō)，并表示實(shí)現(xiàn)的最佳方法是讓產(chǎn)品“價(jià)格低廉，最好免費(fèi)”，由此爭(zhēng)取廣告收入，也是現(xiàn)有的業(yè)務(wù)模式。當(dāng)被問(wèn)到保護(hù)隱私和小團(tuán)體交流的構(gòu)想如何落實(shí)為業(yè)務(wù)時(shí)，他比較躲閃，或許因?yàn)椴恢溃苍S是不打算透露。（3月Facebook發(fā)布的公告里也語(yǔ)焉不詳。）他表示，“用戶想要知道，也有權(quán)知道自己的信息如何使用，以及如何掌控”，F(xiàn)acebook將提供相應(yīng)產(chǎn)品實(shí)現(xiàn)控制。扎克伯格說(shuō)：“我們一定要做到?！?!-- cend -->

Facebook’s fiddling with its business model is also more pressing than many realize—and not merely a response to the scrutiny the company faces. Facebook’s core business is slowing dramatically, even as a combination of potentially hamstringing regulation and rejuvenated competition looms. Its flagship product, widely known as Facebook Blue, is losing popularity, especially among younger audiences. And user growth has slowed in the rich countries where the company makes the bulk of its money. Sure, Facebook’s 2018 revenues grew at a torrid pace for a company its size, gaining 37%. But that reflects a rapidly declining growth rate, from 54% in 2016 and 47% in 2017. Wall Street projects continued deceleration, to 23% this year and 21% in 2020, according to S&P Global.

Zuckerberg, without commenting directly on the deceleration in Facebook’s revenue growth, says he aims to chart a dual course, one that protects Facebook’s current offerings and another that finds new ways to make money, through services like payments and e-commerce. “We are trying to build services that everyone can use,” he says, adding that the best way to do this is to keep them “affordable and ideally free” and thus funded by advertising, Facebook’s existing business. Asked how his new interest in privacy and smaller-group communication will become a business, he is tough to pin down, either because he doesn’t yet know or isn’t ready to say. (His March manifesto is no more specific.) Users, he says, “want to and rightfully should be able to understand how their information is used and have control,” and Facebook will build them products to give them that control. Says Zuckerberg: “We need to go do that.”

“兩張圖片哪個(gè)是西藍(lán)花，哪個(gè)是大麻？“

Facebook的首席技術(shù)官邁克·斯科羅普夫指著筆記本電腦上兩張并排的圖片，讓我區(qū)分“好”與“壞”。答案并不明顯。兩張照片都挺像大麻，綠芽濃密，頂上有毛發(fā)狀突起，也可能是霉。最后我連蒙帶猜了一個(gè)：“左邊的是大麻？”斯科羅普夫點(diǎn)了點(diǎn)頭。

這次演示是為了解釋Facebook如何利用技術(shù)，特別是人工智能來(lái)清理平臺(tái)有害信息。斯科羅普夫表示，人工智能比人類(lèi)更準(zhǔn)確。據(jù)他介紹，F(xiàn)acebook的人工智能系統(tǒng)對(duì)左側(cè)照片為大麻的確信度為93.77%，對(duì)右側(cè)照片為西藍(lán)花的確信度為88.39%。人工智能比人類(lèi)快得多。“你判斷用了一秒多，”他說(shuō)。而人工智能系統(tǒng)“可以在百分之一毫秒內(nèi)完成，一天可判斷數(shù)十億次。”

“Which one of these is broccoli and which one is marijuana?”

Mike Schroepfer, Facebook’s chief technology officer, is pointing to two side-by-side images on his laptop, asking me to identify the “good” from the “bad.” The answer isn’t obvious. Both pictures look convincingly cannabis-like—dense, leafy-green buds that are coated with miniature, hair-like growths, or perhaps mold. Finally, I make a semi-educated guess: “The one on the left is marijuana?” Schroepfer nods approvingly.

The demo is an illustration of how Facebook is using technology, specifically artificial intelligence, to clean up its act. A.I., says Schroep?fer, is more accurate than humans. He says Facebook’s A.I. system was 93.77% sure the picture on the left was marijuana and 88.39% sure that the picture on the right was broccoli. And it’s faster by far than a human. “It took you more than a second,” he says. The company’s technology “can do this in hundredths of milliseconds, billions of times a day.”

與計(jì)算機(jī)一樣，人類(lèi)員工也是Facebook解決問(wèn)題的重要力量。2017年至今，F(xiàn)acebook的內(nèi)容審核員工人數(shù)增至三倍，從1萬(wàn)人增加到現(xiàn)在的3萬(wàn)人。公司高層也加強(qiáng)招聘力度，安排專(zhuān)家解決用戶信息流里出現(xiàn)的問(wèn)題。前法律副總顧問(wèn)莫莉·卡特勒目前負(fù)責(zé)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)“戰(zhàn)略響應(yīng)”團(tuán)隊(duì)，每周都跟首席運(yùn)營(yíng)官謝麗爾·桑德伯格開(kāi)會(huì)。公民參與負(fù)責(zé)人薩米德·查克拉巴蒂的工作重心也發(fā)生變化，從投票人注冊(cè)轉(zhuǎn)向防止選舉受干擾。Facebook還將此前單獨(dú)的“安全”工程師團(tuán)隊(duì)打散，安排到每個(gè)產(chǎn)品開(kāi)發(fā)團(tuán)隊(duì)里。

盡管各項(xiàng)措施都很實(shí)在，但最終目的還是改進(jìn)業(yè)務(wù)，而不是徹底調(diào)整。從平臺(tái)上清除恐怖主義宣傳很容易取悅大眾，Loup Ventures的著名分析師吉恩·蒙斯特表示，尤其是跟更棘手的問(wèn)題相比，比如Facebook究竟應(yīng)該怎樣處理用戶數(shù)據(jù)?！癋acebook喜歡談內(nèi)容監(jiān)管，因?yàn)橄嚓P(guān)問(wèn)題都能解決。”他表示。

事實(shí)上，F(xiàn)acebook宣稱(chēng)，除了不小心讓壞人進(jìn)入平臺(tái)之外，并沒(méi)有什么問(wèn)題要解決。Facebook認(rèn)為，只要其廣告模式更為人理解，尤其是大眾更理解之后，質(zhì)疑就會(huì)消失。“廣告是我們業(yè)務(wù)的核心?！?桑德伯格在列舉Facebook的三大業(yè)務(wù)核心，即用戶數(shù)據(jù)、廣告主支付和免費(fèi)內(nèi)容時(shí)表示?！叭?xiàng)業(yè)務(wù)里，廣告業(yè)務(wù)最難解釋?！?/p>

桑德伯格與扎克伯格在同一座大廈辦公，她的會(huì)議室名字是：“只有好消息”（Only Good News）。起這么個(gè)名字可能有兩種含義：一是她希望來(lái)訪者只有好消息，第二種可能則生動(dòng)詮釋了Facebook內(nèi)部對(duì)平臺(tái)內(nèi)容的幻想。她與扎克伯格都極力否認(rèn)Facebook將用戶數(shù)據(jù)“出售”給廣告商。Facebook的實(shí)際做法是代表廣告商精準(zhǔn)鎖定匿名用戶數(shù)據(jù)，如此一來(lái)Facebook和付費(fèi)客戶均可利用數(shù)據(jù)獲得收入。“實(shí)際的內(nèi)生業(yè)務(wù)模式非常堅(jiān)實(shí)，也比其它業(yè)務(wù)模式都要好?！?桑德伯格在解釋為何不愿也不能放棄現(xiàn)有業(yè)務(wù)模式時(shí)表示。另外，F(xiàn)acebook認(rèn)為其業(yè)務(wù)模式是一種雙贏?！皬V告比收會(huì)員費(fèi)好，因?yàn)橹挥懈蝗瞬拍茇?fù)擔(dān)得起會(huì)員費(fèi)。如果收費(fèi)，根本無(wú)法獲得27億用戶。對(duì)很多Facebook用戶來(lái)說(shuō)，即便只收1美元也超出了負(fù)擔(dān)能力?！?

無(wú)論大眾能否負(fù)擔(dān)付費(fèi)線上服務(wù)，毫無(wú)疑問(wèn)Facebook正在面臨富裕/貧窮世界之間的矛盾。用戶增長(zhǎng)的主陣地在欠發(fā)達(dá)市場(chǎng)，營(yíng)收卻主要來(lái)自于發(fā)達(dá)市場(chǎng)。去年Facebook用戶總數(shù)增長(zhǎng)了9%，大部分都來(lái)自于非成熟市場(chǎng)。據(jù)Facebook透露，在美國(guó)和加拿大市場(chǎng)上，每個(gè)用戶每個(gè)季度能為公司貢獻(xiàn)35美元收入，達(dá)到亞太地區(qū)10倍以上。至少?gòu)呢?cái)務(wù)角度來(lái)看，用戶增長(zhǎng)的地區(qū)出現(xiàn)了錯(cuò)位?！拔覀冾A(yù)計(jì)，未來(lái)用戶增長(zhǎng)將主要集中在平均每個(gè)用戶貢獻(xiàn)營(yíng)收相對(duì)較低的地區(qū)?！?今年1月，F(xiàn)acebook在10-K年度報(bào)告中指出。桑德伯格聲稱(chēng)并不關(guān)注該趨勢(shì)?！拔覀儾粫?huì)因?yàn)樽儸F(xiàn)機(jī)會(huì)有差異，對(duì)不同國(guó)家和不同市場(chǎng)上用戶增長(zhǎng)策略區(qū)別對(duì)待?！彼硎尽！拔覀兿ＭB接每個(gè)人?！?!-- cend -->

People are as much a part of Facebook’s solutions to its problems as computers. It has tripled its number of content moderators, contractors it hires to monitor postings in Facebook’s News Feed section, from 10,000 in 2017 to 30,000 today. At the higher end of the organizational chart, Facebook also has beefed up the hiring and redeploying of experts who address specific issues with the information its users see. Molly Cutler, Facebook’s former associate general counsel, now leads a “strategic response” team that meets weekly with chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg. Samidh Chakrabarti, the company’s head of civic engagement, has shifted his focus from voter registration to preventing election interference. Facebook has reassigned engineers in its once separate “safety and security” group to be embedded in individual product teams.

Such fixes are real, yet they are designed to improve Facebook, not to fundamentally change it. Removing terrorist propaganda is a crowd pleaser, argues Gene Munster, a veteran analyst with Loup Ventures, especially compared with the thornier issue of what Facebook does with its users’ data. “They like talking about that because it’s fixable,” he says.

In fact, Facebook argues that beyond the bad actors it unintentionally allowed onto its network, it doesn’t even have a problem to fix. Instead, it maintains that if only its advertising model were better understood, particularly by the public, its problems would be diminished. “It is core to our business,” says Sandberg, of Facebook’s holy trinity of user data, advertiser payments, and free content. “And it is the hardest to explain.”

Sandberg works in the same building as Zuckerberg, and her conference room has a name: “Only Good News.” It is either a wry joke about what she expects to hear from visitors or the greatest example ever of corporate wishful thinking. She and Zuckerberg vigorously push back on the notion that Facebook “sells” user data to marketers. What Facebook allows is the hypertargeting of anonymized users on behalf of marketers so that Facebook and its paying customers can profit from that data. “The actual inherent business model is really strong and much better than any other,” she says by way of explaining why Facebook won’t—?indeed, cannot—give it up. What’s more, Facebook sees its business model as a win-win. “It’s much better than selling subscriptions, which only rich people can afford. You cannot have 2.7 billion people on a service if you charge. For a lot of the people who use our services, even a dollar would be out of range.”

Whether or not the masses can pay to use online services, Facebook undeniably faces a rich world/poor world conundrum. Its growth is in the latter, but its profitability lies in the former. Last year the number of overall users grew 9%, much of the growth coming from outside its mature markets. Facebook said it makes an average of nearly $35 quarterly on each user in the U.S. and Canada, more than 10 times what it collects in the Asia Pacific region. From a financial perspective, at least, the growth is in the wrong part of the world. “We expect that user growth in the future will be primarily concentrated in those regions where [average per-user revenue] is relatively lower,” the company said in its 10-K annual report, filed in January. Sandberg professes to be unconcerned about the trend. “We don’t ?really prioritize countries and user growth based on monetization opportunities,” she says. “We want to connect everyone.”

用戶地區(qū)分布復(fù)雜只是從宏觀層面影響Facebook業(yè)務(wù)發(fā)展的問(wèn)題。Facebook新收購(gòu)的公司，包括Instagram（2012年以10億美元收購(gòu)）和WhatsApp（2014年以220億美元收購(gòu)）都沒(méi)有實(shí)現(xiàn)大規(guī)模盈利，盡管Instagram的增速一直很快。WhatsApp方面，業(yè)務(wù)在全球拓展得很廣，截至目前有15億用戶，但到現(xiàn)在還沒(méi)有找到清晰的業(yè)務(wù)模式。Facebook的大本營(yíng)Facebook.com發(fā)展也陷入停滯。 “Facebook主要的增長(zhǎng)來(lái)自于Instagram，明年某一時(shí)間段Facebook核心營(yíng)收可能只有個(gè)位數(shù)增長(zhǎng)。” Stifel的分析師斯科特·德威特對(duì)客戶表示。他認(rèn)為其他互聯(lián)網(wǎng)公司更值得投資。

The geographic mix is just one macro issue buffeting Facebook’s business. Its newer enterprises, including Instagram (purchased in 2012 for $1 billion) and WhatsApp (acquired for $22 billion in 2014) haven’t yet translated into big revenue opportunities, though ?Instagram has been growing rapidly. Whats?App, in particular, has huge global reach—it has 1.5 billion users worldwide but no obvious business model. What began as Facebook.com, the original Facebook, has become positively becalmed. “The majority of growth is coming from Instagram, with core Facebook revenue growth likely to hit high single digits sometime next year,” Stifel analyst Scott Devitt writes to clients. He says other Internet companies make for better investments.

2012年，烏薩馬·法亞德雄心勃勃地啟動(dòng)了一個(gè)項(xiàng)目，還招募了兩名法國(guó)博士。任務(wù)是根據(jù)成長(zhǎng)中的硅谷公司Facebook提供的數(shù)據(jù)，弄清楚公司對(duì)個(gè)人用戶購(gòu)買(mǎi)行為的判斷有多準(zhǔn)確。當(dāng)時(shí)Facebook的用戶數(shù)約為10億。法亞德自己就是研究的對(duì)象。

法亞德并不算隨機(jī)用戶。約十年前，當(dāng)時(shí)如日中天的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)公司雅虎收購(gòu)了他創(chuàng)辦的數(shù)據(jù)挖掘創(chuàng)業(yè)公司DMX Group，之后法亞德加入雅虎成為第一任首席數(shù)據(jù)官。法亞德在任期間，雅虎的廣告業(yè)務(wù)從2000萬(wàn)美元增長(zhǎng)到5億美元，開(kāi)創(chuàng)了定向用戶行為的做法。測(cè)試時(shí)，法亞德在移動(dòng)設(shè)備個(gè)性化購(gòu)物應(yīng)用Blue Kangaroo擔(dān)任首席技術(shù)官，此舉目的是評(píng)估Facebook廣告的有效性。（劇透一下：不管是以前還是現(xiàn)在，F(xiàn)acebook的廣告都很有效。）

身為業(yè)內(nèi)人士，法亞德對(duì)在網(wǎng)上過(guò)多分享個(gè)人數(shù)據(jù)非常謹(jǐn)慎，留在Facebook上的數(shù)字足跡很有限。2006年，F(xiàn)acebook對(duì)非大學(xué)生用戶開(kāi)放注冊(cè)不久，法亞德便迅速注冊(cè)了賬號(hào)。但他主頁(yè)上介紹的詳細(xì)信息很少，沒(méi)有加入任何群，也沒(méi)有在別人帖子下發(fā)表評(píng)論。雖然賬號(hào)加了數(shù)千個(gè)“好友”，但大部分都經(jīng)常見(jiàn)的熟人。然而，F(xiàn)acebook對(duì)法亞德“熟人”的習(xí)慣已經(jīng)非常了解，足以推測(cè)出法亞德可能做出的購(gòu)物決定。“推給我的購(gòu)物‘建議’都很有誘惑力?！彼f(shuō)，“原因很簡(jiǎn)單，你的好友喜歡，很有可能你也會(huì)喜歡?！?/p>

法亞德研究之后幾年里，隨著數(shù)據(jù)來(lái)源增加，F(xiàn)acebook定位用戶的能力也不斷加強(qiáng)。大部分補(bǔ)充數(shù)據(jù)來(lái)自于Facebook本身，主要通過(guò)新功能比如視頻流媒體服務(wù)Facebook Live或Reactions?！癛eactions”是點(diǎn)贊按鈕的升級(jí)版，用戶可以對(duì)平臺(tái)上的內(nèi)容表達(dá)“熱愛(ài)”、“悲傷”、“生氣”等情緒反饋。（通過(guò)用戶觀看的視頻類(lèi)型和對(duì)各種內(nèi)容的反應(yīng)，廣告商可以大致判斷出身份喜好等。）但在此過(guò)程中，F(xiàn)acebook也積攢了各種其他數(shù)據(jù)，不少第三方供應(yīng)商希望分一杯羹。事實(shí)證明，F(xiàn)acebook無(wú)法控制第三方信息與平臺(tái)自身數(shù)據(jù)混合使用，比如政治研究公司劍橋分析濫用其用戶信息后，F(xiàn)acebook聲稱(chēng)該行為違反了公司規(guī)定。

之后的風(fēng)暴削弱了Facebook的可信度，連在平臺(tái)上投放廣告且獲益匪淺的廣告商也開(kāi)始離開(kāi)。Facebook在決定切斷與第三方數(shù)據(jù)供應(yīng)商的聯(lián)系時(shí)，受損的還不僅僅是聲譽(yù)?！昂?jiǎn)直是搬石頭砸自己的腳?！痹诰€廣告咨詢(xún)公司W(wǎng)ordStream的營(yíng)銷(xiāo)專(zhuān)家艾倫·芬恩表示，“劍橋分析丑聞之后，他們的廣告定位能力也削弱了。”

種種變化已經(jīng)傷害到Facebook的廣告，但并未削弱其效果，因?yàn)橐恍┞斆鞯膹V告技術(shù)專(zhuān)家總有辦法將Facebook的數(shù)據(jù)與第三方數(shù)據(jù)結(jié)合起來(lái)?！半S著各種變化出現(xiàn)，我們也不得不重新調(diào)整?！?在線零售商TechStyle Fashion Group的首席媒體官勞拉·霍克夫斯基說(shuō)。

Facebook認(rèn)為，提高用戶信任的方法之一是讓用戶更了解Facebook。該理論認(rèn)為，如果消費(fèi)者了解廣告的運(yùn)作方式，就會(huì)繼續(xù)當(dāng)成積極的Facebook體驗(yàn)?！跋M(fèi)者并不了解數(shù)字廣告如何運(yùn)作，這也不是他們的錯(cuò)。” 全球營(yíng)銷(xiāo)解決方案副總裁卡羅琳·埃弗森表示。Facebook努力介紹其廣告模式的一個(gè)辦法是讓用戶點(diǎn)擊單個(gè)廣告后，了解為何該廣告會(huì)出現(xiàn)在自己面前。但是，“為什么我會(huì)看到這條廣告？”的按鈕介紹不太詳細(xì)，僅提供粗略的信息，比如有家零售商希望觸達(dá)特定區(qū)域特定年齡段的用戶。Facebook表示，仍在研究“為什么我會(huì)看到這條廣告？” 功能細(xì)節(jié)，將提升透明度，加強(qiáng)用戶對(duì)數(shù)據(jù)的掌控。舉例來(lái)說(shuō)，F(xiàn)acebook宣布將“清除歷史記錄”按鈕，方便用戶刪除活動(dòng)記錄，比較類(lèi)似于多年來(lái)網(wǎng)絡(luò)瀏覽器軟件提供的功能。

種種調(diào)整加起來(lái)也不過(guò)是點(diǎn)到為止，只能證明Facebook正在調(diào)整，只不過(guò)幅度非常小。

In 2012, Usama Fayyad enlisted two French Ph.D.s in an ambitious project. Their task was to figure out just how accurately Facebook could determine an individual user’s purchasing behavior, based on the data available to the growing Silicon Valley company, which had about a billion users at the time. He made himself the subject of the study.

Fayyad was no random sample. Nearly a decade earlier, he had been Yahoo’s first chief data officer after the then-booming Internet company acquired his data-mining startup, DMX Group. Yahoo grew its ad business from $20 million to $500 million during Fayyad’s time there, pioneering the use of behavioral targeting of users. Now, as the chief technology officer of Blue Kangaroo, a personalized shopping app for mobile devices, he was trying to assess the effectiveness of Facebook’s ads. (Spoiler alert: They were, and are, extremely effective.)

Because of his insider’s wariness of sharing too much personal data online, Fayyad’s own digital footprint on Facebook was limited. He had created a Facebook account soon after non–college students were allowed to, in 2006, but he had very few defining details on his page. Fayyad hadn’t joined any groups and didn’t comment on other people’s posts. And while he had accrued several thousand “friends,” the vast majority weren’t people he regularly interacted with. As it turned out, Facebook’s knowledge of the habits of Fayyad’s acquaintances was more than enough to guess the kinds of purchasing decisions he was likely to make. “The shopping ‘signal’ for me was pretty strong,” he says. “Your friends are very likely to like what you like.”

In the years since Fayyad’s study, Facebook’s ability to target customers has only improved as its data sources have grown. Much of that additional data has come from Facebook itself, via new features like Facebook Live, its live-streaming video service, or the launch of Reactions, a more nuanced version of the Like button that allows users to express love, sadness, anger, and other emotional responses to content on the platform. (The videos that users watch and their reactions to all sorts of content can tell marketers a lot about who they are.) But the company also accumulated all sorts of other data sources from third-party providers eager to share the spoils. Facebook proved unable to control how the mix of third-party information and its own data got used, such as when political researcher Cambridge Analytica violated Facebook’s rules, the company says, to harvest and act on Facebook user profiles.

The ensuing firestorm began to chip away at Facebook’s credibility—even with the marketers who get so much value from the ads they buy on its platform. Facebook then hurt more than its reputation when it decided to cut off the third-party data providers. “They really shot themselves in the foot,” says Allen Finn, a marketing specialist with online advertising consultancy WordStream. “They’ve dampened the ability to do ad targeting following Cambridge Analytica.”

The changes have hurt????—but have not crippled—the effectiveness of Facebook’s ads because there are ways clever ad-tech specialists can combine Facebook’s data with third-party data. “As these changes took place, we had to renavigate a little bit,” says Laura Joukovski, chief media officer at TechStyle Fashion Group, an online retailer.

Facebook believes one way to improve trust on the part of users is to help them better understand Facebook itself. The theory is that if consumers understand how ads work, they’ll continue to view them as a positive aspect of the Facebook experience. “Consumers—and it’s not their fault—do not understand how digital advertising works,” says Carolyn Everson, vice president of global marketing solutions. One of the ways Facebook is trying to shed light on its advertising model is by letting users click on individual ads to find out why they’re being put in front of them. But the “Why am I seeing this?” button doesn’t go into much detail, providing cursory information such as suggesting a retailer wants to reach people of a certain age in a given location. Facebook says it is still working out the kinks to the “Why am I seeing this?” feature and is in the process of allowing for much greater transparency and data controls. For example, it has announced it will offer a Clear History button that gives users the ability to erase their activity, much as web browser software has allowed for years.

The tweaks add up to just enough changes, more grist for the argument that Facebook is adapting—but only as little as possible.

即便Facebook采取更為徹底的調(diào)整措施，也是因?yàn)槠炔坏靡?，并非心甘情愿?020年，加州有史以來(lái)第一部州級(jí)別的數(shù)據(jù)隱私法將生效，除非美國(guó)國(guó)會(huì)趕在前面通過(guò)全國(guó)性的隱私法案。人稱(chēng)《加利福尼亞州消費(fèi)者隱私法案》（CCPA）里囊括了最嚴(yán)格的規(guī)定，可能對(duì)Facebook等公司采取前所未有的限制。該法案將給消費(fèi)者更高的個(gè)人數(shù)據(jù)控制權(quán)，允許查看與自己有關(guān)的哪些數(shù)據(jù)正在被收集，以及數(shù)據(jù)使用方式。消費(fèi)者還將可以點(diǎn)擊刪除在線信息，類(lèi)似于“清除歷史記錄”按鈕，不過(guò)針對(duì)的是整個(gè)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)。

面臨如此嚴(yán)格的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，顯然科技業(yè)很不愿接受。加州州長(zhǎng)蓋文·紐森還希望更進(jìn)一步。“感謝加州議會(huì)去年通過(guò)了國(guó)內(nèi)第一部數(shù)字隱私法?！?月中旬他首次發(fā)表州情咨文演講時(shí)說(shuō)。“但加州消費(fèi)者還應(yīng)該從個(gè)人數(shù)據(jù)創(chuàng)造的財(cái)富中分得屬于自己的一部分?！?

紐森的提議是“數(shù)據(jù)紅利”思路，即要求互聯(lián)網(wǎng)公司為使用用戶信息支付費(fèi)用，他并不是唯一持此觀點(diǎn)的人。民主黨2020年總統(tǒng)候選人伊麗莎白·沃倫等人呼吁，應(yīng)該拆分Facebook等巨頭。此時(shí)此刻，F(xiàn)acebook只能希望是聯(lián)邦法律比州法律更快出臺(tái)，因?yàn)榛ヂ?lián)網(wǎng)行業(yè)預(yù)期聯(lián)邦法律會(huì)寬松一點(diǎn)。

不管怎樣，即將到來(lái)的法律限制將對(duì)Facebook產(chǎn)生深遠(yuǎn)的影響。公司已經(jīng)充分體會(huì)到歐盟的《通用數(shù)據(jù)保護(hù)條例》（GDPR）帶來(lái)的影響。新法律下，歐洲消費(fèi)者對(duì)在線數(shù)據(jù)掌握更大的控制權(quán)，互聯(lián)網(wǎng)公司利用某些類(lèi)型的數(shù)據(jù)之前必須先征得用戶同意。任何違反該規(guī)定的公司可面臨年收入4%的處罰，如果Facebook出問(wèn)題，罰金會(huì)超過(guò)20億美元。更糟糕的是，該法律還會(huì)削弱Facebook銷(xiāo)售定向廣告的能力?！啊锻ㄓ脭?shù)據(jù)保護(hù)條例》出臺(tái)后，”桑德伯格說(shuō)，“歐洲有些人已經(jīng)撤回某些類(lèi)型的定向廣告。歐洲廣告的重要性會(huì)降低?！睋Q句話說(shuō)，包括Facebook在內(nèi)的整個(gè)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)行業(yè)財(cái)務(wù)上都已經(jīng)受到影響。

監(jiān)管政策變化也會(huì)產(chǎn)生累積效應(yīng)。過(guò)去廣告主選擇Facebook是因?yàn)槠洹案采w面廣，又具有極精準(zhǔn)的定向能力”，研究公司eMarketer的首席分析師黛波拉·阿霍·威廉姆森表示?！昂翢o(wú)疑問(wèn)，隨著歐盟法案出臺(tái)，相關(guān)廣告的定向能力將逐漸削弱?！彪S著未來(lái)全球各地（包括華盛頓特區(qū)）陸續(xù)采取類(lèi)似措施，廣告定向能力還會(huì)加速減弱，Stifel的斯科特·戴維特表示，“Facebook的管理團(tuán)隊(duì)樹(shù)敵太多，政客、監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)、技術(shù)領(lǐng)袖、消費(fèi)者和員工等等，公司業(yè)務(wù)難以承受長(zhǎng)期負(fù)面針對(duì)?！?

監(jiān)管政策不會(huì)在一夜之間落實(shí)，但已經(jīng)有競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手開(kāi)始利用Facebook的弱點(diǎn)。有史以來(lái)第一次，大對(duì)頭谷歌之外的其它對(duì)手也能跟Facebook一較高下。比如，亞馬遜也攢起了海量消費(fèi)者購(gòu)買(mǎi)行為數(shù)據(jù)。抖音國(guó)際版音樂(lè)應(yīng)用TikTok最近下載量突破了10億，許多用戶都比Facebook上逐漸老去的用戶年輕得多。（不過(guò)太受年輕人歡迎也惹了麻煩：近日聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會(huì)因TikTok違反兒童隱私法罰款570萬(wàn)美元。）各種新現(xiàn)象對(duì)Facebook來(lái)說(shuō)都像個(gè)陌生的世界，其增長(zhǎng)緩慢又賺錢(qián)的核心產(chǎn)品遭遇了史上最嚴(yán)厲的審查，快速創(chuàng)新的道路上又面臨著前所未有的阻礙。

If Facebook does change in more fundamental ways, it will be because it has to, not because it wants to. In 2020, the first-ever state data-privacy law will take effect in California, unless Congress can hurriedly pass a law to preempt it nationwide. The so-called California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) is one of the most stringent sets of rules that could soon put unprecedented restrictions on Facebook and companies like it. The law would give consumers much more control over their data, allowing them to see what online information is being collected on them and how it’s being used. They’ll also be able to hit “delete” on their online information—a kind of Clear History button but for the entire Internet.

It’s a high bar that pretty much no one in the tech industry wants to meet. California Governor Gavin Newsom wants to take it a step further. “I applaud this legislature for passing the first-in-the-nation digital privacy law last year,” he said in his first State of the State Address in mid-February. “But California’s consumers should also be able to share in the wealth that is created from their data.”

Newsom’s proposal is a “data dividend” that would require Internet companies to pay users for use of their information, and he’s not the only one supporting it. Some, like Democratic 2020 presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren, are calling for companies like Facebook to be broken up. At this point, Facebook’s best hope is that federal regulations come together faster than state-led laws, as the Internet industry hopes the fed rules will end up being more lenient.

Either way, the upcoming restrictions will have a lasting impact on Facebook. The company is already seeing the repercussions of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The new laws aim to give European consumers more control over their online information, requiring companies to gain consent from users before utilizing certain types of data. Failure to comply can result in fines up to 4% of a company’s annual revenue—more than $2 billion, in Facebook’s case. Even worse, the laws can cut into the company’s ability to sell targeted ads. “With GDPR,” says Sandberg, “there’s a percentage of people in Europe that have opted out of certain kinds of targeting. Those ads are going to be less relevant.” In other words, the Internet industry, including Facebook, already is taking a financial hit there.?

The regulatory changes promise to have a cumulative effect. Historically, what advertisers use Facebook for is its broad reach and extremely specific targeting capabilities,” says Debra Aho Williamson, principal analyst with researcher eMarketer. “It is true that those targeting capabilities are starting to be chipped away from GDPR.” It’s a process that could accelerate with similar moves around the world, including in Washington, D.C. Says Stifel’s Scott Devitt: “Facebook’s management team has created too many adversaries—politicians, regulators, tech leaders, consumers, and employees—to not experience long-term negative ramifications on its business.”?

Regulation won’t kick in overnight, but already competitors are capitalizing on Facebook’s vulnerabilities. For the first time, it has viable rivals in addition to arch-nemesis Google. There’s Amazon, which has incomparable purchasing behavior data on its customers, and TikTok, the music-video app that recently passed 1 billion downloads, many by customers much younger than Facebook’s ?aging users. (Popularity with youngsters brings baggage: The Federal Trade Commission recently fined TikTok $5.7 million for violating child privacy laws.) All of this adds up to a strange new world for Facebook: There is unprecedented scrutiny on its slowing yet money-making core product and more obstacles than ever before to innovating quickly.

討論起Facebook面臨的陣痛，不由得讓人聯(lián)想到公司過(guò)去的困境，以及馬克·扎克伯格如何一次次表現(xiàn)出超越年齡的老練。扎克伯格曾經(jīng)堅(jiān)持拒絕出售公司。（2006年雅虎曾經(jīng)提出以10億美元收購(gòu)Facebook。）他挺過(guò)了用戶對(duì)各種設(shè)計(jì)調(diào)整的怒火。2012年，他成功地把Facebook從基于PC桌面的網(wǎng)頁(yè)程序轉(zhuǎn)型為移動(dòng)應(yīng)用，該舉措需要全面調(diào)整開(kāi)發(fā)過(guò)程。

Facebook在全球不斷挖掘新用戶。畢竟，利潤(rùn)最豐厚的市場(chǎng)日趨飽和，要尋找其它利潤(rùn)增長(zhǎng)點(diǎn)。如果未來(lái)是私密通信或閱后自動(dòng)刪除信息的天下，F(xiàn)acebook也希望參與其中?！拔铱偸窍Ｍ@樣管理公司，寧愿付出些成本，或是收入低一點(diǎn)……也要努力打造能經(jīng)得起時(shí)間考驗(yàn)的好產(chǎn)品?！痹瞬裾f(shuō)，暗示了公司新產(chǎn)品將經(jīng)歷痛苦的蛻變，“但我認(rèn)為，隨著時(shí)間推移，不斷尋找合適的模式可以構(gòu)建更強(qiáng)大的社區(qū)?！眲e搞錯(cuò)了，扎克伯格口中的更強(qiáng)大顯然不是指用戶、社會(huì)或議員，他的意思是打造更強(qiáng)大的Facebook。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

本文首發(fā)于2019年4月出版的《財(cái)富》雜志，標(biāo)題為《Facebook大變臉》。

譯者：馮豐

審校：夏林

The discussion of Facebook’s travails often toggles back to its past travails and what a canny, wise-beyond-his-years operator Mark Zuckerberg repeatedly has proved to be. He resisted early calls to sell his company. (Yahoo offered $1 billion in 2006.) He weathered user outrage over various design changes. In 2012 he successfully converted Facebook from a desktop-PC web program to a mobile app, a feat that required a complete retooling of its development process.

Facebook has already circled the globe looking for users. It has saturated the markets that are most profitable for the company, and now it needs to turn to additional ways of making money. If the future is in private messages or pictures that auto-delete, then Facebook wants to be there too. “I’ve always tried to run the company in a way that we’re willing to take on more costs or lower revenue?…?in order to get to what I think will be the better thing over time,” he says, previewing the painful changes the company’s new products will require. “But I just think getting to the right model over time is going to help build a stronger community.” Make no mistake. Zuckerberg doesn’t just mean stronger for users, or society, or lawmakers. He means stronger for Facebook.

This article originally appeared in the April 2019 issue of Fortune with the headline “About Face”.