為什么Facebook應該給我們發(fā)錢？

為什么Facebook應該給我們發(fā)錢？

數(shù)據(jù)是新時代的石油，F(xiàn)acebook最大的資產(chǎn)就是龐大的用戶數(shù)據(jù)，既然如此，作為用戶的我們理應得到回饋。如果科技發(fā)展在未來造成嚴重的失業(yè)問題，那么科技公司就應承擔起提供全民基本收入的責任。阿拉斯加的案例可以給我們帶來啟發(fā)。

測試中可能遇到的詞匯和知識：

enshrine奉祀，銘記[?n'?ra?n]

radical激進的，徹底的['ræd?kl]

utopian烏托邦的， 夢想的[ju?'t??pi?n]

encapsulated封進內(nèi)部，壓縮[?n'kæpsjule?t]

incipient起初的，初期的[?n's?pi?nt]

dividend紅利，股息['d?v?dend]

bonanza富礦，富源[b?'nænz?]

philanthropic博愛的，慈善的[?f?l?n'θr?p?k]

Why Facebook should pay us a basic income（725 words）

By John Thornhill

The idea of guaranteeing a basic income for everybody has many obvious flaws but one overwhelming virtue. It enshrines the principle that every citizen is a valued member of society and has a right to share in its collective wealth.

That conviction has animated radical thinkers for 500 years since the argument was first sketched out in Sir Thomas More's Utopia. The idea has gained renewed resonance in our own times as we fret about the erosion of living standards, the concentration of wealth and the possible threat of mass unemployment caused by technological change.

But for half a millennium universal basic income has remained little more than a utopian dream because it has always crashed up against the rocks of reality. The chief objections are ones of principle and practicality, encapsulated in two questions.

Why should people be paid to do nothing? And how could we possibly afford it?

Yet it is possible to design a basic income scheme that retains its main attractions while minimising its flaws. By default, a good working model has been operating in Alaska for more than 30 years.

In 1976 Alaska's voters approved a constitutional amendment to create a permanent investment fund, financed by revenues from the state's incipient oil boom. A few years later, the Alaska Permanent Fund began paying out a dividend to every registered resident. Depending on the fund's performance, the annual payout has ranged from $878 to $2,072 a head over the past decade.

The scheme has not led to mass indolence, as the critics of basic income fear. The clue lies in the adjective — basic. The scheme, which has commanded bipartisan support, has also proved increasingly popular and been described as the “third rail” of state politics because it electrocutes any politician who touches it. In a recent telephone survey, Alaskans described the fund's top three advantages as being its equality of treatment, its fairness of distribution and its assistance to struggling families. Some 58 per cent of respondents said they would even be prepared to pay more state taxes to preserve the fund, although Alaska has been knocked by lower oil prices.

Alaska does not rank among the richest of US states in terms of gross domestic product per head. Yet, partly as a result of its annual dividend, it is one of the most economically equal states and has one of the lowest poverty rates.

Last month, Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive of Facebook, visited Alaska and praised the state's social programmes saying they provided “some good lessons for the rest of the country”.

Like other Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, Mr Zuckerberg believes that thousands of jobs are going to be swept away by new technologies, such as driverless cars. In such a world, he says, we need to invent a new social contract. Basic income could be part of the answer.

Some argue that Alaska is a special case as it has just distributed the fruits of an oil bonanza. But it may be possible to find other sources of revenue to fund similar schemes elsewhere. There is one other potential source of revenue that Mr Zuckerberg knows all about: data. If, as the saying goes, data are the new oil then we may have found a 21st-century revenue stream. Data could do for the world what oil has done for Alaska.

The most valuable asset that Facebook possesses is the data that its users, often unwittingly, hand over for free before they are in effect sold to advertisers. It seems only fair that Facebook makes a bigger social contribution for profiting from this massively valuable, collectively generated resource.

His shareholders would hate the idea. But from Facebook's earliest years, Mr Zuckerberg has said his purpose has been to make an impact rather than build a company. Besides, such a philanthropic gesture might even prove to be the marketing coup of the century. Facebook users could continue to swap cat pictures knowing that every click was contributing to a greater social good.

Such a data-for-basic income swap is simple and clear. It should appeal to the solutionist mindset of Silicon Valley. Many tech entrepreneurs are suspicious of government intervention. But there is no rule to say that only governments can be in the wealth redistribution business.

“We should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things,” Mr Zuckerberg told Harvard graduates in his Commencement address in May.

Quite right, Mark. Give it a go.