TE||How to tame the tech titans
1
导读
《Shape of You》英国弦乐乐团Ember演奏
谷歌、亚马逊和Facebook等科技公司与几十年前的标准石油和AT＆T拥有类似的垄断地位，越来越多的人认为，应该像当年对待标准石油或AT＆T那样，对这些科技公司进行分拆，或者加强监管。在很多人眼中，他们“罪恶滔天”：有的散布虚假信息，有的让人们浪费成瘾。但反垄断监管者真正的考虑因素却很简单：他们的规模会令消费者利益受损吗？且看下文分解。
具体可以参考新浪科技：https://tech.sina.cn/it/2018-01-18/detail-ifyqtwzu3271718.d.html?from=groupmessage&isappinstalled=0
2
音乐| 精读 | 翻译 | 词组
How to tame the tech titans
如何驯服科技巨头
本文英文部分选自经济学人Leaders版块
Competition in the digital age
数字时代的竞争
The dominance of Google, Facebook and Amazon is bad for consumers and competition
谷歌、脸书以及亚马逊的行业统治地位，对消费者和竞争均有不利影响。
NOT long ago, being the boss of a big Western tech firm was a dream job. As the billions rolled in, so did the plaudits: Google, Facebook, Amazon and others were making the world a better place. Today these companies are accused of being BAADD—big, anti-competitive, addictive and destructive to democracy. Regulators fine them, politicians grill them and one-time backers warn of their power to cause harm.
不久前，人们梦寐以求的职业还是在一家大型西方科技公司当老板。谷歌，脸书，亚马逊等其他科技巨头在财源广进、名利双收的同时，也让我们的世界变得更加美好。而如今，这些公司却被指责其规模过大、反竞争、令人沉迷，破坏民主。监管机构对其进行罚款、政客对其进行盘问、甚至连曾经的支持者们也发出警告，称这些企业的势力过大，将带来危害。
Much of this techlash is misguided. The presumption that big businesses must necessarily be wicked is plain wrong. Apple is to be admired as the world’s most valuable listed company for the simple reason that it makes things people want to buy, even while facing fierce competition. Many online services would be worse if their providers were smaller. Evidence for the link between smartphones and unhappiness is weak. Fake news is not only an online phenomenon.
大部分对科技企业的抵制都有失公正。人们一味地认定大型企业绝对都是恶魔的化身，这种假设是完全错误的。在竞争如此激烈的当下，苹果仍是全球最有价值的上市公司，原因只是大家都乐于购买苹果产品。服务供应商的规模越小，其在线服务所面临的处境则越窘迫。尚无有力数据表明，使用智能手机跟不幸福感有关。由此可见，虚假新闻并非只是互联网特有的现象。
Techlash：技术抵制，在展望2018特刊中Leaders版块有专门提到，塑造2018年世界的不是特朗普，而是其他三股力量：第一就是Techlash潮流，Techlash是指技术抵制，正如今天这篇文中提到的像Amazon，Google，Facebook这样飞速发展的科技公司，监管部门对这样的科技巨头的监管力度正在不断加强。第二是法国马克龙主义，法国的变革能否影响到欧洲和世界，第三是世界对中国态度的转变。（强烈建议大家去阅读下这一期，如有需要私信小编）
Plain wrong: 完全错误
But big tech platforms, particularly Facebook, Google and Amazon, do indeed raise a worry about fair competition. That is partly because they often benefit from legal exemptions. Unlike publishers, Facebook and Google are rarely held responsible for what users do on them; and for years most American buyers on Amazon did not pay sales tax. Nor do the titans simply compete in a market. Increasingly, they are the market itself, providing the infrastructure (or “platforms”) for much of the digital economy. Many of their services appear to be free, but users “pay” for them by giving away their data. Powerful though they already are, their huge stockmarket valuations suggest that investors are counting on them to double or even triple in size in the next decade.
但是大型的技术平台确实引发人们对公平竞争的担忧，特别是像脸书，谷歌以及亚马逊一类的大企业。有一部分原因是这些企业很多时候都是“法律豁免”的受益者。与出版社不同的是，脸书和谷歌很少需要对其用户在平台上的所作所为负责。多年来，亚马逊上的多数美国买家都没有支付过消费税。这些巨头不单单在市场上竞争，他们也逐渐自成市场，为数字经济提供基础建设（或者是“平台”）。这些平台的服务看似免费，但用户所给出的个人数据其实就是在为这些服务买单。 纵使这些企业已经足够强大，但是它们巨大的股票市值表明，投资者正指望着在未来十年，这些企业的规模可以翻倍，甚至翻三倍。
There is thus a justified fear that the tech titans will use their power to protect and extend their dominance, to the detriment of consumers (see article). The tricky task for policymakers is to restrain them without unduly stifling innovation.
因此，人们有理由担心，科技巨头将利用他们的权力来保护并扩张其统治地位，从而损害消费者利益。对于政策制定者来说，棘手之事在于不过度抑制创新的情况下约束他们。。
The less severe contest
越来越没悬念的竞争
The platforms have become so dominant because they benefit from “network effects”. Size begets size: the more sellers Amazon, say, can attract, the more buyers will shop there, which attracts more sellers, and so on. By some estimates, Amazon captures over 40% of online shopping in America. With more than 2bn monthly users, Facebook holds sway over the media industry. Firms cannot do without Google, which in some countries processes more than 90% of web searches. Facebook and Google control two-thirds of America’s online ad revenues.
这些平台之所以能独占鳌头，都得益于“网络效应”。规模相互累积：亚马逊上的卖家越多，就会吸引更多买家来购物，从而吸引更多的卖家入驻，如此循环往复。据估计，亚马逊占据了美国网购总量的40%以上。脸书以二十多亿的月活跃用户，横扫媒体产业。很多公司都离不开谷歌，在一些国家，90%多的网络搜索都通过谷歌完成。脸书和谷歌控制了美国三分之二的在线广告收入。
America’s trustbusters have given tech giants the benefit of the doubt.They look for consumer harm, which is hard to establish when prices are falling and services are “free”. The firms themselves stress that a giant-killing startup is just a click away and that they could be toppled by a new technology, such as the blockchain. Before Google and Facebook, Alta Vista and MySpace were the bee’s knees. Who remembers them?
美国的反垄断者对科技巨头们采取了“疑罪从无”原则。他们需要寻找消费者利益受损的实际证据，而这样的证据在价格下降、服务“免费”的情况下很难找到。这些公司本身也强调，说不定就，一个具有巨大杀伤力的创业公司能在很短的时间内（点击鼠标的功夫）就把巨头们击垮，比如新出现的区块链技术。在谷歌和脸书之前，Alta Vista（远景）和MySpace（我的空间）都非常优秀。可现在谁还记得它们呢？
1.The benefit of the doubt疑罪从无，即在是否有罪存在疑问的情况下，按照无罪推定，比如有目击证人证明某人杀人，但该人不承认，也没有其他证据证明其实施犯罪，这个时候只能认定该人没有犯罪。
2.The bee’s knees：When bees flit from flower to flower the nectar sticks to their legs. The phrase "bee's knees" means sweet and good, because the knees of the bee are where all the sweet, good stuff is collected. 比较老的一个表达方式,在20世纪30年代常用。蜜蜂采蜜的时候，脚上都会沾染花粉，故膝盖上是最好的精华。
However, the barriers to entry are rising. Facebook not only owns the world’s largest pool of personal data, but also its biggest “social graph”—the list of its members and how they are connected. Amazon has more pricing information than any other firm. Voice assistants, such as Amazon’s Alexa and Google’s Assistant, will give them even more control over how people experience the internet. China’s tech firms have the heft to compete, but are not about to get unfettered access to Western consumers.
然而，科技新贵准入门槛不断提高。脸书不仅拥有世界上最大的个人数据库，还有最全的“社交图谱”，包含用户以及用户之间的联系。亚马逊的定价信息多过任何一家公司。语音助理，比如亚马逊的Alexa和谷歌助理，更能帮助其控制人们的网络体验。中国的科技公司有实力与他们竞争，但不打算全面进入西方消费者市场。
If this trend runs its course, consumers will suffer as the tech industry becomes less vibrant. Less money will go into startups, most good ideas will be bought up by the titans and, one way or another, the profits will be captured by the giants.
如果按照这个趋势发展下去，受害的是消费者们，因为科技行业将活力减少，投入到初创公司的钱会更少，大多数好的创意将被这些巨头买断，无论怎样，利润总是被巨头公司掠走。
The early signs are already visible. The European Commission has accused Google of using control of Android, its mobile operating system, to give its own apps a leg up. Facebook keeps buying firms which could one day lure users away: first Instagram, then WhatsApp and most recently tbh, an app that lets teenagers send each other compliments anonymously. Although Amazon is still increasing competition in aggregate, as industries from groceries to television can attest, it can also spot rivals and squeeze them from the market.
早期迹象已经很明显了，欧盟委员会已经控告谷歌利用它的移动操作系统安卓，预装自己的应用程序。脸书一直收购那些未来对其用户分流构成威胁的公司：先是Instagram
，接着是Whatsapp，最近一个是tbh，这是一个能让青少年们匿名互相夸赞的应用软件。亚马逊在总体上促进了竞争
，这从食品杂货到电视行业都能得到证实，但它也能辨识出竞争对手并将其从市场中挤出去。
The rivalry remedy
对抗疗法
What to do? In the past, societies have tackled monopolies either by breaking them up, as with Standard Oil in 1911, or by regulating them as a public utility, as with AT&T; in 1913. Today both those approaches have big drawbacks. The traditional tools of utilities regulation, such as price controls and profit caps, are hard to apply, since most products are free and would come at a high price in forgone investment and innovation. Likewise, a full-scale break-up would cripple the platforms’ economies of scale, worsening the service they offer consumers. And even then, in all likelihood one of the Googlettes or Facebabies would eventually sweep all before it as the inexorable logic of network effects reasserted itself.
有何对策？过去，各国对付垄断经营的方法，或是将其拆分，如1911年对标准石油公司的拆分，亦或是将它们当作公用事业进行监管，如1913年对美国电话电报公司（AT&T）采取的措施。如今，这两种方式都有很大的缺陷。因为大部分产品都免费的，而且还会抑制投资和创新，代价太高，价格管制和利润上限等传统的公用事业管制工具难以应用。同样地，完全肢解将严重毁坏这些平台的规模经济，导致提供给消费者的服务质量下降。而且即使拆分了谷歌、脸书这样的企业，其中的某个“小谷歌”或“小脸书”，由于网络效应无可避免地会重新发挥作用，最终还是很可能再次横扫市场。
拆分标准石油背后的纷争
http://center.cnpc.com.cn/bk/system/2017/10/23/001665650.shtml
The lack of a simple solution deprives politicians of easy slogans, but does not leave trustbusters impotent. Two broad changes of thinking would go a long way towards sensibly taming the titans. The first is to make better use of existing competition law. Trustbusters should scrutinise mergers to gauge whether a deal is likely to neutralise a potential long-term threat, even if the target is small at the time. Such scrutiny might have prevented Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram and Google’s of Waze, which makes navigation software. To ensure that the platforms do not favour their own products, oversight groups could be set up to deliberate on complaints from rivals—a
bit like the independent “technical committee” created by the antitrust case against Microsoft in 2001. Immunity to content liability must go, too.
缺乏简单的解决办法会让政客们找不出简明的口号，但不至于让反垄断者无能为力。大幅转变两种思考方式，将对巧妙地驯服这些巨头大有裨益。首先是更好地利用现有的竞争法。反垄断者应该仔细审查并购交易，以判断其中某项是否有可能消除潜在的长远威胁，即使当时并购对象的很小。如果之前有这样的审查，脸书可能就不会收购Instagram，谷歌也无法收购导航软件Waze了。要确保平台不偏袒自身产品，可以设立监督小组来审议对手的投诉，这有点像2001年针对微软反垄断案成立的独立“技术委员会”。对内容免责的豁免权也必须消失。
Second, trustbusters need to think afresh about how tech markets work. A central insight, one increasingly discussed among economists and regulators, is that personal data are the currency in which customers actually buy services. Through that prism, the tech titans receive valuable information—on their users’ behaviour, friends and purchasing habits—in return for their products. Just as America drew up sophisticated rules about intellectual property in the 19th century, so it needs a new set of laws to govern the ownership and exchange of data, with the aim of giving solid rights to individuals.
其次，反垄断者需要重新思考科技市场的运作方式。经济学家和监管机构讨论地越来越多的一个核心观点是，消费者实际上是用个人数据作为货币来购买服务的。从这个角度看，科技巨头获得了关于用户行为、人际关系和购买习惯的宝贵信息，有利于推出自身产品。美国在19世纪制定了有关知识产权的复杂规则，同样，现在它需要一套新的法律来管理数据的所有权和交换行为，以便让个人能切实掌握自己的权利。
In essence this means giving people more control over their information. If a user so desires, key data should be made available in real time to other firms—as banks in Europe are now required to do with customers’ account information. Regulators could oblige platform firms to make anonymised bulk data available to competitors, in return for a fee, a bit like the compulsory licensing of a patent. Such data-sharing requirements could be calibrated to firms’ size: the bigger platforms are, the more they have to share. These mechanisms would turn data from something titans hoard, to suppress competition, into something users share, to foster innovation.
本质上，这意味着人们对于个人信息有更多的控制权。关键数据可以根据用户意愿实时传送给其他公司，正如欧洲银行对账户信息的处理方式一样。监管人员可以迫使平台型公司向竞争者提供海量匿名数据，并收取一定的费用，这有点类似专利的强制许可。数据共享要求应当和企业规模相匹配，平台越大，需要共享的信息越多。在该机制作用下，数据得以由巨头企业存储转向用户共享，从而增强竞争，并激励创新。
None of this will be simple, but it would tame the titans without wrecking the gains they have brought. Users would find it easier to switch between services. Upstart competitors would have access to some of the data that larger firms hold and thus be better equipped to grow to maturity without being gobbled up. And shareholders could no longer assume monopoly profits for decades to come.
这些举措实施起来都不简单，但不仅可以驯服巨头，而且不损害他们带来的收益。同时，用户可以更轻易地转换享受不同服务。崛起的竞争对手能够获取大公司持有的部分数据，从而更好地发展壮大，而不是被收购。同时，投资者也不能在未来几十年继续享受垄断利润了。
翻译组：
Jane，女，卫生民工，经济学人爱好者
Cyrus，男， 口译民工，经济学人爱好者
Wesley, 男，自由职业，经济学人爱好者
Aileen，女，大四数学狗，经济学人爱好者
Evelyn，女，英专研究生，经济学人爱好者
校核组：
Samantha，女，外企低管，邓伦未婚妻
Neil，男，外贸民工，经济学人镀锌粉
Damon，男，钢管搬运工，经济学人铸铁粉
3
观点 |评论|思考
本次观点由Cece独家奉献
Cece，女，消防工作者，CATTI三笔
首先看完这篇文章，最大的感触是，呦呵！原来资本主义社会也有类似中国国企垄断的问题呢，原来资本主义经济也不是生来完美的，他们也面临着竞争活力逐渐被削弱的大问题，企业之间也开始变的越来越不公平。
这些科技巨头的成功无疑标志着，21世纪已经进入了信息时代，现在已经进入了“网络竞争”的时代。他们在风浪中适应了时代的需求，也慢慢掌控了这个时代。
但是，令我们遗憾的是，企业们适应了这个时代趋势，我们消费者享受着时代的果实，但我们的制度、社会管理也就是所谓的上层建筑，并没有跟上经济的发展。
从初中政治就知道，经济基础决定上层建筑。看完这篇文章才让我看到血淋淋的现实，原来是，经济基础推动着上层建筑的改变，上层建筑不得不改变，否则就会被时代淘汰。
本篇文章分析了这些科技巨头独占鳌头的现状，目前的趋势带来了很多隐患，并且提出了可能的解决办法。
文中分析到，如果采用简单的方法，肢解和分割这些大企业，像我们国内曾经使用过的一样，可能直接影响用户得到的服务水准，并不可取。
因为，这里企业的垄断地位和垄断行为并不一样（现学现卖的），他们的垄断地位是因为他们都在压低价格，而且每周都会推出经常改进的新型产品和服务，从而在市场中保持了很高的占有率。而不是像垄断行为一样有抬高价格等犯法的作为。
时代已经改变，面对这种企业不可动摇的垄断地位，单纯的市场调控可能已经不足，也就是说，在国外，需要在市场控制的基础上借鉴中国，加入行政调控，适应当今时代的要求。一是要深入了解当今时代和市场的运行模式，尤其是对于用户的个人信息的处理方法，必须提出可行的方法，保护用户的信息。二是也不能完全抛弃原来的做法，将原来的竞争法加以改善，在企业并购时仔细筛查，判断是否有可能存在潜在的长远威胁，即使当时并购对象的规模不算大。
这里摘选一段话：
越来越多的批评人士认为，应该像当年对待标准石油或AT＆T那样，对这些科技公司进行分拆，或者加强监管。在很多人眼中，他们“罪恶滔天”：有的散布虚假信息，有的让人们浪费成瘾。但反垄断监管者真正的考虑因素却很简单：他们的规模会令消费者利益受损吗？
按照这个标准，目前还没有一个明确的理由对大型科技公司“开刀”——至少目前如此。他们都在压低价格，而且每周都会推出经常改进的新型产品和服务。
今后或许会发生变化：如果市场主导地位导致竞争者和创新减少，消费者的利益将会因为这些公司未受限制而受到损害。
衍生阅读：
衍生一：华尔街日报：科技巨头那么强大 是否要开始反垄断？
https://tech.sina.cn/it/2018-01-18/detail-ifyqtwzu3271718.d.html
衍生二：法国—谷歌、脸书在法国被反垄断调查
谷歌、脸书正在被法国反垄断监管部门竞争管理局调查，如何帮助广告客户购买用户信息、网页浏览习惯用于投放广告，以及是否已在互联网广告市场占据了统治地位。法国反垄断监管部门竞争管理局表示，预计将于明年完成此次调查。德国反垄断机构今年年初对Facebook展开调查，查证这家公司是否滥用其在社交网络领域的统治优势，违反用户信息保护法。
当前，欧盟反垄断监管机构欧盟委员会正在对谷歌的广告合同展开调查。此前，该委员会已在两宗不同的反垄断案中质控谷歌滥用其市场统治地位。
衍生三：美国—美报业集体抗议谷歌脸书垄断呼吁放宽反托拉斯法
反托拉斯法即反垄断法，是国际间或涉外经济活动中，用以控制垄断活动的立法、行政规章、司法判例以及国际条约的总称。据台湾“中时电子报”7月11日报道，日前，美国报业组成的新闻媒体联盟控诉美国网络新闻已被谷歌和脸书垄断，并呼吁政府修法并放宽反托拉斯法规，以使媒体可联合起来与两巨头谈判
新闻媒体联盟从美国报业联盟改名而来，由2000家媒体组成，包括《纽约时报》、《华尔街日报》与几百家规模较小的媒体集团和地方报社。他们控诉媒体被迫依照这两家公司展示、优先呈现新闻与用新闻营利的规则调整内容。
该联盟主席查福恩在《华尔街日报》上撰文指出，每年广告主花在数位广告的钱共730亿美元，其中超过70%花在谷歌和脸书上，且这两家公司吃掉广告营收大部分成长幅度。但它们没有雇用记者、没有挖出贪腐丑闻、没有派记者到战地采访或到体育场馆捕捉比赛画面，只是坐等这些财力吃紧的新闻业媒体为他们做所有这些代价高昂的工作。
对此，谷歌和脸书回应说，已尽力用补贴方式协助媒体。
衍生四：2018年，谁能挑战谷歌和脸书的双头垄断？
Businessinsider近日预测，2018年传媒与广告业有以下三大趋势不可忽视：亚马逊有望打破谷歌和Facebook对市场的垄断地位；并非只有纸媒遭遇寒冬，数字媒体也在遭遇生存挑战；咨询公司可能正在抢走广告公司的饭碗。
1、谷歌脸书的双头垄断局面或被亚马逊打破
电商巨头亚马逊正在将野心转向传媒和广告业务，据估计，亚马逊的广告业务收入总额已经超过了10亿美元，未来它甚至有可能打破谷歌和Facebook最数字广告市场的双头垄断，成为第三巨头。
近年来，亚马逊一直在悄悄建立自己广告业务，包括在公司平台上增加搜索广告、向会员提供流媒体游戏广告等。亚马逊还推出了以数据和技术推动的产品，帮助广告主在其他网站上获得用户信息。
事实上，亚马逊只是刚刚开始加速。他们准备在纽约增加新的办公室，广告部就要招2000人。在搜索和视频广告上也取得了巨大的增长，已经成为不容忽视的广告科技企业。他们累积了太多数据，电商业务也蓬勃发展，任何品牌都无法忽视他们了。
广告科技公司Sonobi的创始人兼首席执行官Michael Connelly就说：“亚马逊用户基础庞大，是美国访问量第四大的网站。作为企业，他们成就了太多，广告主愿意光顾他们的平台是情理之中的事。他们不仅有机会取得进一步成功，甚至有机会在未来颠覆Facebook和谷歌的地位”。
2、除了纸媒，数字媒体也在遭遇“中年危机”
如今，并非只有纸媒在遭遇寒冬，数字媒体也在背负巨大的压力和挑战，特别是那些仅仅依赖广告为生的数字媒体大多发现生存日益艰难。
这样的例子比比皆是：2017年，知名科技网站Mashable被出版业巨头Ziff Davis收购，售价仅5000万美元，远低于Mashable此前的估值2.5亿美元；Buzzfeed原本预计2017年营收3.5亿美元，但实际营收此预期低了15%-20%，原定于今年的IPO计划可能也被迫推迟；旗下拥有赫芬顿邮报、美国在线、雅虎的传媒业巨头Oath去年也大规模裁员。
整个行业里，那些以往一直依赖广告收入的媒体，已经开始迅速寻求营收多元化了。2018年肯定也会有更多媒体寻求商业模式上的改变，比如尝试电商和订阅收入，而不会再把鸡蛋都放在一个篮子（比如Facebook平台）。但可以确定的是，不是所有人都能成功，未来恐怕会出现更多的兼并和收购。
3、咨询公司正在抢走广告公司的饭碗
近几年，咨询公司不断进军广告业，且在营销思维上比广告公司更值得学习。他们不仅以惊人的速度抢占市场，还在收购原有的广告公司。
有媒体统计，全球最大的管理咨询公司埃森哲的子公司埃森哲互动（Accenture Interactive），自2009年成立以来就一直积极进军营销服务领域，并已收购近20家广告代理公司。
像埃森哲互动、德勤数字（Deloitte Digital）、IBM iX这样的咨询公司是很擅长把传统创意和先进技术结合到一起的。近期他们打了不少漂亮仗，比如埃森哲互动拿下了玛莎拉蒂的全球品牌体验营销代理业务、德勤数字赢得了美国快餐连锁Chipotle的数字业务。独立广告机构Noble People的首席执行官Greg March表示：“他们以前就是给你一套方案，然后就不管了。但现在他们不仅做战略，还在做执行”。
评论区点赞最多的评论,大家可以体会下：
Pleasant read, but no depth.
Look at Microsoft's example, no one could get regulators to havea lot at the way they operate. When they finally did, they found out thatMicrosoft operates an illegal monopoly and recommend a breakup. This would nothave destroyed Microsoft, there is good reason for Office to be separate fromWindows. However, Microsoft was saved by an election and all action wasdropped.
The problem with Microsoft, Apple and others is that they locktheir users into their own eco system from which it is very difficult to exit.The article notes this, but offers no solutions. The solution is simple, it'scalled standards. Digital documents are the 21st century infrastructure, theirformat should be regulated to ensure that they can be used by everyone and thatthey will survive into the future. Every document we create using MicrosoftOffice contains code that Microsoft has patented ... in effect your lettercontains Microsoft intellectual property. They chose not to excercise theirrights, but what are the guarantees. It is clear that document formats shouldbe standardised, and the standard already exists. Microsoft and Google shouldbe forced to use the standards, paying a stiff fine for every "bug"in the implementation.
The same logic applies to other fields. E.g. look at all themessaging platforms that do not communicate with each other. It is as iftelephone companies allowed you to call only their own customers, withoutaccessing other networks, and you are forced to buy several phones, one fromeach telephone company. This should be standardised, just like telephony andmessaging apps should be forced to communicate.
So, the answer to the question "what should regulatorsdo" is "impose standards" and enforce those standards with stiffpenalties.
Some people object that this would reduce innovation, but thisis not true. Take the example of Microsoft Office, they could still keep theirexisting standard, they would just have to implement the open one and guaranteethat it works correctly. That would allow otther software to easily use thedocuments, there would be more competition.
4
愿景
小组
小编理工男，建筑底层民工，经济学人铁粉，和小伙伴(经济学人小群不超过8个人）看经济学人到现在已经700多天。现有一经济学人大群,如果您也有兴趣，可加入我们学习小组，群规甚严，请三思后而入群，WeChat : foxwulihua