马克·扎克伯格（MarkZuckerberg）今天开始了媒体之旅，解释Facebook在剑桥分析数据丑闻中的角色以及该公司将如何应对。从Recode到《****》再到CNN，他对每个人都说了或多或少相同的话，但有一个答案很突出：在回答CNN的劳里·塞格尔（Laurie Segall）询问他是否担心Facebook面临世界各国**的监管时，他回答说事实上，我不确定我们是否应该受到监管。我认为总的来说，技术是世界上一个越来越重要的趋势。我认为问题更多的是什么是正确的监管，而不是“我们应该受到监管吗？”

他说，接下来，

There is transparency regulation that I would love to see. If you look at how much regulation there is around advertising on TV and print it’s just not clear why there should be less on the internet. You should have the same level of transparency required. I don’t know if the bill is going to pass, I know a couple of senators are working really hard on this. But we’re committed and we’ve actually already started rolling out ad transparency tools that accomplish most of the things that are in the bills people are talking about today. This is an important thing. People should know who is buying the ads they see on facebook, and you should go to any page and see all the ads that people are running to different audiences.

扎克伯格显然是在引用《诚实广告法》，该法将提供一些透明度。但他没有提到欧洲的GDPR，这从根本上改变了公司使用和存储个人数据的方式。

在接受《连线》采访时，扎克伯格围绕同一个问题提出了一个不同的支点，更具假设性地说，“不过，关于如何监管存在一些非常微妙的问题，我认为这些问题在智力上非常有趣。”让我们看看这句话，其中马克·扎克伯格将其平台上仇恨言论的传播比作鸡肉加工厂的灰尘：

My understanding with food safety is there’s a certain amount of dust that can get into the chicken as its going through the processing, and it’s not a large amount, it needs to be a very **all amount, and I think there’s some understanding that you’re not going to be able to fully solve every single issue if you’re trying to feed hundreds of milli*** of people — or, in our case, build a community of 2 billion people — but that it should be a very high standard, and people should expect that we’re going to do a good job getting the hate speech out.

扎克伯格还向《连线》建议，既然公司能够更好地利用人工智能识别攻击性内容，或许这就导致了对平台内容进行预先审查的监管责任：

Now that companies increasingly over the next five to 10 years, as AI tools get better and better, will be able to proactively determine what might be offensive content or violate some rules, what therefore is the resp***ibility and legal resp***ibility of companies to do that? That, I think, is probably one of the most interesting intellectual and social debates around how you regulate this.

当然，问题在于，这不仅仅是一场“有趣的学术和社会辩论”，而是一场影响世界各地民主和人类生活的真实事件。扎克伯格说，在确定这些规定可能是什么样的时候，他认为“指导方针比规定具体程序要好得多”，并指出他认为德国反对仇恨言论的法律“适得其反”。这是一个有趣的讨论，值得全面阅读《连线》的文章。

无论如何，随着剑桥分析公司（Cambridge Analytica）在全球范围内展开调查，很明显，进一步监管的问题已经摆在桌面上。