来源：《华盛顿邮报》
原文刊登日期：2022年4月25日
The European Union has reached a deal on a landmark piece of technology legislation — again. The United States, meanwhile, sits idly in the dust. The latest Brussels deal ought to be a reminder to lawmakers here that the longer they fail to act, the more ground they cede to foreign regulators to set domestic companies’ course.
欧盟再次就一项具有里程碑意义的技术立法达成协议。与此同时，美国却袖手旁观。布鲁塞尔的最新协议应该提醒美国的立法者，他们不采取行动的时间越长，就越有可能让位给外国监管机构来为美国公司制定规则。
Saturday’s agreement on the Digital Services Act completes a two-bill package whose other half is the Digital Markets Act. Now, both parts await votes for final approval, but those are considered a formality. The rules read like a refined collection of the myriad ideas elected officials here have proposed and then done nothing about. The DSA and DMA are, no surprise, notably European: Some of the restrictions could help create safer platforms and fairer markets, while others might stymie innovation or quell expression.
周六就《数字服务法》达成的协议完成了一项两项法案，其中另一项是《数字市场法》。现在，这两部法案都在等待最终批准的投票，但这被认为是走过场。这些法规读起来像是美国的民选官员提出的无数想法被完善后的集合，但他们却什么都没做。DSA和DMA显然是欧洲的：一些限制可能有助于创建更安全的平台和更公平的市场，而其他限制可能会阻碍创新或抑制表达。
The DSA’s overall approach to the way platforms moderate content is sensible. Rather than mandate that sites preemptively screen for malign content, the law asks them to take down violating material when they learn about it. Rather than outline new categories of impermissible speech, the law allows member countries to decide for themselves what’s legal and what’s not. Because more speech tends to be illegal in Europe than the United States, however, plenty of posts that are perfectly legal here will be subject to removal there. A recently added provision requiring strategies to counter misinformation during crises is particularly questionable.
DSA对平台的总体处理方式是合理的。该法律并没有要求网站预先筛选有害内容，而是要求它们在了解到这些内容后删除违规内容。该法律没有列出禁止言论的新类别，而是允许成员国自行决定哪些言论合法，哪些言论不合法。然而，因为在欧洲，非法言论往往比在美国多，很多在美国完全合法的帖子在欧盟会被删除。最近增加的一项条款要求在危机期间反击错误信息的策略的条款尤其值得怀疑。
Some aspects of the legislation translate more easily into the U.S. tradition: Services must explain and provide appeals processes for takedowns; large sites will have to make their recommendation algorithms more transparent. In every case, however, the new compliance regime might well prove too burdensome in its reach and precision. Similarly, the competition-focused DMA, which governs the behavior of so-called gatekeeper firms, could threaten the flexibility that allows companies to grow and change. Like its sister law, the proposal takes smart ideas just a little too far — requiring, for instance, that services subject to its restrictions never pre-install software on devices.
这项立法的某些方面更容易转化为美国的传统：服务提供商必须解释并提供删除的上诉程序；大型网站将不得不让其推荐算法更加透明。然而，在每一种情况下，新的合规制度很可能证明其覆盖范围和准确性过于繁重。同样，以竞争为中心的DMA控制着所谓的“看门人”公司的行为，它可能会威胁到让公司成长和改变的灵活性。就像它的姐妹法案一样，该提案对聪明的想法的要求有点过头了——例如，要求受其约束的服务永远不要在设备上预装软件。
On Capitol Hill, legislators remain discussing Section 230 reform that prioritize scoring political points rather than thoughtful alterations to the way platforms’ systems are designed. Antitrust reform has achieved some progress, but the DMA would force companies to do everything the bills being considered would mandate and more. A federal privacy law has become something of a joke after years of talk — while the E.U. passed its version five years ago. U.S. technology companies lead the way around the world, but U.S. law has barely gotten off the starting blocks. Congress must starting moving if it wants to shape even a small part of the future.
在国会山，议员们仍在讨论230条款的改革，这些改革的重点是获得政治分数，而不是对平台系统的设计方式进行深思熟虑的修改。反垄断改革已经取得了一些进展，但DMA将迫使公司采取法案要求的一切措施。经过多年的讨论，联邦隐私法已经成为一个笑话，而欧盟在五年前通过了自己的隐私法。如果国会想要塑造未来，哪怕只是一小部分，就必须开始行动。