One of the problems of writing, and working, and looking at the Internet is that it's very hard to separate fashion from deep change. And so, to start helping that, I want to take us back to 1835. In 1835, James Gordon Bennett founded the first mass-circulation newspaper in New York City. And it cost about 500 dollars to start it, which was about the equivalent of 10,000 dollars of today. By 15 years later, by 1850, doing the same thing -- starting what was experienced as a mass--circulation daily paper -- would come to cost two and a half million dollars. 10,000, two and a half million, 15 years. That's the critical change that is being inverted by the Net. And that's what I want to talk about today, and how that relates to the emergence of social production.
從事網路工作和研究的一個常見問題是 很難分辨它究竟是短暫的潮流,還是深層的改變 為了分清兩者的區別,我想帶大家回到1835年 在1835年,James Gordon Bennett 在紐約 創辦了第一份大規模發行的報紙 當時創辦的費用大約是500美金 相當於今天的一萬美金 在 15 年過的 1850 年,做相同的事, 也就是創辦一份大規模發行的日報, 所需費用達 250 萬美金 在區區 15 年間,從一萬美金到 250 萬美金 這就是網絡所帶來的關鍵性改變 而這就是我今天要談的內容 以及這種變革如何與社會化生產的湧現關連
Starting with newspapers, what we saw was high cost as an initial requirement for making information, knowledge and culture, which led to a stark bifurcation between producers -- who had to be able to raise financial capital, just like any other industrial organization -- and passive consumers that could choose from a certain set of things that this industrial model could produce. Now, the term "information society," "information economy," for a very long time has been used as the thing that comes after the industrial revolution. But in fact, for purposes of understanding what's happening today, that's wrong. Because for 150 years, we've had an information economy. It's just been industrial, which means those who were producing had to have a way of raising money to pay those two and a half million dollars, and later, more for the telegraph, and the radio transmitter, and the television, and eventually the mainframe. And that meant they were market based, or they were government owned, depending on what kind of system they were in. And this characterized and anchored the way information and knowledge were produced for the next 150 years.
先說報紙,為了傳播訓資訊、知識和文化,初期需要投入高昂的成本 導致資訊生產者和被動接收的消費者這兩個截然不同的群體 就像其他工業組織一樣 生產者有能力募集資金 而被動的消費者則 只能從工業模式所提供的有限商品中做選擇 今天,「資訊社會」、「資訊經濟」等術語 有很長一段時間是被用來指涉工業革命之後發生的事物 但事實上,為了正確瞭解當今正在發生的事,那種用法是不對的 因為在過去的 150 年間,我們一直處在資訊經濟之中 只不過這種資訊經濟是工業化的 也就是說,資訊生產者必須有籌資的方法 藉以支付那 250 萬美金,以及後續的電報機、無線電發射塔、電視 以及最後的大型主機 這意味著它們是以市場為根基,或是國有 取決於其所屬的社會體系類型 這種模式決定了其後 150 年間,資訊和知識的生產方式
Now, let me tell you a different story. Around June 2002, the world of supercomputers had a bombshell. The Japanese had, for the first time, created the fastest supercomputer -- the NEC Earth Simulator -- taking the primary from the U.S., and about two years later -- this, by the way, is measuring the trillion floating-point operations per second that the computer's capable of running -- sigh of relief: IBM [Blue Gene] has just edged ahead of the NEC Earth Simulator. All of this completely ignores the fact that throughout this period, there's another supercomputer running in the world -- SETI@home. Four and a half million users around the world, contributing their leftover computer cycles, whenever their computer isn't working, by running a screen saver, and together sharing their resources to create a massive supercomputer that NASA harnesses to analyze the data coming from radio telescopes.
現在,讓我告訴大家另一個故事 大約在 2002 年六月,超級電腦的領域有了爆炸性的事件 日本人首次建造了最快的超級電腦,超越了原先居冠的美國 那就是 NEC 地球模擬器 兩年之後…順帶一提 這張圖表示電腦每秒能夠進行的浮點運算次數 我們後來終於鬆了一口氣。兩年後,NEC 的地球模擬器終於被 IBM 的藍色基因以些微差距給超越 在此期間,所有人都忽略了另一台超級電腦的存在 那就是 SETI@Home 它是由來自全球 450 多萬個電腦用戶所組成 藉由螢幕保護程式的運作,這些人貢獻出他們閒置的電腦資源,不論他們的電腦正工作與否 他們一起分享資源 建立起一個龐大的超級電腦 給美國太空總署用來分析從太空無線電望遠鏡傳回的數據
What this picture suggests to us is that we've got a radical change in the way information production and exchange is capitalized. Not that it's become less capital intensive -- that there's less money that's required -- but that the ownership of this capital, the way the capitalization happens, is radically distributed. Each of us, in these advanced economies, has one of these, or something rather like it -- a computer. They're not radically different from routers inside the middle of the network. And computation, storage and communications capacity are in the hands of practically every connected person -- and these are the basic physical capital means necessary for producing information, knowledge and culture, in the hands of something like 600 million to a billion people around the planet.
這個事件告訴我們的是,我們生產資訊的方式有了重大改變 資訊的交換也已經資本化了 這不是說資訊生產比較不資本密集了,比較不需要錢了 而是說,資本的擁有,也就是資本化的發生變得更分散了 我們每一個人,在當前發達的經濟時代下 都擁有一台電腦,或類似電腦的東西 它們和網絡中的路由器沒有根本的差異 每一個能連上網路的人,都擁有計算、儲存和交換訊息的能力 而這些基本的資本設備 正是世界上六到十億人 所擁有能夠用來生產資訊、知識和文化的必要之物
What this means is that for the first time since the industrial revolution, the most important means, the most important components of the core economic activities -- remember, we are in an information economy -- of the most advanced economies, and there more than anywhere else, are in the hands of the population at large. This is completely different than what we've seen since the industrial revolution. So we've got communications and computation capacity in the hands of the entire population, and we've got human creativity, human wisdom, human experience -- the other major experience, the other major input -- which unlike simple labor -- stand here turning this lever all day long -- is not something that's the same or fungible among people. Any one of you who has taken someone else's job, or tried to give yours to someone else, no matter how detailed the manual, you cannot transmit what you know, what you will intuit under a certain set of circumstances. In that we're unique, and each of us holds this critical input into production as we hold this machine.
這意味著,自從工業革命之後 在經濟發達的時代裡,最重要的生產手段,經濟活動的核心 記住,我們正處在資訊經濟 這些經濟活動的核心要素 第一次分散在廣大的民眾手裡 這個景象完全不同於工業革命以來的情形不同 全體民眾掌握了訊息的交流和計算能力 我們還有創造力、智慧和體驗 這是另一個重要的生產投入 這種投入與單純的勞動不一樣,單純的勞動是指整天站在這裡轉動控制桿 我們的創造力、智慧和體驗是不同或無法替代的 你們之中任何一個人曾經有過代替別人工作的經驗 或試圖讓別人替代你的工作的人都會知道 無論工作手冊寫得多詳細,你還是無法把你所知的全部轉移給對方,或在某種情況下你會有的直覺反應 因為我們每個人都是獨一無二的 每個人都會把自己以獨特的貢獻加入這個訊息經濟生產的機器裡
What's the effect of this? So, the story that most people know is the story of free or open source software. This is market share of Apache Web server -- one of the critical applications in Web-based communications. In 1995, two groups of people said, "Wow, this is really important, the Web! We need a much better Web server!" One was a motley collection of volunteers who just decided, you know, we really need this, we should write one, and what are we going to do with what -- well, we're gonna share it! And other people will be able to develop it. The other was Microsoft.
這一切會帶來什麼樣的影響? 說到這裡,大多數的人會想到免費或開放原始碼的軟體 這是網路伺服器軟體 Apache 的市佔率 網路伺服器是網絡交流最重要的應用之一 在 1995 年,有兩群人說 「哇!網路真的很重要!我們需要更好的網路伺服器!」 其中一組人是由形形色色不同背景的志願者所組成 他們覺得網路伺服器是必要的,所以他們要寫一個 而且他們打算它分享出去! 這樣,其他人可以繼續開發它 另一組人則是微軟
Now, if I told you that 10 years later, the motley crew of people, who didn't control anything that they produced, acquired 20 percent of the market and was the red line, it would be amazing! Right? Think of it in minivans. A group of automobile engineers on their weekends are competing with Toyota. Right? But, in fact, of course, the story is it's the 70 percent, including the major e-commerce site -- 70 percent of a critical application on which Web-based communications and applications work is produced in this form, in direct competition with Microsoft. Not in a side issue -- in a central strategic decision to try to capture a component of the Net. Software has done this in a way that's been very visible, because it's measurable. But the thing to see is that this actually happens throughout the Web.
假如我和你說,十年後,那些把程式碼開放出來的人 得到 20% 的市佔率,也就是紅色那條線 這是多麼奇妙的一件事!對不對? 想像一下小型客車。一群汽車工程師利用週末的時間開發設計 企圖和豐田汽車一較高下 但事實上,在這個故事裡,Apache 的市佔率是 70%(藍線) Apache 的主要客戶是電子商務網站 在伺服器這一網絡交流的基礎應用上,以開放原始碼的模式開發的產品 與微軟展開了直接的競爭,這已經不是小打小鬧的競爭 它的開發者掌握了核心策略,那就是抓住網絡的構成要素 開放原始碼的軟體獲得了可觀的成就 因為它是可量化的。但事實上,開放原始碼的模式已經在網路上散播開來
So, NASA, at some point, did an experiment where they took images of Mars that they were mapping, and they said, instead of having three or four fully trained Ph.D.s doing this all the time, let's break it up into small components, put it up on the Web, and see if people, using a very simple interface, will actually spend five minutes here, 10 minutes there, clicking. After six months, 85,000 people used this to generate mapping at a faster rate than the images were coming in, which was, quote, "practically indistinguishable from the markings of a fully-trained Ph.D.," once you showed it to a number of people and computed the average.
於是,美國太空總署,在某個程度將他們從火星得到的照片 用來做一項試驗。太空總署說,與其讓三、四個訓練有素的博士從頭到尾做這件事 不如把這項工作化整為零 然後放在網路上,看看人們是否能夠用很簡單的介面 花上五分鐘、十分鐘按按滑鼠做完 六個月後 總共有八萬五千人參與繪圖 其速度甚至比影像傳進來的還快。也就是說 如果把工作交給一群人來做並計算平均值 這些人「實際上和訓練有素的博士做出來的東西是一樣的」
Now, if you have a little girl, and she goes and writes to -- well, not so little, medium little -- tries to do research on Barbie. And she'll come to Encarta, one of the main online encyclopedias. This is what you'll find out about Barbie. This is it, there's nothing more to the definition, including, "manufacturers" -- plural -- "now more commonly produce ethnically diverse dolls, like this black Barbie." Which is vastly better than what you'll find in the encyclopedia.com, which is Barbie, Klaus. (Laughter) On the other hand, if they go to Wikipedia, they'll find a genuine article -- and I won't talk a lot about Wikipedia, because Jimmy Wales is here -- but roughly equivalent to what you would find in the Britannica, differently written, including the controversies over body image and commercialization, the claims about the way in which she's a good role model, etc.
如果你有一個小女兒 嗯,不要太小,一般小就好。假設她想研究芭比娃娃 她會搜尋到 Encarta,一個主要的網路百科全書 這是你在 Encarta 找到有關芭比的資料。就是這個,除了定義之外沒有其他的了 包括複數的「製造商」,「現在通常生產不同種族的芭比,比如這個黑人芭比」 這些內容遠比你在 encyclopedia.com 找到的資料還好 在 encyclopedia.com 找的話, 你只能找到一則和 Barbie, Klaus 有關的條目(笑聲) 另外一方面,如果你去維基百科的話,你會找到一篇原創的文章 在此我不多談維基百科,因為 Jimmy Wales (維基百科創始人之一) 今天也在場 不過,維基的資料和大英百科全書的資料大致相同,只是寫法不同 包括芭比娃娃身材和商業化的爭議 還有關於芭比是一個好的模範之類等等的內容
Another portion is not only how content is produced, but how relevance is produced. The claim to fame of Yahoo! was, we hire people to look -- originally, not anymore -- we hire people to look at websites and tell you -- if they're in the index, they're good. This, on the other hand, is what 60,000 passionate volunteers produce in the Open Directory Project, each one willing to spend an hour or two on something they really care about, to say, this is good. So, this is the Open Directory Project, with 60,000 volunteers, each one spending a little bit of time, as opposed to a few hundred fully paid employees. No one owns it, no one owns the output, it's free for anyone to use and it's the output of people acting out of social and psychological motivations to do something interesting.
除了內容如何被製造出來之外,另一個部分是資訊的相關性是如何被製造 雅虎當年一炮而紅就在於,他們雇用員工編制往看遍網站 當然,他們現在已經不這樣做了 他們雇用員工看網站,然後告訴你「如果這些網站在我們的索引裡,它們就是好網站」 於是,這些顯示在螢幕上的就是,由六萬多名熱情的志工所作的「開放索引工程」 每一個參與者花一兩個小時在他很關心的東西上面 然後說,這真棒。這就是開放索引工程,總共有六萬名志工 每個人花一點點的時間。這種作法有別於雇用少數幾百個全職的員工的作法 沒有任何一個人擁有開放索引工程,沒有任何一個人擁有產出 這個工程開放給所有人使用,而它是人們出於社會和心理的動機 來共同完成一件有趣的事
This is not only outside of businesses. When you think of what is the critical innovation of Google, the critical innovation is outsourcing the one most important thing -- the decision about what's relevant -- to the community of the Web as a whole, doing whatever they want to do: so, page rank. The critical innovation here is instead of our engineers, or our people saying which is the most relevant, we're going to go out and count what you, people out there on the Web, for whatever reason -- vanity, pleasure -- produced links, and tied to each other. We're going to count those, and count them up. And again, here, you see Barbie.com, but also, very quickly, Adiosbarbie.com, the body image for every size. A contested cultural object, which you won't find anywhere soon on Overture, which is the classic market-based mechanism: whoever pays the most is highest on the list.
相同的例子也發生在商業領域。如果想一下 Google 最關鍵的創新是什麼 那是將最重要的東西外包出去 這件是就是對整個網路社群來說,決定哪些內容是相關的 使用者可以做他們想做的。於是,網頁排名誕生了 Google 最創新的作法就是,與其由工程師和我們說哪些是最相關的 不如讓你們那些網路使用者來決定什麼對你是重要的 不管你們認為重要的原因是什麼,也許是虛榮、愉悅 藉此,網頁連結產生了,並且網頁得以相互連結。我們 Google 將以你們的看法為準 於是,如果你在 Google 搜尋「芭比」,你還是會找到芭比公司的主頁,但是尾隨其後的 是 Adiosbarbie.com,一個倡導真實身材尺碼的網站,一個備受爭議的文化議題 如果你在 Overture 這樣一個典型以市場為基礎的機制上搜尋,Adiosbarbie 將會排在很後面 因為在 Overture,誰付的前多,誰的網站排名就越前面
So, all of that is in the creation of content, of relevance, basic human expression. But remember, the computers were also physical. Just physical materials -- our PCs -- we share them together. We also see this in wireless. It used to be wireless was one person owned the license, they transmitted in an area, and it had to be decided whether they would be licensed or based on property. What we're seeing now is that computers and radios are becoming so sophisticated that we're developing algorithms to let people own machines, like Wi-Fi devices, and overlay them with a sharing protocol that would allow a community like this to build its own wireless broadband network simply from the simple principle: When I'm listening, when I'm not using, I can help you transfer your messages; and when you're not using, you'll help me transfer yours. And this is not an idealized version. These are working models that at least in some places in the United States are being implemented, at least for public security.
以上所說的都是無形訊息內容的創造,相關性以及重要性,人們的基本表達 但別忘了,電腦也是一個實物,事實上我們也在共享電腦這個實物 這個體現在無線技術上 以前的無線技術是一個人擁有授權,然後在一定區域裡進行訊息傳輸 然後要看他們是基於授權還是基於所有權 而今天,我們的電腦和無線技術,已經發展得相當成熟 我們已經發展出運算規則,讓人們藉由共享協議,使用各自的無線設備例如 wi-fi 讓一個社群建立起寬頻無線網絡 運作的方式很簡單: 當我的電腦閒置時,當我沒有在使用它時,我可以幫你傳輸訊息 而當你的電腦閒置時,你幫我傳輸我的訊息 當然,這不是一個完美的協議方案,但它的運作模式 至少已經在美國的某些地方開始執行了,為了公共安全的因素
If in 1999 I told you, let's build a data storage and retrieval system. It's got to store terabytes. It's got to be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It's got to be available from anywhere in the world. It has to support over 100 million users at any given moment. It's got to be robust to attack, including closing the main index, injecting malicious files, armed seizure of some major nodes. You'd say that would take years. It would take millions. But of course, what I'm describing is P2P file sharing. Right? We always think of it as stealing music, but fundamentally, it's a distributed data storage and retrieval system, where people, for very obvious reasons, are willing to share their bandwidth and their storage to create something.
如果我在 1999 年告訴你,我們要建立一個數據庫來儲存讀取系統 這個系統將有 TB 級容量,24 小時不間斷運作,全年無休 能從全球任何地方暢通連接 它必須能在任何時刻同時支援一億個用戶 它必須能夠抵禦攻擊,包括關閉主要網頁目錄,惡意文件入侵 主要網絡結點被駭。你也許會說要達到這些要求,必須要花上好幾年 還要花上百萬美金。但是,我剛才說的只不是過是 P2P 文件共享的一些特性 不是嗎?一談到 P2P,大家想到的只有非法音樂,但從更根本地來看 它是一個分散的資訊儲存和讀取系統 讓人們為了一些再明顯不過的理由,願意分享他們的頻寬 以及他們的儲存空間來創造些什麼
So, essentially what we're seeing is the emergence of a fourth transactional framework. It used to be that there were two primary dimensions along which you could divide things. They could be market based, or non-market based; they could be decentralized, or centralized. The price system was a market-based and decentralized system. If things worked better because you actually had somebody organizing them, you had firms, if you wanted to be in the market -- or you had governments or sometimes larger non-profits in the non-market. It was too expensive to have decentralized social production, to have decentralized action in society. That was not about society itself. That was, in fact, economic.
因此,從本質上來說,我們看到的是第四種傳遞框架 (圖中右上) 過去我們只能把事物作二維的劃分 市場化或非市場化的 分散的或集中的 例如說,價格系統就是一個市場化的分散經濟體系 如果有些事物更適合有人進行組織監管 如果你想要在市場裡運作,你就會有公司。或是,如果是非市場化管理 你就會有政府或大型的非市場管理 分散的社會生產往往需要龐大的成本 問題不在於社會本身 而在於經濟模式
But what we're seeing now is the emergence of this fourth system of social sharing and exchange. Not that it's the first time that we do nice things to each other, or for each other, as social beings. We do it all the time. It's that it's the first time that it's having major economic impact. What characterizes them is decentralized authority. You don't have to ask permission, as you do in a property-based system. May I do this? It's open for anyone to create and innovate and share, if they want to, by themselves or with others, because property is one mechanism of coordination. But it's not the only one.
而我們現在看到的是 第四種社會化的共享與交換模式的興起 人類作為一種社會性的動物,這並非我們在人類力史上第一次相互幫忙 我們一直都在做這樣的事 而是說,我們的互助是第一次對經濟產生重大的影響 這種模式的特徵是權威的分化 你不再像以前以產權為基礎的體系那樣,需要事先徵得同意 以前你必須先問:「我可以這樣做嗎?」。在新的體系中,每個人都有創造、創新和分享的權利 只要你願意,就可以著手行動,或者和其他人合作 因為所有權是合作機制的一種 但它不是唯一的機制
Instead, what we see are social frameworks for all of the critical things that we use property and contract in the market: information flows to decide what are interesting problems; who's available and good for something; motivation structures -- remember, money isn't always the best motivator. If you leave a $50 check after dinner with friends, you don't increase the probability of being invited back. And if dinner isn't entirely obvious, think of sex. (Laughter)
今天,我們看到這種新的社會合作框架,已經出現在我們使用所有權和契約等最重要的經濟活動之中 資訊流動從而決定什麼是社會最關心的問題 決定誰才是做某一件事的最佳人選 激勵模式。要知道,錢不一定永遠是最好的激勵動機 如果朋友請你吃飯,你在桌上留下一張五十美金的支票 這並不會增加你下次被邀請的機會 如果這個例子不夠明顯的話,不妨想想性關係中的情況(笑)
It also requires certain new organizational approaches. And in particular, what we've seen is task organization. You have to hire people who know what they're doing. You have to hire them to spend a lot of time. Now, take the same problem, chunk it into little modules, and motivations become trivial. Five minutes, instead of watching TV? Five minutes I'll spend just because it's interesting. Just because it's fun. Just because it gives me a certain sense of meaning, or, in places that are more involved, like Wikipedia, gives me a certain set of social relations.
這種新框架還需要一種新的組織管理架構 尤其是我們今天看到的「任務組織」 在過去,你需要雇用很多專業人員 讓他們投入很多時間 如今,以相同的問題為例 同樣的工作,你可以把它切分為很多小部分,每個部分只需要一點點的激勵便可完成 只要五分鐘,少看五分鐘的電視如何? 五分鐘,那好吧,反正看起來很有趣。只因為它看起來很有趣 只是因為我覺得這件事有意義,或為了得到某種歸屬感 就像維基百科,它給了我一些社會關係
So, a new social phenomenon is emerging. It's creating, and it's most visible when we see it as a new form of competition. Peer-to-peer networks assaulting the recording industry; free and open source software taking market share from Microsoft; Skype potentially threatening traditional telecoms; Wikipedia competing with online encyclopedias. But it's also a new source of opportunities for businesses. As you see a new set of social relations and behaviors emerging, you have new opportunities. Some of them are toolmakers. Instead of building well-behaved appliances -- things that you know what they'll do in advance -- you begin to build more open tools. There's a new set of values, a new set of things people value. You build platforms for self-expression and collaboration. Like Wikipedia, like the Open Directory Project, you're beginning to build platforms, and you see that as a model. And you see surfers, people who see this happening, and in some sense build it into a supply chain, which is a very curious one. Right?
於是,隨著這種全新的社會經濟現象的成形 它也創造出一種新的顯而易見的新式競爭 P2P 共享網絡對傳統唱片業造成衝擊 免費的開源軟體正從微軟的手中奪取市場佔有率 Skype 正潛在地威脅傳統電信業 維基百科挑戰著線上百科權書 但是,這也創造出全新的商機 一旦有新的社會關係和行為模式產生 就會有新的機遇隨之產生,其中包括新模式所需要的工具 與其打造那些常規的應用功能 也就是那些你能預期到結果的傳統應用 不如開發一些開源工具。這裡會湧現出新的價值 一些新的人們重視的價值 你可以打造讓人們自我表達與合作的平台 例如像維基百科,像開放索引工程 你可以開始建立這樣的平台,形成新的模式 然後你會有瀏覽人。他們的瀏覽,在某種意義上將你的平台 整合到巨大的網絡訊息供應鏈,這個供應鏈非常特殊,不是嗎?
You have a belief: stuff will flow out of connected human beings. That'll give me something I can use, and I'm going to contract with someone. I will deliver something based on what happens. It's very scary -- that's what Google does, essentially. That's what IBM does in software services, and they've done reasonably well.
於是你有一個信念:訊息會在相互關連的人群中傳播開來 從中將會產生可以為我所用的東西,然後我會找到最適合的人幫我做事 最終成果完全取決於事情發展。這聽起來很可怕 事實上,這就是 Google 在做的 IBM 在軟體服務上也採用相同作法,效果也不錯
So, social production is a real fact, not a fad. It is the critical long-term shift caused by the Internet. Social relations and exchange become significantly more important than they ever were as an economic phenomenon. In some contexts, it's even more efficient because of the quality of the information, the ability to find the best person, the lower transaction costs. It's sustainable and growing fast.
所以,社會生產是一個實實在在的變革,它不是轉眼即逝的潮流 它是隨著網路的出現而誕生的根本性的長期變革 社會關係和社會交換作為一種經濟現象,變得比以往任何時候都更重要 從某個意義上來說,它比以往的任何模式都更有效率 因為它的訊息更有品質,更能夠找到最合適的人 交易成本更為低廉。這個模式有可持續,並且正在快速成長
But -- and this is the dark lining -- it is threatened by -- in the same way that it threatens -- the incumbent industrial systems. So next time you open the paper, and you see an intellectual property decision, a telecoms decision, it's not about something small and technical. It is about the future of the freedom to be as social beings with each other, and the way information, knowledge and culture will be produced. Because it is in this context that we see a battle over how easy or hard it will be for the industrial information economy to simply go on as it goes, or for the new model of production to begin to develop alongside that industrial model, and change the way we begin to see the world and report what it is that we see. Thank you.
但是,從負面來說,這個模式也正在遭受傳統工業模式的威脅 就像它威脅傳統模式一樣 所以,以後大家翻開報紙看到某個之事產權的決定時 某個一個電信業的決定,那不再僅僅是一個枝微末節的技術問題 而是與我們作為社會成員與他人建立聯繫的自由的密切關係 並且與之後的訊息、知識和文化的生產方式有著密切關係 從這個意義上,我們看到的將是一場舊有工業模式與新開源經濟模式之間的拉鋸戰 或者讓工業經濟模式繼續發展下去 或者讓新開源模式與舊有模式同步發展 進而改變我們認識世界、描述世界的方式 謝謝