一天到晚游泳的鱼

昨天网上有很多文章说“Google软化”、“Google改口”等等。这些文章里，大都提到提到了美国《新闻周刊》对谷歌CEO施密特的采访，并以此次采访中的谈话内容来佐证网文标题观点。

那就来看看美国《新闻周刊》上的原文：A Conversation With Google’s Chairman and CEO （中文部分是我翻译的，权当英语练习了）：

Why did you make this decision? It surprised many people and many companies.
Google is a different kind of company than many others. The issue of operating in China was always complex for us. We were asked to accept a system of censorship that we were very uncomfortable with. But we had come to the conclusion that operating in China was better for everyone—us, the Chinese people—than staying out of the country. We have decided that we cannot participate in censorship anymore.

为什么做出这样的决策？这使很多人和公司都感到惊讶。

相比较于大部分公司而言，Google是个不同类型的公司。对我们来说，麻烦在中国国内的运营业务太复杂。我们被要求接受内容审查制度，而对此我们感到很不舒服。但（当时）我们还是得出结论：相对于待在外面，进入中国大陆（运营），对我们和中国人民来，都要更好一些。（现在）我们已经决定不再进行内容审查了。

What happened over the last months to come to this decision?
We came across a lot of evidence of the monitoring of Chinese dissidents through the Web. We do not have clear evidence as to who was doing the monitoring, but you can draw your own conclusions.

在过去几个月发生了什么，促使你们做出这个决定？
我们发现有大量证据表明：在互联网上存在有针对中国异议人士的监控，倒底是谁在这么干，我们并没有明确的证据，但每个人都可以做出自己的判断。

Is there a lot of such monitoring?
There is probably a lot more than what we found.

这样的监控非常多嘛？
可能比我们发现的还要多。

Why did you announce this publicly rather than go to the Chinese government and try to work things out?
We are going to the Chinese government, and we hope we can work things out. But we want to be transparent. We don’t want to keep secrets. So we decided to first make a public announcement and now we are having discussions with the Chinese government.

为什么采用公开的方式声明，而不是去和中国政府一起先尝试解决问题？
我们将要做这件事，我们希望能够把问题解决掉。但我们希望是公开（进行）的，并不想隐瞒什么。所以我们决定先做一个公开的声明，现在，我们正与中国政府讨论此事。

Are they going anywhere?
It’s much too early to tell; they really have just begun.

（这样的监控）是否无处不在？
现在这么说还太早，（其实，）它们还才刚刚开始。

Won’t some people say that you have a fiduciary responsibility to your shareholders to maximize profit?
When we filed for our IPO, we attached to the document a statement about how we wanted to run our business. We said we were going to be different. We said that we were going to be motivated by concerns that were not always or strictly business ones. This is an extension of that view. This was not a business decision—the business decision would obviously have been to continue to participate in the Chinese market. It was a decision based on values. We tried to ask what would be best from a global standpoint.

难道不是有很多人会认为你首先有责任为股东将利益最大化吗？
在申请IPO时，我们已经附加了一份文件来阐述我们会怎样运营。我们说我们将有所不同，我们并不会总是完全从商业利益出发去考虑行事。这（指不再按照中国政府要求对内容进行审查）并不是一个商业决策，如果完全基于商业考虑，显然应该继续留在中国市场（，而非离开）。这是从价值观出发的决策。我们试图基于全局来寻找一个最好的（决策）。

Do you believe that China can still globalize while maintaining its censorship system?
China’s embrace of globalization has been a great boon for China and the world. It has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. But China is placing restrictions on information that few countries place. China is the only country in the world where Google was willing to offer a local site that followed the regime’s censorship laws. We haven’t done this anywhere else. Other countries sometimes block, say, YouTube for a few weeks. But then we talk to them, point out that they were offended by one video out of literally hundreds of millions. And we work things out. So, China places unique limits on information.

即使保持对内容审查制度，中国依然可以进行全球化，你相信这一点吗？
有中国参与的全球化进程已经给中国和全世界带来了巨大的好处。这帮助千百万中国老百姓摆脱了贫穷。但很少有国家会象中国一样进行严格的信息限制。为了配合中国的内容审查规定，Google不得不建立一个独立的本地站点（指google.cn），这在全世界范围内独此一家，在其他任何国家内我们都没有这么做。其他国家有时，比如说，会禁止访问YouTube几周时间。但如果我们告诉他们，攻击批评了他们的视频，只是千百万的视频短片中的一个视频的话，问题自然就会解决。所以说，只是中国进行了独有的信息管制。

And this will hurt them economically?
I believe it will in the long run. You’re much better off with a system in which people can be free to imagine, invent, and connect with one another. The more people who can speculate, the better. The more human-to-human connections, the better. Everything we do at Google empowers the individual. And we want to empower the individual.

这会对中国的经济发展有负面的影响吗？（这么问是因为上面有一个问题谈到近年来中国的经济实力的增强）
我相信这（对信息的监管和屏蔽）终究对经济发展造成负面影响。如果人民可以自由地想像、自由地创新、自由地与他人建立连接，生活在这样的社会里，你会幸福得多。愿意思考的人越多，人和人之间的连接越多，（整个社会就会）越好。我们所做的每件事情，都是为了帮助个体变得更强大。我们希望让每个人变得更强大。

What’s the likely outcome here? That [Chinese search engine] Baidu will totally dominate the market?
That’s one possible outcome. The other is that we can work out an agreement with the Chinese government and continue to operate. Or that some other company moves in. And please understand, we will still have engineers, programmers, and others in China. We love China and the Chinese people. This is not about them. It’s about our unwillingness to participate in censorship.

最终事情会发展到怎样的结果？百度会占据绝对份额？
这是一个可能的结果。另外一种可能是我们与中国政府达成协议，从而继续运营下去。或者会有其他的搜索公司进入中国市场。同时也请理解，在中国我们仍然有工程师、程序员以及其他的员工，我们热爱中国和中国人民。这个决策并不是针对他们的，只是由于我们不愿接受内容审查而已。

整个看下来，压根看不出有丁点儿“改口”、“软化”的意思。原来怎么说的，现在还怎么说。

只能说《环球时报》们的编辑记者英文不过关，只看自己认得的字母，这职业素质也忒差了点儿；要不然，就是上学期间被教育部的议论文专项训练弄坏了脑子，全犯了逻辑上的错误：先确定论点，再根据需要组织素材。

否则，还能怎样，总不能说他们是傻逼吧，虽然我就是这么想的。