How Trump became tech’s regulator-in-chief - FT中文网
登录×
电子邮件/用户名
密码
记住我
请输入邮箱和密码进行绑定操作:
请输入手机号码,通过短信验证(目前仅支持中国大陆地区的手机号):
请您阅读我们的用户注册协议隐私权保护政策,点击下方按钮即视为您接受。
FT商学院

How Trump became tech’s regulator-in-chief

His interventions in the sector exceed anything the EU has done
00:00

{"text":[[{"start":7.55,"text":"The writer is a fellow at Stanford University’s Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. She is the author of ‘The Tech Coup’"}],[{"start":16.93,"text":"In the US, I am often asked — as the only European in the room — to justify why the EU is so heavy-handed in regulating tech companies. I am frequently told that America’s hands-off approach to regulation is the key to its unabated tech success. This is bemusing and a little concerning. The reality is that President Donald Trump’s executive decisions to intervene in tech companies directly are more radical than anything I have ever witnessed in the EU. "}],[{"start":52.01,"text":"Take the executive order that redirected a TikTok ban into a sell-off — the joint venture majority-owned by US investors including Oracle, co-founded by Trump ally Larry Ellison. The administration also took a 10 per cent stake in Intel to boost manufacturing of chips in the US. And there was a previous executive order to revoke security clearances for the chief executive of cyber security company SentinelOne — a former White House official who was sacked after contradicting Trump’s claim that the 2020 election involved fraud. The Department of Defense’s recent attempt to punish Anthropic for upholding contractual limitations on the use of its AI is another heavy-handed intervention. "}],[{"start":100.6,"text":"The avalanche of aggressive moves makes it undeniable: Trump is the regulator-in-chief. "}],[{"start":108.53999999999999,"text":"While it is tempting to dismiss the moves as Trumpian bluster, they are really something else altogether. No one puts it more clearly than Alondra Nelson, the former Biden administration official and professor, who says that the Trump administration has a “systematic preference for executive discretion over deliberative processes . . . it is hyper-regulation by other means”. "}],[{"start":133.72,"text":"A less diplomatic way of summarising the Trump administration’s interventions would be to say that they are personal and vindictive. "}],[{"start":143.86,"text":"Besides the individual picking of winners and losers, the White House’s newly published policy framework on AI takes a second stab at banning individual states from regulating the technology. This is a clear departure from the norm under federalism in delineating responsibilities of state versus federal authorities. Trump’s interventions additionally challenge core notions of free speech. So-called woke AI is now explicitly banned. "}],[{"start":173.59,"text":"American foreign policy, in which tech and AI play ever more important roles, has been affected too. Export controls have been loosened on China despite concerns over national security, while draft rules would require that the sales of any chips outside the US get a green light from the Department of Commerce. It’s not difficult to see how such a chokepoint could exacerbate the weaponising of US tech products. "}],[{"start":204.44,"text":"Meanwhile, EU leaders are embracing a process euphemistically dubbed simplification: a thinly veiled effort to deregulate, including a loosening of rules affecting tech companies. The Trump administration, which has scolded the EU for regulating American tech, will keep pushing on that open door, not to remove a bureaucratic obstacle but to delegitimise the EU as a regulator of tech altogether. "}],[{"start":232.39,"text":"It is tempting to conclude that the EU and the US are switching sides: the US regulating and the EU deregulating. But that would miss the underlying principles. "}],[{"start":246.02999999999997,"text":"An important difference between the European and American approaches is legitimacy. Democratic regulation is typically anchored in clear mandates, checks and balances. The EU is planning to reduce rules in a normal legislative process. The Trump playbook is political, personal and punitive. "}],[{"start":267.71,"text":"The net result of both Europe’s and America’s shifting approaches is even more power for the already powerful tech giants. "}],[{"start":275.89,"text":"Perhaps Americans will start to appreciate what Europeans learnt decades ago — that unchecked power by either government or companies can lead to dark days. Regulation is not a government versus industry equation, it should strengthen oversight and accountability in the face of the abuse of power, wherever it may occur. "}],[{"start":299.37,"text":"The next time I’m being ambushed by my American colleagues and asked to explain why Europeans over-regulate tech, in contrast to the freedom-loving approach of Americans, I’ll have my response ready. Both Americans and Europeans need stronger tech guardrails, firmly anchored in mandates that strengthen the rule of law. "}],[{"start":329.31,"text":""}]],"url":"https://audio.ftcn.net.cn/album/a_1775459874_2464.mp3"}

版权声明:本文版权归FT中文网所有,未经允许任何单位或个人不得转载,复制或以任何其他方式使用本文全部或部分,侵权必究。

乌克兰军火商加码卫星布局,以减少对美依赖

在开发无人机和导弹之后,Fire Point正进军太空领域,尽管公司仍因涉嫌腐败接受调查。

囤积行为加剧伊朗战争引发的经济损害

随着霍尔木兹海峡的对峙进入第三个月,全球各国政府都在艰难应对同一个难题:如何防止囤积者加剧从汽油到注射器等各类产品的短缺。

FT社评:伊朗战争让各国央行进退两难

如果各国央行过早通过加息来遏制通胀压力,可能令本已受创的经济雪上加霜;如但果按兵不动、观望冲突的进展,又可能贻误时机。

反弹的通胀与不耐烦的特朗普:凯文•沃什面临双重压力

美国参议院本周有望批准这位56岁的金融家接替杰伊•鲍威尔出任美联储主席。

伊朗战争推高燃气价格,印度工人纷纷逃离城市生活

伊朗战争推高了烹饪燃料价格,迫使印度许多务工人员返乡回村。

能源、军火与粮食:特朗普对伊战争日益沉重的代价

这场冲突正波及整个美国经济,造成了数千亿美元的产出损失。
设置字号×
最小
较小
默认
较大
最大
分享×