Meta's Low E.U. ARPU, The Supreme Court and Section 230
发布时间 2023-05-23 11:23:51 来源
This daily update about Meta's low EU average revenue per user and the Supreme Court in Section 230 was published on Tuesday, May 23rd, 2023. Good morning. On this morning's dithering, John and I discussed Meta's EU fine and the potential wide-ranging impacts on tech. You can add dithering to 15 minute episodes per week, not a second less, not a second more using the link at the bottom of this email.
这篇关于 Meta 公司每个欧盟用户的低收入以及第230条款最高法院的最新消息是在2023年5月23日星期二发布的。早上好。在今天的 dithering 中，约翰和我讨论了 Meta 公司在欧盟的罚款以及对科技领域可能产生的广泛影响。如果您想听每周15分钟的 dithering，您可以使用本电子邮件底部的链接，不多一秒钟，不少一秒钟。
On to the update. Meta's low EU average revenue per user, Arpo. Thursday's Techary interview will be with Eric Sufert. I mentioned that today because he mentioned something in the course of our recording that I think is worth calling out as an addendum to yesterday's update.
接下来介绍最新消息。Meta的欧洲平均用户收入很低，即ARPO。周四的Techary采访将邀请Eric Sufert参与。我提前提到这个事情是因为在我们录制的过程中，他提到了一些值得注意的内容，这对于昨天的更新来说可以作为附加说明。
From Meta's earnings call last month, this excerpt is from a two-part question. I'm only including the relevant second part. And then on the regulatory front, can you just help explain how changes to the project planning, data transfer rules may impact your European business as it goes into effect? Just trying to get a sense if you have a potentially an idea-based situation with a signal loss here again. Thank you.
上个月Meta的季度收益电话会议中，这段摘录是双重问题的第二部分。我仅包括相关的第二部分。那么在监管方面，您能否帮忙解释一下项目规划、数据转移规则的变化可能会如何影响您在欧洲的业务，因为这些规则即将生效？只是想了解一下，您是否可能会面临一种基于想法而非实际表现的情况。谢谢。
So, first, I want to emphasize we continue to be hopeful that the new EU-US privacy framework will be implemented before a deadline for suspension. But if it comes to that, there's a lot that we don't know in terms of the specifics of a final order and how long a suspension order would last, which would be important variables in determining the overall impact. What we do know is that roughly 10 percent of worldwide ad revenue comes from ads delivered to Facebook users in EU countries. But there are more details that we would need to understand, including the impact on advertisers in EU countries before we'd be able to really provide a more accurate or fulsome estimate of that impact.
首先，我想强调我们仍然希望在暂停期限之前实施新的欧盟-美国隐私框架。但如果情况变得如此，我们在最终命令的具体细节和暂停命令的持续时间方面所不知道的非常多，这将是决定整体影响的重要变量。我们所知道的是，大约10％的全球广告收入来自向欧盟国家的Facebook用户投放的广告。但是我们需要了解更多细节，包括对欧盟国家广告商的影响，然后才能真正提供更准确或更充分的影响估计。
Yesterday, I know that meta wouldn't be abounding the EU over a $1 billion fine, plus I'll rematch it my cost to abide by the EU's various rules and regulations. Given it made $25.79 billion in Europe last year, that's 22 percent of revenue. That you will note is a much bigger number than roughly 10 percent, which is to say that it appears that meta makes more money in the non-EU European countries than it makes in the EU as a whole.
昨天我了解到，Facebook不会为了10亿美元的罚款而离开欧盟，而我将重新评估遵守欧盟各种规定的成本。考虑到去年Facebook在欧洲的收入达到了257.9亿美元，占其总收入的22％。值得注意的是，这个数字比约为10％要大得多，也就是说Facebook似乎在非欧盟欧洲国家赚到的钱比在整个欧盟赚得的更多。
Roughly 10 percent of its 2022 revenue is only $11.7 billion. That's a surprisingly low number, and increases the credibility of meta's threat to potentially leave the market. I'm still skeptical to be clear, because the value to a social network goes beyond ad revenue. Meta users in the rest of the world, including say the UK, have a better product by virtue of people in the EU being on the platform. That value goes the other way, of course. Meta's platforms are valuable to EU citizens because the rest of the world is already on them. That by extension raises an interesting possibility. Could meta make its platform subscription based in the EU?
Meta2022年的营收中，仅有约10％，相当于117亿美元。这个数字出乎意料地低，增加了Meta可能退出市场的威胁的可信度。当然，我还是持怀疑态度的，因为社交网络的价值不仅仅在于广告收入。Meta在其他部分世界的用户，包括英国等国家，由于欧盟的用户也在该平台上，因此拥有更好的产品。当然，这个价值是双向的。Meta的平台对欧盟公民来说是有价值的，因为世界其他地区已经在上面了。这同时也引发了一个有趣的可能性，Meta是否能够在欧盟地区推出订阅制的平台？
It's not as outlandish of propositions you might think. Here meta's relevant numbers by region for last quarter. Click the link in your show notes to see the full table, but the pert in number here is that the US and Canada makes $48.85 per user. Europe makes $15.51 per user. Asia Pacific makes $4.52 per user, and the rest of the world makes $3.35 per user. Keep in mind though, that more than half of European revenue comes from non-EU countries, even though those countries have a combined population, $302 million, that is 2 thirds the size of the EU's, $4.47 million.
这个主张并不像你想象的那么荒唐。以下是上个季度Metas在不同地区的相关数字。点击节目笔记中的链接查看完整表格，但是关键数字是：每个用户在美国和加拿大产生的收入为48.85美元，欧洲为15.51美元，亚太地区为4.52美元，其他地区为3.35美元。需要注意的是，尽管那些非欧盟国家的总人口为3.02亿，约为欧盟的2/3，但其中超过一半的欧洲收入来自这些国家。
If we incorporate least 10% figure in split active users proportionally, we can separate the EU and non-EU segments in the table above. Click through to see the full table, but the relevant numbers here are US and Canada has an Rpool of $48.85. The EU has an Rpool of only $11.47. Non-EU European countries have an Rpool of $20.84. Asia Pacific is $4.52, and rest of the world is $3.35. My understanding is the UK is the biggest driver of meta-revenue in Europe, but I didn't realize just how much the EU trailed. In fact, EU Rpool is closer to Asia Pacific in the rest of the world than they are to the US and Canada, or even non-EU countries, which again, suggests that the UK is probably closer to that US and Canada mark.
如果我们将至少10%的数字纳入平均比例的活跃用户中，即可在上表中将欧盟和非欧盟分成不同部分。点击查看完整表格，但这里的相关数字是，美国和加拿大的R池为48.85美元。欧盟的R池仅为11.47美元。非欧盟欧洲国家的R池为20.84美元。亚太地区为4.52美元，其余国家为3.35美元。我的理解是英国是欧洲元收入的最大驱动者，但我没有意识到欧盟落后的程度。事实上，欧盟的R池与亚太地区和其余国家更加接近，而不是与美国和加拿大，甚至不是与非欧盟国家，这再次表明英国可能更接近于美国和加拿大。
Now keep in mind these are quarterly figures. Meta would need to charge around $5 a month to make up that revenue, including App Store fees, but of course a lot of people would drop off, which means that number would be even higher in reality. That's obviously not going to happen, and besides, this is a social network. Of course meta isn't going to charge for a subscription. Instead the company is giving EU users the option of filling out a web form to opt out of personalized advertising. It remains to be seen if that holds up in court.
请注意这些是季度数字。Meta需要收取大约5美元/月的费用才能弥补该收入，包括App Store费用，但当然很多人会取消，这意味着数字在现实中会更高。显然这不可能发生，而且这是一个社交网络。当然，Meta不会收取订阅费。相反，该公司为欧盟用户提供了一个填写在线表格的选项，以选择退出个性化广告。有待观察此举能否在法庭上生效。
Still, I thought this was a useful exercise. I never realized just how low EU Rpool was, which also has explained the EU's approach. Equally isn't that more than EU businesses, so it's no big deal to EU regulators that make using meta for business less useful.
不过，我认为这是一个有用的练习。我从未意识到EU Rpool如此之低，这也解释了欧盟的做法。同样，EU企业的数量并不比元搜索对于商业运作的使用更为重要，因此对于使使用元搜索变得不太有用的欧盟监管机构来说，这并不是什么大问题。
The Supreme Court in Section 230, from CNBC. The Supreme Court declined to address the legal liability shield that protects tech platforms from being held responsible for their users' posts, the court said in an unside opinion Thursday. The decision leaves in place for now. A broad liability shield that protects companies like Twitter, Meta's Facebook, and Instagram as well as Google's YouTube for being held liable for their users' speech on their platforms. The court's decision in these cases will serve as a big sigh of relief for tech platforms for now, but many members of Congress are still itching to reform the legal liability shield.
《CNBC》报道：最高法院在第230节中拒绝解决法律责任盾，该盾保护技术平台不必对其用户发布的内容负责。该法院在周四的一份未公开意见中表示，该决定暂时保留了广泛的责任盾，使Twitter、Meta的Facebook和Instagram以及谷歌的YouTube等公司不会因其用户在其平台上的言论而承担责任。目前，该法院案件的决定为技术平台带来了巨大的宽慰，但许多国会议员仍然渴望改革法律责任盾。
In the case, Gonzales v. Google, the court said it would, quote, decline to address the application, end quote, of Section 230 of the Communications Dizancy Act, the law that protects platforms from their users' speech, and also allows the services to moderate or remove users' posts. The court said it made that decision because the complaint, quote, appears to state little, if any, plausible claim for relief, end quote. The Supreme Court will send the case back to a lower court to reconsider in light of its decision on a separate but similar case, Twitter v. Tom Neh.
在冈萨雷斯诉谷歌案中，法院表示将“拒绝就通信修正法案第230条的适用进行审理。”该法案保护平台免受用户言论的影响，同时允许服务提供商审查或删除用户的帖子。法院表示这个决定是基于原告“似乎没有提出任何可信的救济要求”的投诉。最高法院会将此案退回下级法院重新审议，考虑其对Twitter诉Tom Neh案的判决是否耽搁相似。
In that case, a family of an American victim of a terrorist attack sought to hold Twitter accountable under anti-terrorism law for allegedly aiding and abetting the attack by failing to take enough action against terror's content on its platform. In a decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court ruled that such a claim could not be brought under that statute. This is a technically correct reading of the Supreme Court's decision in these cases.
在这种情况下，一位美国恐怖袭击的受害者家属通过反恐法寻求让Twitter承担责任，称其在平台上未能采取足够的行动来打击恐怖主义内容，从而涉嫌协助和教唆恐袭。由克拉伦斯·托马斯大法官撰写的裁决解释认为，这样的索赔无法根据该法律进行。这是对这些案件中最高法院判决的技术上的正确理解。
The actual opinion in Twitter v. Tom Neh, though, which is not about Section 230, does in fact both very well for Section 230 going forward. I wrote about Gonzales v. Google the week it was argued in order that the only real open questions about whether algorithms recovered under Section 230, quote, the crux of this case goes to the second paragraph, an algorithmic timeline of recommendation engines.
然而，Twitter诉Tom Neh一案的实际观点并不涉及第230条款，但确实为第230条款的未来发展提供了很好的支持。我在Gonzales诉Google案辩论期间写了一篇文章，涉及到算法是否被纳入第230条款的唯一真正的悬而未决问题，引用了这个案例的关键部分，即推荐引擎的算法时间线。
Well, it is noteworthy that the genesis of Section 230 was primarily about protecting kids from porn, at least as far as congressional intentions are concerned. It is pretty set a lot at this point that platforms are not liable for the content posts on them by third parties, in the US anyways. The questioning in Gonzales v. Google, though, is whether platforms are liable for the recommendations.
值得注意的是，第230节的起源主要是为了保护孩子免受色情内容的侵害，至少在国会意图方面是如此。目前，在美国，平台不承担第三方发布的内容的责任已经得到了广泛认可。不过，Gonzales诉Google案中的问题是，平台是否应该对其推荐内容负责。
On one hand, from a purely legalistic perspective, I can definitely see the case for yes. Simply hosting content is distinct from promoting content into a user's feet. Well that promotion decision is made by an algorithm and not by a human. It is editorial in nature. On the other hand, moderating some content but not other content is itself an editorial decision. And the entire point of Section 230 was to make clear that a good faith effort to moderate content did not mean that the moderator assumed liability for all the content on the platform.
一方面，从纯法律的角度来看，我可以确实看出赞同的理由。仅仅提供内容与向用户推荐内容是不同的。而这个推荐决定是由算法而不是人类做出的，具有编辑性质。另一方面，仅审查某些内容而不审查其他内容本身就是一个编辑性决定。而第230条目的整个目的是明确指出，善意地审查内容并不意味着审核人员承担了平台上所有内容的责任。
Should that apply to the inverse? From a product perspective, meanwhile, or call it the reality perspective if you wish, a win for Gonzales in this case would be a disaster for the way current platforms work. The fact of the matter is that one of the implications of there being zero marginal cost in terms of the production and distribution of content is that there is an overwhelming amount of content. This means that a lot of content, including spam, needs to be deleted. It also means that a superior user experience comes from the platform recommending content that you might be interested in.
这是否也适用于反过来呢？从产品的角度来看，或者称之为现实的角度，如果Gonzales 在本案中获胜，对当前平台的运作方式来说将是一场灾难。事实是，在内容的生产和分发方面存在零边际成本的影响之一是有大量的内容。这意味着需要删除很多内容，包括垃圾邮件。这也意味着优秀的用户体验来自于平台推荐您可能感兴趣的内容。
End quote. Again, Twitter VTamna, which was the actual case that was decided, was not about Section 230, but these two paragraphs from Justice Clarence Homs' opinion are very pertinent. The mere creation of those platforms, however, is not culpable. To be sure, it might be that bad actors like ISIS are able to use platforms like defendants for illegal and sometimes terrible ends. But the same could be said of cell phones, email, or the internet generally. Yet, we generally do not think that internet or cell service providers incur culpability merely for providing their services to the public writ large.
再次引用推特VTamna这个实际案例，它并不是关于第230条款的，但是克拉伦斯·霍姆斯大法官意见中的这两段话非常相关。仅仅创建那些平台并不是有罪的。当然，恐怖组织ISIS等恶意行为者可能会利用被告方平台进行非法和可怕的行为。但是同样的情况也适用于手机、电子邮件或互联网。然而，我们通常认为互联网或手机服务供应商仅仅因为向大众提供服务而受到了责任。
Nor do we think that such providers would normally be described as eating and abetting, for example, illegal drug deals broke out over cell phones, even if the provider's conference call or video call features made the sale easier.
我们认为，在手机上发生非法毒品交易等情况时，这些服务提供商通常不会被描述为故意纵容。即使是提供者的电话会议或视频通话功能使交易更加容易，但也不会被认为是要协助和纵容非法活动。
To be sure, plaintiffs assert that defendants' quote-unquote recommendation algorithms go beyond passive aid and constitute active substantial assistance. We disagree. By plaintiffs' own telling, their claim is based on defendants' quote, provision of the infrastructure which provides material support to ISIS, end quote. Viewed properly, defendants' quote-unquote recommendation algorithms are merely part of that infrastructure.
可以肯定的是，原告声称被告的所谓推荐算法超出了被动帮助范畴，构成了积极的实质性帮助。我们不同意这一观点。根据原告的说法，他们的诉求基于被告提供提供支持ISIS的基础设施。正确理解，被告的所谓推荐算法仅仅是该基础设施的一部分。
All the content on their platforms is filtered through these algorithms, which allegedly sort the content by information and inputs provided by users and found in the content itself. As presented here, the algorithms appear agnostic as to the nature of the content, matching any content, including ISIS content, with any user who is more likely to view that content. The fact that these algorithms match some ISIS content with some users does not convert defendants' passive assistance into active abetting. Once the platform and sorting tool algorithms were up and running, defendants had most allegedly stood back and watched. They are not alleged to have taken any further action with respect to ISIS.
他们平台上的所有内容都要经过这些算法的筛选，据称这些算法会根据用户提供的信息和输入以及内容本身来排序。从这里所呈现的情况来看，算法似乎对内容的性质不予考虑，将包括ISIS内容在内的任何内容与更可能查看该内容的用户匹配。这些算法将某些ISIS内容与某些用户匹配，并不能将被告的被动协助转化为积极教唆。一旦平台和排序工具算法建立起来，被告据称就站在了一边观望。他们没有据称在与ISIS有关的任何方面采取进一步行动。
That bit about algorithms being part of the infrastructure is important. It calls back to an important First Amendment principle known as content neutrality. Content neutral laws regulate speech without regard to what the speech is actually about, and are generally allowed under the First Amendment. As an example, you can have laws that require a permit for a protest, but those laws cannot be based on what the protest is about.
提到算法是基础设施的一部分这一点非常重要。它涉及到一个重要的宪法原则，被称为内容中立原则。内容中立法规管言论而不考虑言论的实际内容，并且通常在第一修正案下被允许。例如，你可以有要求示威游行许可证的法律，但这些法律不能以示威活动的内容为基础。
In this case, Justice Thomas seems to imply that as long as the algorithms weren't designed to push ISIS content explicitly, they're just algorithms, not explicit points of view about controversial topics. They can't be held liable for whatever content they happen to surface. Moreover, to the extent they could theoretically be held liable, it would be for explicitly and purposely pushing content with the intent of causing harm.
在这种情况下，托马斯法官似乎暗示只要算法并不是专门设计用来推送ISIS内容，它们只是算法，而并非有争议话题的明确观点。它们无法对它们可能出现的任何内容负责。此外，从理论上讲，如果它们能够被追究责任，那么也只能是因为明确而有意地推送旨在造成伤害的内容。
That's the exact opposite complain of many Section 230 critics, which is that platform censored too much. Once again though, the actual decision that was made here was not about Section 230. Still, I think this is a very good signal that Section 230 is on very solid ground, which is good news for tech. If Congress doesn't like it, they'll need to make a new law.
这与许多第230节批评者的投诉恰恰相反，他们认为平台进行过度审查。然而，此举并非关于第230节。尽管如此，我认为这是一个好信号，表明第230节非常稳固，对科技行业是好消息。如果国会不喜欢它，他们需要制定一项新法律。
The daily update is intended for a single recipient, but occasional forwarding is totally fine. If you'd like to order multiple subscriptions for your team with a group discount, please contact me directly. And thanks for being a subscriber and have a great day.
这份每日更新是为单个收件人设计的，但偶尔转发也没有问题。如果您想为您的团队订购多个订阅并享受团体折扣，请直接联系我。感谢您的订阅，祝您有美好的一天。