Power is shifting. History has taught us that technology will take power from the establishment, and give it to individuals. Give it to people. This has been true since before the advent of the printing press. Long before. But the path is not a straight line, there are always bumps and detours along the way, and the internet is no exception.

權(quán)力正在轉(zhuǎn)移。 歷史已告訴我們， 科技會(huì)從誕生起掌握權(quán)力， 再把權(quán)力交給個(gè)人。 交給人們。 在印刷機(jī)出現(xiàn)前就是如此。 那是很久以前。 但是這個(gè)過程不是線性的， 一路上總會(huì)有 磕磕絆絆、迂回曲折， 互聯(lián)網(wǎng)也不是例外。

The original promise of the internet was to push power down into the hands of people, and to all of us. And it has. It has weakened yesterday's gatekeepers, music labels, news publications, TV networks. They've all lost much of their power and prestige. But at the same time, the internet has created a new establishment. It's pushed power into the broadest of platforms, like Instagram. This was unexpected.

互聯(lián)網(wǎng)最初的愿景是 把權(quán)力下放到人們的手中， 到我們每個(gè)人的手中。 它確實(shí)做到了。 它弱化了從前的管理員、 音樂唱片、新聞出版、電視網(wǎng)絡(luò)。 這些人都失去了很多權(quán)力和聲望。 但是與此同時(shí)， 互聯(lián)網(wǎng)開辟了新天地。 它把權(quán)力推向了 一些受眾最廣泛的平臺(tái)， 比如Instagram（照片墻）。 這是出人意料的。

But I believe that, over the broad arc of history, that this unexpected outcome, this concentration of power in the hands of a handful of platforms, is not going to be a long-lasting trend. Over the next ten years, we're going to see a dramatic shift in power, away from platforms like the one that my team and I are responsible for, and to a group of people I like to describe as "creators."

但是我相信，在歷史的長河中， 這個(gè)令人意外的結(jié)果—— 小部分平臺(tái)集中掌握權(quán)力—— 不會(huì)是一個(gè)長久的趨勢。 在接下來的十年里， 我們會(huì)見證權(quán)力的劇變， 從類似我和我的團(tuán)隊(duì) 負(fù)責(zé)的平臺(tái)轉(zhuǎn)移到 一些我稱為“創(chuàng)作者”的人手中。

Let's define a creator as someone whose personality is their brand, and who uses platforms like Instagram to turn their passion into a living. Creators like Blair Imani, D-Nice and Benny Drama. They generate new ideas, push boundaries, drive culture. We follow them just to see what they'll do next. What if we imagine a world where creators actually own their relationship with their audience -- they didn't rent it, they owned it -- and where all of us were invested in their success? A world where the platforms acted more like platforms, because we can and should do more to support creators.

我們可以把“創(chuàng)作者”定義為 把個(gè)性當(dāng)作個(gè)人品牌的人， 他們利用像Instagram這樣的平臺(tái)， 以他們的興趣為生。 像布萊爾·伊瑪尼（Blair Imani）， D-Nice和貝尼托·斯金納 （網(wǎng)名Benny Drama）這樣的創(chuàng)作者。 他們生產(chǎn)新想法， 無拘無束，引領(lǐng)潮流。 我們關(guān)注他們， 好奇他們接下來要做些什么。 想象一下，如果有一個(gè) 創(chuàng)作者真正擁有 與觀眾的關(guān)系的世界， 他們不是暫時(shí)擁有， 而是完全擁有這樣的關(guān)系， 在這個(gè)世界里，我們所有人 都是他們成功的一部分。 在這個(gè)世界里， 平臺(tái)只作為平臺(tái)本身運(yùn)作， 因?yàn)槲覀兛梢裕?也應(yīng)該更多地支持創(chuàng)作者。

It's been maybe 50 years since the birth of the internet, and we can all see how much it has affected almost every industry, particularly the attention-based industries: music, news, TV, art -- they've all been disrupted. Musicians like Childish Gambino, Frank Ocean and Chance the Rapper, they found ways to reach an audience without a label. When Jessica Yellin was the chief White House correspondent for CNN, back in 2012, that network averaged about 670,000 viewers. Today, she reaches nearly that many people on Instagram alone. Star athletes are more relevant than the teams that they play for, which would have been unheard of 50 years ago. LeBron James has more followers on Instagram than the Lakers do. Cristiano Ronaldo makes more on Instagram, it's been reported, than he did from Juventus.

互聯(lián)網(wǎng)誕生至今大約 50 年， 我們可以看到它對幾乎所有行業(yè) 都產(chǎn)生了多么巨大的影響， 尤其是那些基于注意力的行業(yè)—— 音樂、新聞、電視、藝術(shù)， 這些行業(yè)都遭到了顛覆。 像幼稚岡比諾（Childish Gambino）、 弗蘭克·奧申（Frank Ocean） 和Chance the Rapper 這樣的音樂人， 他們找到了無需唱片 就可吸引聽眾的方式。 杰西卡·耶琳（Jessica Yellin） 在 2012 年擔(dān)任CNN （美國有線電視新聞網(wǎng)） 駐白宮首席記者時(shí)， 網(wǎng)絡(luò)上大約有 67 萬名觀眾。 現(xiàn)在，單單在Instagram上 她都有數(shù)量相當(dāng)?shù)姆劢z。 明星運(yùn)動(dòng)員比所在的隊(duì)伍 更有價(jià)值， 這在 50 年前 簡直是聞所未聞的。 勒布朗·詹姆斯 在Instagram上的粉絲 比湖人隊(duì)更多。 據(jù)報(bào)道，C羅 通過Instagram賺的錢 比在尤文圖斯俱樂部賺得更多。

OK, so I and my team, we work at the point where creators and audiences meet. And platforms like Instagram have done a lot to empower creators over the last ten years. My team is obsessed with finding more ways to support creators. But if we accept that as power continues to shift toward creators, or that that's going to happen, because technology will continue to change, then we're going to have to rethink some things, because today, creators are too dependent on too few platforms, then our role, as platforms, has to change.

好的，我和我的團(tuán)隊(duì) 研發(fā)的內(nèi)容是 創(chuàng)作者和觀眾的交匯處。 像Instagram這樣的平臺(tái)， 在過去十年里， 一直致力于助力創(chuàng)作者。 我的團(tuán)隊(duì)一直在探索如何可以 為創(chuàng)作者提供更多的支持。 但是如果我們接受了權(quán)力正在向 創(chuàng)作者轉(zhuǎn)移的事實(shí)， 或者由于科技一直在變化， 這將會(huì)是遲早發(fā)生的事， 那么我們就需要重新看待這件事， 因?yàn)楝F(xiàn)在創(chuàng)作者們都 太過依賴于有限的幾個(gè)平臺(tái)， 那我們作為平臺(tái)的作用 就會(huì)發(fā)生改變。

Now, I'm not saying that platforms are going to go away. New platforms will certainly rise, old platforms will certainly fall. But all platforms will -- and you're already seeing this happen -- understand the value that creators create. And so they'll be increasingly interested in handing more power over to creators. Now, this might be surprising, coming from me. But I think this is actually a really good thing. I think that over the long run, what's best for creators is going to be best for platforms like the one I'm responsible for. The more art there is, the more there's an exchange of ideas, the more creativity there is in the world, the better off we all are.

我現(xiàn)在要說的 不是平臺(tái)要退出舞臺(tái)了。 肯定會(huì)有新的平臺(tái)涌現(xiàn)， 舊的平臺(tái)肯定會(huì)消失。 但是所有的平臺(tái)都會(huì) 發(fā)現(xiàn)創(chuàng)作者創(chuàng)造的價(jià)值， 而你已經(jīng)見證了它的發(fā)生。 這樣平臺(tái)就會(huì)更有興趣 把權(quán)力交給創(chuàng)作者。 我所說的可能現(xiàn)在看來 比較令人意外。 但是我覺得這真是一件很好的事。 我認(rèn)為長遠(yuǎn)來看， 對創(chuàng)作者好的事， 也是對我負(fù)責(zé)的這種平臺(tái)好的事。 越多的藝術(shù)， 會(huì)帶來更多想法的交流， 世界上就會(huì)有更多的創(chuàng)意， 我們也都會(huì)變得更好。

But we haven't always seen the world this way. For the five years before I joined Instagram, I was the head of News Feed at Facebook. I was in that role during the US presidential election in 2016. I was in that role during Cambridge Analytica. I traveled around the world, talking to publishers and policymakers, most of whom took the time to tell me everything that we were doing wrong. I'm sure some of you hold my company and me personally accountable for all sorts of things. But I can tell you we learned an immense amount from those experiences. I know I personally did. There were a lot of lessons. And one of those lessons was how important stability and predictability were to publishers. No publisher can build a business on a platform that's too volatile, and no business should be entirely reliant on any one platform. The same is true for creators.

但是我們不是一直 以這種方式看待世界。 在我加入Intagram前的五年里， 我是Facebook（臉譜網(wǎng)）的 News Feed（信息流）負(fù)責(zé)人。 我在 2016 年美國總統(tǒng)大選 期間擔(dān)任此職。 我在劍橋分析（Cambridge Analytica） 丑聞事件期間擔(dān)任此職。 我走遍世界， 與出版商和政策制定者交流， 他們中的很多人告訴我， 我們現(xiàn)在做的所有事都是錯(cuò)的。 我相信你們有些人覺得 我個(gè)人和我公司 得對所有事負(fù)責(zé)。 但是我可以告訴你， 我們從這些經(jīng)歷中受益匪淺。 我自己是這樣的。 學(xué)到了很多。 學(xué)到的其中一點(diǎn)是 穩(wěn)定性和可預(yù)見性 對出版商而言 有多么重要。 沒有出版商可以在 一個(gè)不穩(wěn)定的平臺(tái)上開展業(yè)務(wù)， 也沒有任何業(yè)務(wù) 應(yīng)該完全依賴于一個(gè)平臺(tái)。 對創(chuàng)作者來說也是一樣。

Today ... Whoo. We’re on the precipice of an entirely new internet, built on fundamentally different technology than the tools of yesterday. New technology is making new ideas possible. Cryptocurrencies, social tokens, nonfungible tokens, decentralized autonomous organizations -- that one really rolls off the tongue -- smart contracts -- these are a group of ideas known in the industry as web3. And each and every one is built on a foundation called the blockchain. The important thing to understand about blockchains is that they remove the need for an intermediary. What do I mean by that? Well, each and every one of you, I am sure, at some point, has put money in a bank account. And when you did that, you were actually trusting an intermediary -- in this case, a bank -- to take care of that money on your behalf. A blockchain allows you to hold digital money -- in this case, a cryptocurrency -- without the need to trust an intermediary or a bank. And so a blockchain offers the potential for a transfer of power. What's interesting is not holding digital money -- there's nothing new about that idea. What is interesting is how power is shifting from those who historically held it to those who have not.

如今…… 嗯。 我們眼前就是一個(gè)嶄新的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)， 基于與以前使用的工具 截然不同的新科技。 新科技為新想法帶來了新可能。 加密貨幣、社交代幣、 非同質(zhì)化代幣（NFT）、 去中心化自治組織（DAO）， 和讓人脫口而出的 智能合約， 這些都是被稱為“Web3” 行業(yè)的一些想法。 其中的每一個(gè)都是基于一種 被稱為“區(qū)塊鏈”的基礎(chǔ)技術(shù)。 關(guān)于區(qū)塊鏈的重要的一點(diǎn)是 它不再需要一個(gè)中間人。 這么說是什么意思？ 我相信你們每一個(gè)人 都在銀行賬戶里存過錢。 你在存錢的時(shí)候， 其實(shí)你信任了一個(gè)中間人—— 在這個(gè)例子里是銀行， 銀行會(huì)代表你管好你的錢。 區(qū)塊鏈讓你可以持有數(shù)字貨幣， 也就是加密貨幣， 而不需要信任一個(gè)中間人或銀行。 于是區(qū)塊鏈就提供了 權(quán)力轉(zhuǎn)移的可能性。 有趣的并不是持有數(shù)字貨幣， 這個(gè)想法沒什么新奇的。 有趣的是權(quán)力是如何 從以前的掌權(quán)者的手中 轉(zhuǎn)移到無權(quán)者的手中的。

There's an opportunity here. We can use this technology to help creators establish direct financial relationships with their audience, independent of any platform. Today, for many creators -- not all, but many -- subscriptions are an important part of their business. And there are really great subscription platforms out there -- Patreon, Substack, YouTube memberships. They provide great services. For you, as a creator, they host your content, they distribute that content, they handle payments on your behalf. What does it cost you? You're beholden to each platform where you show up. You are playing by that platform's rules. So what if we imagine something different? A subscription between a creator and a fan, still, but one independent of any platform, but that works across all platforms.

這里有一個(gè)好機(jī)會(huì)。 我們可以利用這個(gè)技術(shù) 幫助創(chuàng)作者與觀眾建立 直接的財(cái)務(wù)關(guān)系， 獨(dú)立于任何平臺(tái)。 現(xiàn)在對于很多的創(chuàng)作者， 不是全部但是有很多， 訂閱是他們收入的重要來源。 市面上有很多很不錯(cuò)的訂閱平臺(tái)， 比如Patreon、Substack、 YouTube會(huì)員。 它們可以提供很好的服務(wù)。 對你來說，作為一個(gè)創(chuàng)作者， 它們會(huì)承載你創(chuàng)作的內(nèi)容、 發(fā)布傳播內(nèi)容、 代理你處理收付款。 你要付出什么呢？ 你對你登臺(tái)露面的平臺(tái)心存感激。 你按照它們的規(guī)則行事。 想象一下 如果有這樣的變化會(huì)怎樣？ 依舊是創(chuàng)作者和粉絲之間的訂閱， 但是獨(dú)立于任何平臺(tái)， 又適用于所有平臺(tái)。

On a five-year time view, the blockchain offers the opportunity for creators to directly own their relationship with their subscribers. Picture this. Lisa is a country artist from Georgia, and she wants to sell subscriptions. Maybe she wants to share songs that she's working on before she's ready to release them to the general public. And we all love Lisa, and we want to subscribe to Lisa. What if Lisa can sell a token -- think of it as a membership card -- for a few bucks, to anyone who wants to subscribe. What if every major platform -- Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, they all agree to honor those membership cards. Then, in that world, if Lisa first establishes herself on Instagram, but later, she wants to branch out into Twitter, she can bring Team Lisa with her, she can bring her subscribers with her. And all of us, because I’m sure we love Lisa, we only need to subscribe once, not once per platform. That' a big deal.

以五年的時(shí)間來看， 區(qū)塊鏈為創(chuàng)作者 直接擁有與訂閱者的關(guān)系 提供了機(jī)會(huì)。 想象一下這個(gè)場景。 麗薩是來自佐治亞州的 一個(gè)鄉(xiāng)村藝術(shù)家， 她想出售訂閱服務(wù)。 也許她想在準(zhǔn)備好 向大眾發(fā)布前 分享一些她正在創(chuàng)作的歌曲。 我們都很喜歡麗薩， 我們想訂閱麗薩的歌曲。 如果麗薩可以發(fā)售一個(gè)代幣， 可以想象成一張會(huì)員卡， 標(biāo)價(jià)幾十美元， 出售給想訂閱的人。 如果每個(gè)主流平臺(tái)—— Instagram、推特(Twitter)、 YouTube、Facebook， 它們?nèi)纪饨邮苓@些會(huì)員卡。 那么在這個(gè)世界里，如果麗薩 先在Instagram有了一席之地， 但是之后她又想拓展到推特， 她就可以帶著麗薩團(tuán)隊(duì)， 帶著所有訂閱者。 我們所有人， 因?yàn)槲蚁嘈盼覀兌枷矚g麗薩， 只需要訂閱一次， 而不是在每個(gè)平臺(tái)都要訂閱一次。 這可是件大事。

And even more important, if we build these membership cards on a blockchain, no company can ever take Lisa's community away from her. Instagram could -- poof! -- disappear tomorrow and she would maintain her relationship with her subscribers, and she would maintain her income.

更重要的是， 如果我們是基于區(qū)塊鏈 設(shè)計(jì)了這些會(huì)員卡， 就沒有公司可以剝奪麗薩的社群。 也許明天Instagram煙消云散了， 但是她依舊可以保留 與訂閱者的關(guān)系， 她也可以維持收入。

We can take this idea further. As we look to the future, it's increasingly clear that it's going to bring more and more volatility, as technology changes more and more quickly. For creators, this means new talent can succeed faster than ever before, and at an incredible scale. It also means that we will never again see the stability in careers that our grandparents saw.

我們可以更進(jìn)一步。 我們展望未來的時(shí)候， 可以清楚地發(fā)現(xiàn)隨著科技 發(fā)展得越來越快， 肯定會(huì)帶來更多的不穩(wěn)定性。 對創(chuàng)作者而言， 這意味著新銳可以 以前所未有的速度、 驚人的規(guī)模成功。 這也意味著我們不會(huì)再見到 我們祖輩所見的工作穩(wěn)定性。

There's a problem. One challenge with this future is that our financial infrastructure, particularly the way that we finance our ideas, largely predates the internet. Today, the predominant way that businesses raise money, and the only real option available to creators, is to borrow it as debt. And as to any of you who have ever struggled with a mortgage payment or a student loan or a car payment can attest to, there’s a lot of downside to debt. My first experience with debt was a 13-year old '86 SAAB 9000 Turbo. Gray car, saggy roof, the Knight Rider lights in the front -- I love that car. But it was hard. So what if, instead of debt, we invested in people, the way we invest in start-ups? As a creator, you should be able to use technology to raise money to finance your ambitions. If you so choose, you should be able to sell equity in your future. And you should be able to set the terms. For a 100,000-dollar investment, you’ll pay out five percent of what you make for the next 10 years. And we can codify those terms in a smart contract. We can connect the RevShare you make on YouTube, the subscription fees you make on Patreon, the merchandise sales you make on Instagram, all to one token that anyone who believes in you could buy. And in doing so, you'd be giving your audience the opportunity to share in your success, to buy a share, to build equity in the creator they know, love and trust. And Lisa would be able to build a community of people who are directly invested in her success. And with the money she raised, she'd have more time to explore, more time to create.

這里有個(gè)問題。 這樣的未來有一個(gè)挑戰(zhàn)， 就是我們的金融基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施， 尤其是我們資助想法的方式， 這個(gè)問題比互聯(lián)網(wǎng)出現(xiàn)得更早。 現(xiàn)在公司集資的主要方式和 創(chuàng)作者可以真正選擇的唯一方式 是以貸款的形式。 如果你們有人有過 苦于還按揭、 學(xué)生貸款或者車貸的經(jīng)歷， 你們可以證實(shí) 貸款有很多缺陷。 我第一次貸款的經(jīng)歷是 購買一臺(tái)車齡 13 年的 86 款薩博 9000 渦輪轎車。 灰色的車，松垮的車頂， 霹靂游俠式的前車燈， 我太愛這輛車了。 但是太難了。 所以如果我們用 投資初創(chuàng)企業(yè)的方式向人投資， 而不是向貸款投資，會(huì)怎么樣？ 作為一個(gè)創(chuàng)作者， 你可以利用科技 募款、資助你的夢想。 如果你如此選擇， 你就可以出售你的未來股權(quán)。 你也可以定下條款。 投資十萬美元， 你會(huì)支付給投資人 接下來十年收入的 5% 。 我們可以用智能合約的形式 將條款記錄在案。 我們可以把你在YouTube上 賺的分成（RevShare）、 在Patreon上賺的訂閱費(fèi)、 在Instagram上賺的商品銷售額 全部聯(lián)結(jié)放入一個(gè)代幣， 供信任你的人購買。 在這么做的過程中， 你會(huì)給你的觀眾一個(gè)機(jī)會(huì) 分享你的成功， 購入股份， 為他們知曉、喜愛、信賴的 創(chuàng)作者投資。 麗薩也可以聚攏一群人， 這些人直接為她的成功投資。 麗薩募集到了這么多錢， 就會(huì)有更多的時(shí)間去探索、創(chuàng)造。

Meta can't build this. No single company can. For ideas like these to happen, we need to come together across the industry. And we need pioneers. We need established creators to prove the model at first. But the idea isn't interesting until it's available to everyone.

Meta做不到這件事。 沒有一個(gè)公司 可以獨(dú)自做到這件事。 要讓這些想法成真， 我們需要跨公司、 全行業(yè)地合作。 我們需要先行者。 我們需要知名創(chuàng)作者們 先去證明這個(gè)模式。 但是如果這個(gè)想法無法觸及大眾， 它就不會(huì)變得有趣。

I sometimes think about what my path might have looked like, had that opportunity been available to me. Instead of bartending and designing websites on the side and taking out a lot of student debt, I might have sold equity in my future. What might you have done? Who knows? But what's exciting about this idea is not the opportunity it affords an upper-middle-class white kid from the suburbs of New York City. It's the opportunity it affords Oumi Janta, a roller-skating phenom in Berlin; Terri Loewenthal, one of my favorite photographers in California. And if we build this, we'll have helped to realize the original promise of the internet. We'll have to push power into the hands of people ... to creators. Creators will be able to own their relationship with their audience, and anyone who wants to invest in creativity will have the opportunity to do so. We'll have created a world where anyone with a compelling idea can turn their passion into a living, which, at the same time, effects possibly the greatest transfer of power from institutions to individuals in all of history.

我有時(shí)候在想， 要是我曾經(jīng)有這個(gè)機(jī)會(huì)， 我的道路會(huì)是怎么樣。 我不會(huì)兼職做調(diào)酒師、設(shè)計(jì)網(wǎng)頁、 借一大筆學(xué)生貸款， 而是可能已經(jīng)在 為我的未來出售股權(quán)。 你會(huì)做些什么？ 誰知道呢？ 但是這個(gè)想法值得興奮的點(diǎn) 不在于它是一個(gè) 紐約郊區(qū)的中上層白人小孩 可以擁有的機(jī)會(huì)。 它是來自柏林的旱冰網(wǎng)絡(luò)紅人 烏米·詹塔（Oumi Janta） 可以獲得的一個(gè)機(jī)會(huì)。 它是來自加州的 我最喜愛的攝影師之一， 特里·勒文塔爾（Terri Loewenthal） 可以獲得的一個(gè)機(jī)會(huì)。 如果我們建成了它， 我們就幫助實(shí)現(xiàn)了 互聯(lián)網(wǎng)最初的愿景。 我們把權(quán)力交到了人們的手中， 交給了創(chuàng)作者。 創(chuàng)作者可以擁有與觀眾的關(guān)系， 每一個(gè)想要投資創(chuàng)意的人 都有機(jī)會(huì)這么做。 我們會(huì)創(chuàng)造一個(gè)世界， 每一個(gè)有奇思妙想的人都可以 以他們的興趣為生， 與此同時(shí)，會(huì)帶來 或許是從古至今 最大規(guī)模的權(quán)力轉(zhuǎn)移， 將權(quán)力從機(jī)構(gòu)轉(zhuǎn)移給了個(gè)人。

Thank you for listening,

感謝聆聽，

and thank you to you creators out there for inspiring the rest of us.

感謝激勵(lì)我們每一個(gè)人的創(chuàng)作者。