本文選自第 59 期會員計劃，發表於 2017 年 4 月 6日。歡迎訪問 https://iois.me/ 獲取最新文章。
作為科技媒體從業者，我在過去幾年參加了不少國內外 IT/互聯網公司的各種峰會，這些大會無一例外都用各種燈光、LED包裝舞臺，碩大的舞臺上往往只有一個演講人，或用語言或用圖片或用視頻展示著該公司一個個的「創新」。在強烈的燈光照射下，讓演講人幾乎看不到臺下幾千個觀眾的表情或樣子，正是在這種環境裡，演講人更加投入地解讀公司的「創新技術」。
我曾經在參加某次科技大會之後感嘆：如果技術也是一種宗教，我們還有沒有權利或可能做一個異教徒？
得到的回覆幾乎都是「不可能」。這看起來是一件很悲哀的事情，人類原本以技術為自己帶來更多自由，可到頭來技術卻讓人類變得更不自由。正如波茲曼曾一針見血談到的：**中世紀神父用酒、水和禱告來推薦上帝，如今技術專家則用報表、數字和調查來宣揚技術。
今天，我們沉浸在「解決方案主義」的旗幟下聆聽「技術萬能佈道者」的傳教，同樣也是今天，我將選取數篇反思所謂技術創新如何惠澤人類的文章，以引用式的文體展現關於技術發展、商業模式創新的另一面。
擁有「業界最強心理學能力」的 Uber
Uber 一度被認為是技術和商業創新的最佳代名詞。它象徵著最酷的移動互聯網（智能手機）、物聯網（一鍵觸達實體，汽車）、使用權大於擁有權等等理念與技術的結合，也一度因為全球各地傳統勢力的打壓而成為媒體同情支持的典型公司。
但最近關於 Uber 的壞新聞實在是太多了，不僅包括其商業模式的問題，還涉及到其公司文化的討論，週末《紐約時報》的這篇長文，就係統性揭露了 Uber 如何利用心理學家「打壓」司機：
Uber’s innovations reflect the changing ways companies are managing workers amid the rise of the freelance-based “gig economy.” Its drivers are officially independent business owners rather than traditional employees with set schedules. This allows Uber to minimize labor costs, but means it cannot compel drivers to show up at a specific place and time. And this lack of control can wreak havoc on a service whose goal is to seamlessly transport passengers whenever and wherever they want.
Uber helps solve this fundamental problem by using psychological inducements and other techniques unearthed by social science to influence when, where and how long drivers work. It’s a quest for a perfectly efficient system: a balance between rider demand and driver supply at the lowest cost to passengers and the company.
…..
To keep drivers on the road, the company has exploited some people’s tendency to set earnings goals — alerting them that they are ever so close to hitting a precious target when they try to log off. It has even concocted an algorithm similar to a Netflix feature that automatically loads the next program, which many experts believe encourages binge-watching. In Uber’s case, this means sending drivers their next fare opportunity before their current ride is even over.
對 Uber 這樣的公司來說，人類司機已經成為其最高昂的成本——這也就不難理解為何這家公司會如此重視自動駕駛的研發，然而另一方面，《紐約時報》也注意到，短期內，隨著 Uber 繼續聘用人類司機，並進軍其他領域，由此帶來的影響將是深遠的：
It is, as a result, not too hard to imagine a future in which massive digital platforms like Uber have an appetite for tens of millions of workers — not only for ferrying people, but also for delivering food and retail goods. Nor is it hard to imagine workers’ obliging them, perhaps because their skills do not match the needs of more traditional employers, or because they need to supplement their wages.
In such an economy, experts say, using big data and algorithms to manage workers will not simply be a niche phenomenon. It may become one of the most common ways of managing the American labor force.
Uber 們成與敗背後是硅谷盛行的「bro culture」
HBO 的熱播美劇《硅谷》一直以嬉笑怒罵的態度解構著硅谷的荒誕故事，而參與第二季劇本撰寫的 Dan Lyons 則是個頗有故事的人：
前《新聞週刊》科技編輯 Dan Lyons 在 52 歲時加入一家創業公司HubSpot，擔任營銷員，他將自己的經歷寫成了一本書 Disrupted: My Misadventure in the Start-Up Bubble:Dan Lyons描述了他在創業公司內目睹的可笑故事，處於頂層的人們正從遊戲中獲利，他們操縱遊戲使之有利於自己……他們把虧損的初創企業變成了讓少數投資者受益的金融工具……與此同時，科技從業者被告知公司的需要比他們自己的更重要。
Dan Lyons 最近在《紐約時報》繼續撰文批評硅谷的「bro culture」：
What is bro culture? Basically, a world that favors young men at the expense of everyone else. A “bro co.” has a “bro” C.E.O., or C.E.-Bro, usually a young man who has little work experience but is good-looking, cocky and slightly amoral — a hustler. Instead of being forced by investors to surround himself with seasoned executives, he is left to make decisions on his own.
Lyons 將 Uber 作為典型的「bro culture」公司，這家公司有著一個絕對意義上的老大 Travis Kalanick，但現在 Uber 的困境恰恰來自於這類基因。某種意義上，當年的 FB 也曾是一家「bro culture」驅動的公司，不過扎克伯格在最關鍵的時刻挖來 Sheryl Sandberg，成為 FB 隨後穩健發展的關鍵要素，也因此，Lyons 認為，Uber 考慮聘請經驗豐富的 COO 是一個正確的決定，但時間已經不多了：
Uber’s collapse should not come as a surprise but it does offer a lesson: Toxic workplace culture and rotten financial performance go hand-in-hand. It’s possible for a boorish jerk to run a successful company, but jerks do best when surrounded by non-jerks, and bros do best when they hire seasoned executives to help them. Without “adult supervision” and institutional restraints, the C.E.-Bro’s vices end up infecting the culture of the workplaces they control.
Tim Berners-Lee 的夢想與現實
Tim Berners-Lee 終於拿到了圖靈獎，之所以說「終於」，是因為這個獎對於他來說，真是實至名歸，沒有他，至少人類進入所謂互聯互通的時間要晚上數年甚至數十年，但他的最大貢獻在於始終堅持一件事：讓 Web 變得更開放。
然而現實卻跟 Tim Berners-Lee 開了一個不大不小的玩笑，從社交媒體到移動互聯網，封閉的花園成為一種行業共識，互聯網巨頭們，如美國的 FB、Google 、亞馬遜、蘋果，中國的 BAT 或 TMD ，就像黑洞一樣吞噬掉整個互聯網的流量，成為一個個封閉花園裡的那個萬能的中心。
獲獎後的 Tim Berners-Lee 接受了多家媒體的採訪，但這篇來自《衛報》的採訪內容最豐富，Tim Berners-Lee 闡述了 Web 帶來的真正價值、當下社交媒體的負面影響以及關於隱私的思考：
The idea was that it was universal and there should be no boundaries to it. There should be a sense that you can put anything on it: you can put scribbled notes on it, you can put beautiful artwork on it, and you can connect them together so people can go back later and see a connection between the scribbled note and the artwork it became. And you should be able to link to anything, and so you should be able to put anything on the web. That was the driving force behind the design, and motivation for trying to get people onboard.
…….
There are a core group of people from within the web community definitely pushing it from that point of view. Right now, though, there are people who despair because everyone’s in the same social network and it’s just as though they had just dialed up to America Online. They might as well have kept America Online, rather than move to Facebook! It’s a game they’re living; a nice, useful, but non-decentralized thing. People are trying to – I call it re-decentralizing the web. Originally the web was decentralized; now it seems to be centralized again. What can we build which will end up re-decentralizing it?
…….
Privacy, a core American value, is not a partisan thing. Democrats fight for it and Republicans fight for it too, maybe even more. So I am very shocked that the Republican party has managed to suggest that it should be trashed; if anyone follows up on this direction, there will be a massive pushback – and there must be a massive pushback!
如果硅谷的這些「精英」開始作惡…..
如上文所言，倘若當下我們沉浸在「技術佈道者」的甜言蜜語之中的話，那麼下面這幅圖裡的這些人毫無疑問是這個時代最具影響力的「技術佈道者」——他們因計算機、互聯網的發展不僅成為當下的億萬富翁，還具有巨大的權力——想象一下 Google 修改一下搜索算法會讓多少公司破產或者想象一下 FB 的News Feed 算法對於媒體的影響……
假如這些精英開始作惡，你能想象到的最壞樣子又是什麼？這篇文章就試圖解開這個看似不可能成立的命題，先來看看扎克伯格：
Dark Origin Story: All he wanted to do was drink beer, rate hot chicks, and Poke people. But Facebook users kept pouring in, even when he purposefully misused their data again and again. The day he attained his 1 billionth user was the day he decided he’d connect everyone in the world, whether they wanted to be or not.
Villainous Traits: Harvard student; eats toast like an automaton; shameless copycat.
Most Villainous Moment: When he was still at Harvard, Zuckerberg bragged that he had access to pictures, emails, and addresses of thousands of Facebook users who were “dumb fucks” for trusting him.
Doomsday Device: The News Feed, which has the ability to affect people’s moods (and elections), could be weaponized by Zuckerberg to unleash an unprecedented FOMO outbreak.
How to Stop Him: Install an ad blocker.
再來看一個亞馬遜的貝佐斯：
Dark Origin Story: The first book Amazon ever sold was Machiavelli’s The Prince.
Villainous Traits: Bald; building an army of flying robots; made his grandma cry.
Most Villainous Moment: Got to go back to that image of him gleefully controlling a horrifying robot mech.
Doomsday Device: On next year’s Prime Day, he will offer all products for 50 percent off. After customers irrationally empty their bank accounts in the pursuit of deals, he will fulfill zero orders as he makes off with the entirety of the United States GDP.
How to Stop Him: Surmount your crippling need to avoid human interaction in physical stores.
最後則是貝佐斯前不久發的一條 Tweet：
閱讀更多 趙賽坡商業評論 的文章
