外刊精读:精准操控用户的科技公司(PDF

Stop big tech from making users behave in ways they don’t want to

阻止大型科技公司操纵用户行为

【第一段】

SOMEWHERE IN META’S servers sat a slide deck marked “Confidential”. Written in 2019, its conclusion was blunt: “Teens can’t switch off from Instagram even if they want to.” On March 25th this year, a Los Angeles jury read it into the record and found Meta and YouTube liable for designing addictive products. The world is continuing to digest this landmark ruling and figure out its implications.

在Meta的服务器某处，存放着一个标有“机密”的幻灯片文档。该文档写于2019年，其结论直言不讳：“即使青少年想关掉Instagram，他们也做不到。”今年3月25日，洛杉矶的一个陪审团将其记录在案，并裁定Meta和YouTube对设计具有成瘾性的产品负有责任。全世界仍在消化这一具有里程碑意义的裁决，并思考其影响。

• META’s servers /ˈsɜːvəz/ Meta的服务器

• liable /ˈlaɪəbl/ – 有责任的，负有法律责任的

• landmark ruling /ˈlændmɑːk ˈruːlɪŋ/ – 里程碑式裁决

• implication /ˌɪmplɪˈkeɪʃən/ – 可能的影响或后果

• liable for designing addictive products 对设计成瘾性产品负有责任

• slide deck：演示文稿

【第二段】

When I practised competition law in the early 2000s, the race between competitors could turn ugly in familiar ways: predatory pricing, foreclosure, killer acquisitions, pay-for-delay. Such practices were eventually prosecuted, and resolved with hefty fines and the occasional structural remedy.

本世纪初我执业竞争法时，竞争对手之间的竞赛可能以人们熟悉的方式变得丑陋：掠夺性定价、排他性行为、杀手型收购、延迟付费协议。这些行为最终都受到了起诉，并以巨额罚款和偶尔的结构性补救措施告终。

• predatory pricing /ˈpredətəri ˈpraɪsɪŋ/ 掠夺性定价

• foreclosure /fɔːˈkləʊʒə/ 排他性行为/取消赎回权

• killer acquisitions /ˈkɪlə ækwɪˈzɪʃənz/ 杀手型收购

• structural remedy /ˈstrʌktʃərəl ˈremədi/  结构性补救措施

• pay-for-delay /peɪ fɔː dɪˈleɪ/ 延迟付费协议

【第三段】

The internal documents produced in KGM v Meta Platforms describe a different race entirely. In 2016 Meta was losing ground to TikTok and Snapchat. That year, executives set the “overall company goal” as total teen time spent. Why? An internal memo found that 12-year-olds were three times as likely as 32-year-olds to stay on Facebook for the long term, despite the platform nominally requiring users to be at least 13; the memo concluded that Facebook “should consider investing more heavily in bringing in larger volumes of tweens”.

KGM诉Meta Platforms案中披露的内部文件描述了一场完全不同的竞赛。2016年，Meta正在输给TikTok和Snapchat。那一年，高管们将“公司总体目标”设定为“青少年总花费时长”。为什么？一份内部备忘录发现，尽管该平台名义上要求用户至少年满13岁，但12岁用户长期留在Facebook上的可能性是32岁用户的三倍；该备忘录得出结论，Facebook“应该考虑加大投入，吸引更多的‘准青少年’（tweens）用户”。

• total teen time spent 青少年总花费时长

• nominal /ˈnɒmɪnl/  名义上的

• tweens /twiːnz/ 准青少年（通常指8-12岁儿童）

【第四段】

The logic was ruthlessly simple: children who arrived the youngest were the “stickiest” users. Hence the formulation later read aloud in court: “If we wanna win big with teens, we must bring them in as tweens.”

这个逻辑极其简单而残酷：来得最早的孩子是“最具粘性”的用户。因此，后来在法庭上当众宣读的表述是：“如果我们想在与青少年的竞争中大获全胜，就必须在他们还是‘准青少年’时就吸引他们进来。”

• ruthlessly /ˈruːθləsli/ 残酷地，无情地

• stickiest /ˈstɪkiɪst/  最具粘性的

• formulation /ˌfɔːmjʊˈleɪʃən/ 表述方式；公式化表达

• stickiest /ˈstɪkiɪst/ 最具粘性的

【第五段】

The company knew exactly what it was building. Internal research established an “addict’s narrative”: teens spending too much time on a compulsive activity they knew was negative but felt powerless to resist. One employee message read: “Oh my gosh y’all, [Instagram] is a drug. We’re basically pushers.”

该公司完全清楚自己在构建什么。内部研究确立了一种“成瘾者叙事”：青少年在一项他们明知是消极的、却感到无力抗拒的强迫性活动上花费了太多时间。一名员工的信息写道：“天哪，各位，[Instagram]是一种毒品。我们基本上就是毒贩。”

• addict’s narrative /ˈædɪkts/ /ˈnærətɪv/ 成瘾者叙事

• pushers /ˈpʊʃəz/ 推销者（含贬义）（毒贩）

【第六段】

The underlying mechanism here is what I now call predatory design. It takes various forms. A case involving Amazon tells the same story with different prey. In 2023 America’s Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sued Amazon over its Prime subscription programme, alleging the company had engineered its interface to trap consumers into memberships they had not chosen and could not easily escape. Amazon’s internal documents called the approach misdirection: a large, prominent button reading “Get FREE Two-Day Shipping” that enrolled users in Prime, and a small grey text link, easy to miss, to decline.

这背后的机制，我现在称之为“掠夺性设计”。它有多种形式。一个涉及亚马逊的案件讲述着同样的故事，只是猎物不同。2023年，美国联邦贸易委员会（FTC）起诉了亚马逊的Prime订阅项目，指控该公司设计其界面，将消费者诱入他们没有选择且无法轻易退出的会员计划中。亚马逊的内部文件将这种方法称为“误导”：一个又大又显眼的按钮，上面写着“获得免费两日送达”，点击就会让用户加入Prime，而拒绝选项则是一个容易被忽略的灰色小文字链接。

• predatory design /ˈpredətəri/ 掠夺性设计

• trap into /træp ˈɪntə/ 诱入，使陷入

• misdirection /ˌmɪsdəˈrekʃən/ 误导

【第七段】

An internal memo recorded the reasoning with striking candour: making the process clearer for users was not the “right approach” because it would cause a shock to business performance.

一份内部备忘录以惊人的坦率记录了其理由：让流程对用户更清晰并非“正确的做法”，因为那会对业务表现造成“冲击”。

• candour /ˈkændə/ 坦诚，直率

• business performance /ˈbɪznəs pəˈfɔːməns/ 业务表现

• shock /ʃɒk/ 冲击

【第八段】

Cancellation was designed with the same logic applied in reverse. The process, which Amazon internally named the Iliad Flow after Homer’s epic of the long Trojan war, required users to navigate four pages, six clicks and 15 separate options before reaching the exit.

取消订阅的设计同样运用了这套逻辑，只是方向相反。亚马逊内部将这个流程命名为“伊利亚特流程”（Iliad Flow）——取自荷马史诗中漫长的特洛伊战争——用户在到达退出页面之前，需要浏览四个页面、进行六次点击和面对15个独立的选项。

• Iliad Flow /ɪˈliːəd/ /fləʊ/ 伊利亚特流程 （暗指漫长艰难的过程）

【第九段】

By Amazon’s own accounting, 35m consumers had been enrolled without meaningful consent over seven years. The eventual settlement with the FTC, in September 2025, cost $2.5bn.

根据亚马逊自己的统计，七年间有3500万消费者在未经有效同意的情况下被加入了Prime会员计划。最终，在2025年9月与FTC达成的和解协议花费了25亿美元。

【第十段】

Another way to think of these digital ruses is as “dark patterns”, a term coined in 2010 by Harry Brignull, a user-experience expert, to describe tricks used online to “make you do things you didn’t mean to”. Since then, this research field has progressively mapped the systematic weaponisation of cognitive science against the people interfaces are supposed to serve.

另一种理解这些数字诡计的方式是称之为“黑暗模式”（dark patterns）——这个词由用户体验专家Harry Brignull于2010年创造，用来描述网络上那些“让你做你本不想做的事”的 tricks。从那时起，这一研究领域逐步揭示了认知科学如何被系统性武器化，用来对付那些本应为用户服务的界面。

• dark patterns /dɑːk/ /ˈpætənz/ 黑暗模式

• ruse /ruːz/ 诡计，计谋

• weaponisation of cognitive science  认知科学的武器化

【第十一段】

We all have hundreds of cognitive biases: mental shortcuts that lead us to make predictable, irrational decisions. Dark patterns exploit these weaknesses. But addictive design goes further, targeting the brain’s reward architecture directly. Dopamine neurons respond not to rewards received but to the uncertainty of whether a reward will arrive: the more unpredictable the outcome, the stronger the signal.

我们每个人都有数百种认知偏差：这些思维捷径导致我们做出可预测的、非理性的决定。黑暗模式正是利用了这些弱点。但成瘾性设计走得更远，它直接瞄准大脑的奖励架构。多巴胺神经元并不会对已经获得的奖励做出反应，而是对奖励是否会出现的不确定性做出反应：结果越不可预测，信号就越强烈。

• cognitive biases /ˈkɒɡnətɪv ˈbaɪəsɪz/ 认知偏差

• reward architecture /rɪˈwɔːd ˈɑːkɪtektʃə/ 奖励架构

【第十二段】

Digital platforms have replicated this architecture with greater precision and at incomparably larger scale. Infinite scroll removes natural stopping-points. Algorithmic feeds withhold and then deliver content in unpredictable sequences. The pull-to-refresh gesture replicates, almost exactly, the physical act of pulling a slot machine lever. None of these features arrived by accident.

数字平台以更高的精度和前所未有的规模复制了这一架构。无限滚动消除了自然的停止点。算法推送以不可预测的顺序先扣留再投放内容。“下拉刷新”手势几乎完美地复制了拉动老虎机摇杆的物理动作。这些功能没有一个是偶然出现的。

• Infinite scroll /ˈɪnfɪnət skrəʊl/ 无限滚动

• Algorithmic feeds /ˌælɡəˈrɪðmɪk fiːdz/ 算法推送

• pull-to-refresh gesture 下拉刷新手势

【第十三段】

The competition lawyer in me cannot help but wonder whether there is still such a thing as a market when some of the largest companies in the world prey on the very people they are supposed to serve. A market economy is meant to generate the best allocation of resources and the biggest benefits for consumers.

我内心的竞争法律师不禁要问：当世界上一些最大的公司捕食于它们本应服务的对象时，市场这种东西还存在吗？市场经济本应产生最佳的资源配置和最大的消费者福利。

【第十四段】

For these promises to be fulfilled, consumers must be able to see and choose alternatives deliberately; compare them on undistorted dimensions; form preferences that reflect actual interests; and switch freely. Cognitive exploitation undermines all four of these. Infinite scroll captures attention. Dark patterns distort comparison. Dopaminergic loops manufacture compulsion. Addiction engineering blocks effective switching.

要使这些承诺得以兑现，消费者必须能够：有意地看到并选择替代方案；在未被扭曲的维度上进行比较；形成反映真实利益的偏好；以及自由切换。认知剥削将这四者全部破坏。无限滚动捕获注意力。黑暗模式扭曲比较。多巴胺循环制造强迫性。成瘾工程阻碍有效切换。

• Cognitive exploitation /ˈkɒɡnətɪv eksplɔɪˈteɪʃən/ 认知剥削

• Dopaminergic loops /ˌdəʊpəmɪˈnɜːdʒɪk luːps/ 多巴胺能循环

【第十五段】

Securities regulation offers an instructive analogy. When a trader manipulates stock or derivatives prices, the law treats the crime as a structural harm to the broader market; the corrupted price no longer tells the truth. Cognitive exploitation should be seen in the same light, at a much larger scale. When platforms systematically manufacture the preferences of billions of users, consumer signals no longer point anywhere useful. That is a structural failure.

证券监管提供了一个有益的类比。当交易员操纵股票或衍生品价格时，法律将这种犯罪行为视为对更广泛市场的结构性损害；被操纵的价格不再反映真相。认知剥削也应以同样的视角来看待，而且规模要大得多。当平台系统性地制造数十亿用户的偏好时，消费者信号就不再指向任何有用的方向。这是一种结构性失灵。

• securities regulation /sɪˈkjʊərətiz ˌreɡjʊˈleɪʃən/ 证券监管

• derivatives /dɪˈrɪvətɪvz/ 衍生品

• structural harm 结构性损害

【第十六段】

Dark patterns and addictive design breach an impressive array of laws. The regulatory apparatus is moving. And yet the harm continues, at scale, by design, because the rules as they are don’t amount to an adequate systemic response.

黑暗模式和成瘾性设计违反了一系列令人印象深刻的法律法规。监管机制正在行动。然而，这种伤害仍在持续，规模巨大，且是设计使然——因为现有的规则并不能构成充分的系统性回应。

• systemic response /sɪˈstemɪk rɪˈspɒns/ 系统性回应

【第十七段】

The burden of proof should fall on the platform, not the victim. The question is not whether a harmed user can show specific damage. The question is whether the company can show, before rolling a product out to billions of people, that it is not predatory by design.

举证责任应该落在平台身上，而不是受害者身上。问题不在于受伤害的用户能否证明具体的损害。问题在于，公司在向数十亿人推出产品之前，能否证明其设计不是掠夺性的。

• burden of proof /ˈbɜːdn əv pruːf/ 举证责任

• not predatory by design /ˈpredətəri/设计上不具备掠夺性

【第十八段】

Applying that standard to big-tech platforms would be disruptive. It would force them to subject their engagement mechanics, from infinite scroll to algorithmic amplification, to independent safety assessment before deployment, and potentially to redesign or retire features that cannot pass it. For an industry whose business model depends on maximising time-on-platform, it would be hugely challenging. But this is the standard we apply to drugs, to medical devices and to aircraft. Why should it not also apply to systems deliberately engineered to rewire the brain’s reward architecture?

将这一标准应用于大型科技平台将是颠覆性的。这将迫使它们在部署之前，对其从无限滚动到算法放大的一切用户参与机制进行独立的安全评估，并可能要求重新设计或淘汰那些无法通过评估的功能。对于一个商业模式依赖于最大化用户平台时长的行业来说，这将极具挑战性。但这也是我们应用于药品、医疗设备和飞机的标准。为什么它不应该同样适用于那些刻意设计来重新连接大脑奖励架构的系统呢？

• independent safety assessment 独立安全评估

• disruptive /dɪsˈrʌptɪv/ 颠覆性的

• engagement mechanics /ɪnˈɡeɪdʒmənt məˈkænɪks/ 用户参与机制

• algorithmic amplification /ˌælɡəˈrɪðmɪk ˌæmplɪfɪˈkeɪʃən/  算法放大

• independent safety assessment  独立安全评估

• rewire /ˌriːˈwaɪə/ – 重新连接

• rewire the brain’s reward architecture  重新连接大脑的奖励架构