Evgeny Morozov: How the Internet strengthens dictatorships

翻译人员: Zachary Lin Zhao 校对人员: dahong zhang

Good morning. I think, as a grumpy Eastern European,

大家早上好。我想他们请我这个坏脾气的东欧人来这里的目的

I was brought in to play the pessimist this morning. So bear with me.

就是散播些悲观主义。所以还望大家见谅。

Well, I come from the former Soviet Republic of Belarus,

我来自前苏联治理下的白俄罗斯。

which, as some of you may know,

众所周知，

is not exactly an oasis of liberal democracy.

那里算不上是自由民主的乐土。

So that's why I've always been fascinated

也正因此，我一直都对

with how technology could actually reshape

科技是如何重塑并开放我们这样的专治社会

and open up authoritarian societies like ours.

非常感兴趣。

So, I'm graduating college

我那时刚从大学毕业，

and, feeling very idealistic,

怀揣着满腔的理想，

I decided to join the NGO

决定加入一个非政府机构（NGO）。

which actually was using new media

他们当时正是利用新媒体

to promote democracy and media reform

在前苏联内大范围

in much of the former Soviet Union.

推广民主和媒体改革。

However, to my surprise,

但令我吃惊的是，

I discovered that dictatorships

我发现想要瓦解独裁统治

do not crumble so easily.

并没有想像中的那么容易。

In fact, some of them actually

事实上，一些独裁统治

survived the Internet challenge,

不但没有被这些挑战所击垮，

and some got even more repressive.

反而变得更具压迫性。

So this is when I ran out of my idealism and

也就是在那时，我才从我的理想主义中苏醒，

decided to quit my NGO job

并且决定辞去我在那个NGO的工作，

and actually study how the Internet could impede democratization.

转而去研究互联网是怎样阻碍民主进程的。

Now, I must tell you that this was never

我不得不告诉你，我这个论点

a very popular argument,

向来都不太受欢迎。

and it's probably not very popular yet

对于你们在座的一些人来说，可能直到现在

with some of you sitting in this audience.

也很难接受我这个论点。

It was never popular with many political leaders,

政治领袖们，尤其是美国的那些，

especially those in the United States

对我这个论点都没什么好感。

who somehow thought that new media

他们始终觉得，导弹办不到的事情

would be able to do what missiles couldn't.

新媒体可以办得到──

That is, promote democracy in difficult places

当其他办法都失效的时候，

where everything else has already been tried and failed.

新媒体仍旧可以在最棘手的地区内推广民主。

And I think by 2009,

到2009年的时候，

this news has finally reached Britain,

这股信仰总算是席卷了英国，

so I should probably add Gordon Brown to this list as well.

所以我应该把戈登-布朗也加入到这一串政治领袖中来。

However, there is an underlying argument about logistics,

但事实上，这项讨论中的本质议题

which has driven so much of this debate. Right?

是关于后勤管理的。对吗？

So if you look at it close enough,

如果你仔细想想，

you'll actually see that much of this

你就会发现，这一切归根结底

is about economics.

都是跟经济有关。

The cybertopians say, much like fax machines

那些“网托邦”的人认为，博客和社会网络

and Xerox machines did in the '80s,

就如同80年代的传真机和复印机一样，

blogs and social networks

已经从本质上彻底改变了

have radically transformed the economics of protest,

反抗运动的经济运作。

so people would inevitably rebel.

人民反抗是难以避免的。

To put it very simply,

换言之，

the assumption so far has been

现今为止的讨论都假设说

that if you give people enough connectivity,

如果人们有了足够的连通性，

if you give them enough devices,

有了足够的器具，

democracy will inevitably follow.

那么民主政治将是水到渠成、自然而然。

And to tell you the truth,

说真的，

I never really bought into this argument,

我从来都不相信这种说法。

in part because I never saw three American presidents

一部分原因是因为我之前还从来没有看过

agree on anything else in the past.

三位美国总统在同一件事情上达成共识。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

But, you know, even beyond that,

但除此之外，

if you think about the logic underlying it,

这种说法是建立在一种被我叫做

is something I call iPod liberalism,

“iPod自由主义”的逻辑之上的。

where we assume that every single Iranian or Chinese

也就是说我们假定每一个拥有并且喜爱iPod

who happens to have and love his iPod

的伊朗人和中国人

will also love liberal democracy.

也会自然而然地热衷于自由民主。

And again, I think this is kind of false.

我觉得这种想法是错误的。

But I think a much bigger problem with this

但我觉得这种逻辑背后

is that this logic --

所隐藏的更巨大的问题是──

that we should be dropping iPods not bombs --

坚信我们应该投掷iPod而不是炸弹──

I mean, it would make a fascinating title

听起来可以成为托马斯-弗里德曼 (Thomas Friedman)

for Thomas Friedman's new book.

(《世界是平的》的作者）新书的标题。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

But this is rarely a good sign. Right?

这从来都不是什么好迹象，对吧？

So, the bigger problem with this logic

所以这个逻辑所隐藏的更重要的问题是

is that it confuses the intended

它把科技的预定作用和实际作用

versus the actual uses of technology.

给搞混了。

For those of you who think that

如果你认为互联网上的新媒体

new media of the Internet

可以帮助我们避免种族屠杀的话，

could somehow help us avert genocide,

你只要看看卢旺达

should look no further than Rwanda,

就知道你有多么得错误了。

where in the '90s it was actually two radio stations

90年代的时候，正是卢旺达的两家电台

which were responsible for fueling much of the ethnic hatred in the first place.

为当时的种族仇恨煽风点火、添油加醋，最终酿成惨剧。

But even beyond that, coming back to the Internet,

再回到互联网这个话题上来，

what you can actually see

我们所目睹的

is that certain governments

实际上是一些政府

have mastered the use of cyberspace

如何利用网络空间

for propaganda purposes. Right?

来达到宣传的目的。

And they are building what I call the Spinternet.

而他们所构建的正是“贴金网”。

The combination of spin, on the one hand,

一边利用互联网，

and the Internet on the other.

一边往自己脸上贴金。

So governments from Russia to China to Iran

从俄罗斯到中国再到伊朗，这些政府

are actually hiring, training and paying bloggers

事实上都在雇用、培训、聘请博客们

in order to leave ideological comments

四处散发具有崇高理念的留言，

and create a lot of ideological blog posts

撰写一系列极富思想的博客日记，

to comment on sensitive political issues. Right?

来评论敏感的政治话题。

So you may wonder, why on Earth are they doing it?

你也许会问了，他们这么做的目的究竟是何在呢？

Why are they engaging with cyberspace?

他们干嘛要管网络空间的事情？

Well my theory is that

我的理论是

it's happening because censorship actually

在很多上述提到的地方，

is less effective than you think it is in many of those places.

审查机制已经不如你想像中的那么有效了。

The moment you put something critical in a blog,

一旦有人写了篇具有抨击性质的博客文章，

even if you manage to ban it immediately,

就算你把它立马封杀，

it will still spread around thousands and thousands of other blogs.

它到头来还是会传到其他成百上千的博客中。

So the more you block it,

所以人们博得越多，

the more it emboldens people to actually avoid the censorship

就越激励人们躲避审查制度，

and thus win in this cat-and-mouse game.

赢得这个“猫抓耗子”的游戏。

So the only way to control this message

所以唯一控制这种言论的方式

is actually to try to spin it

就是把它转过来，变成对你自己有利的言论，

and accuse anyone who has written something critical

并且声称那些抨击政府的人

of being, for example, a CIA agent.

是中央情报局卧底之类的角色。

And, again, this is happening quite often.

而这在现实生活中的确是时常发生的。

Just to give you an example of how it works in China, for example.

就拿中国举个例子吧。

There was a big case in February 2009

在2009年2月份的时候，

called "Elude the Cat."

诞生了一个相当热门的话题，叫做“躲猫猫”。

And for those of you who didn't know, I'll just give a little summary.

如果你们不了解详情的话，我就给你们简单概括一下：

So what happened is that a 24-year-old man,

当时一个24岁的中国青年

a Chinese man, died in prison custody.

在看守所里离奇身亡。

And police said that it happened

警方说事发的原因是因为

because he was playing hide and seek,

他当时正在和其他的看守所的狱友们

which is "elude the cat" in Chinese slang,

玩“躲猫猫”，

with other inmates and hit his head

结果不幸撞到了墙，

against the wall,

撞坏了脑袋。

which was not an explanation which sat well with many Chinese bloggers.

中国的博客们当然是不会轻易相信这个解释，

So they immediately began posting a lot of critical comments.

于是他们立即发布了大量具有抨击意味的帖子。

In fact, QQ.com, which is a popular Chinese website,

事实上在知名中文网站腾讯网上

had 35,000 comments

关于这个话题的留言

on this issue within hours.

几个小时内就达到了35000条。

But then authorities did something very smart.

不过随后政府做了个非常明智的举动。

Instead of trying to purge these comments,

与其大量清除这些留言，

they instead went and reached out to the bloggers.

他们反而是向这些博客们伸出了友善之手。

And they basically said, "Look guys. We'd like you to become netizen investigators."

他们基本上是说：“好吧，事到如今，我们恳请你们担任我们的网络稽查员。“

So 500 people applied,

500个人提出了申请，

and four were selected to actually go and tour the facility in question,

4个人最终被采纳并走访了那个看守所，

and thus inspect it and then blog about it.

巡查了一番，又博客了一番。

Within days the entire incident was forgotten,

几天之内，整起事件变淡出了人们的讨论范围。

which would have never happened if they simply tried to block the content.

如果政府只是盲目地屏蔽封锁的话，这是绝不可能发生的。

People would keep talking about it for weeks.

人们会讨论这个问题讨论好几个星期。

And this actually fits with another interesting theory

这其实和另外一个

about what's happening in authoritarian states

关于独裁政权和网络空间的理论

and in their cyberspace.

很有关联。

This is what political scientists call authoritarian deliberation,

政治学者们称其为独裁约定——

and it happens when governments are actually reaching out to their critics

政府实际上对他们的批判者伸出橄榄枝，

and letting them engage with each other online.

与他们在网络上进行探讨。

We tend to think

我们通常会认为

that somehow this is going to harm these dictatorships,

这么做只会损害这些独裁者，

but in many cases it only strengthens them.

但相反的，很多时候这么做反而进一步加强了他们。

And you may wonder why.

你也许想知道为什么。

I'll just give you a very short list of reasons

我在这里就给大家列出一些简短的原因

why authoritarian deliberation

来解释独裁约定

may actually help the dictators.

是如何帮助独裁者的。

And first it's quite simple.

第一点很简单：

Most of them operate in a complete information vacuum.

这些独裁者大部分都是在完全的信息真空的环境下运作。

They don't really have the data they need

他们并没有他们所需要的所有资料

in order to identify emerging threats facing the regime.

来正确地判断识别面对他们政权的潜在威胁。

So encouraging people to actually go online

所以鼓励民众上网

and share information and data

再博客和维基上面分享信息和资料

on blogs and wikis is great

其实是好事。

because otherwise, low level apparatchiks and bureaucrats

不然的话，低层官员们

will continue concealing what's actually happening in the country, right?

将继续隐瞒国家内真正发生的事情。

So from this perspective, having blogs and wikis

所以从这个角度来看，利用博客和维基来制造信息

produce knowledge has been great.

是对独裁者们很有利的事情。

Secondly, involving public in any decision making

第二点，让公众参与到重要决策中来

is also great

永远都是好的。

because it helps you to share the blame

因为这样一来，一旦政策失败，

for the policies which eventually fail.

你无需一个人承担职责。

Because they say, "Well look, we asked you,

因为他们可以说，“看吧，我们问过你们，

we consulted you, you voted on it.

征求过你们，这是你们投票选举的结果。

You put it on the front page of your blog.

你们把它放到你博客的首页上，

Well, great. You are the one who is to blame."

不错。那就拿你当替罪羊吧。“

And finally, the purpose of

最后一点，任何独裁约定背后的目的

any authoritarian deliberation efforts

都是为了在国内国外

is usually to increase the legitimacy of the regimes, both at home and abroad.

增强这个政权的合法性。

So inviting people to all sorts of public forums,

所以邀请人们参与公众论坛，

having them participate in decision making,

加入决策讨论中来，

it's actually great.

其实是件好事。

Because what happens is that then

因为这样一来

you can actually point to this initiative and say,

你就可以用这个做为例子，并且声称：

"Well, we are having a democracy. We are having a forum."

“看吧，我们有民主。我们有论坛。”

Just to give you an example,

据个例子来说，

one of the Russian regions, for example,

俄罗斯的某个区域

now involves its citizens

正鼓励民众们参与到该区域

in planning its strategy up until year 2020.

2020年前的政策规划中来。

Right? So they can go online

人们可以上网，提供想法，

and contribute ideas on what that region would look like by the year 2020.

畅谈他们希望这个区域2020年的时候变成什么样子。

I mean, anyone who has been to Russia would know

但任何去过俄罗斯的人都知道，

that there was no planning in Russia for the next month.

俄罗斯连几个月的规划都办理不好。

So having people involved in planning for 2020

所以邀请人们加入到2020年的规划中来

is not necessarily going to change anything,

是不会在真正意义上改变什么的。

because the dictators are still the ones who control the agenda.

因为这些独裁者们才是最终决定议事进程的人。

Just to give you an example from Iran,

在给你们一个伊朗的例子。

we all heard about the Twitter revolution

我们都听说过最近那里发生的

that happened there,

“推特革命”(Twitter Revolution)。

but if you look close enough, you'll actually see

但如果你仔细看看，你就会发现

that many of the networks and blogs

很多网络、博客、推特（Twitter）、Facebook

and Twitter and Facebook were actually operational.

实际上都是正常运行。

They may have become slower,

可能访问的速度略有减缓，

but the activists could still access it

但积极分子仍旧可以访问它们，

and actually argue that having access to them

甚至有人认为不封闭这些网站

is actually great for many authoritarian states.

事实上是对独裁政府有利的。

And it's great simply because

原因就在于这些网站们

they can gather open source intelligence.

给了政府开源性的情报信息。

In the past it would take you weeks, if not months,

在过去，要想搞清楚伊朗的积极分子们是如何彼此关联的

to identify how Iranian activists connect to each other.

往往需要花上几个星期，甚至是几个月。

Now you actually know how they connect to each other

现在你这要登陆他们的Facebook网页

by looking at their Facebook page.

看看谁和谁是好友就可以了。

I mean KGB, and not just KGB,

过去苏联安全局(KGB)以及其他组织

used to torture in order to actually get this data.

要利用酷刑折磨才能得到这些资料。

Now it's all available online.

现在这些资料在网上随手可得。

(Laughter)

（笑声）

But I think the biggest conceptual pitfall

但我觉得那些“网托邦”人士

that cybertopians made

所犯的最大的概念性错误

is when it comes to digital natives, people who have grown up online.

是关于当今的数码一代，那些在网络上成长起来的人们。

We often hear about cyber activism,

我们常常听说网络积极主义，

how people are getting more active because of the Internet.

听说人们是如何因为互联网而变得更加积极的。

Rarely hear about cyber hedonism, for example,

但却很少听说比如“网络享乐主义”之类的说法，

how people are becoming passive.

听说人们是如何因为互联网而变得被动消极的。

Why? Because they somehow assume that the Internet

为什么呢？因为这些“网托邦“人士一味地认为

is going to be the catalyst of change

互联网最终将成为社会变化的催化剂，

that will push young people into the streets,

将鼓舞青年群众走向街头，

while in fact it may actually be the new opium for the masses

但事实上它却成为了老百姓的新鸦片，

which will keep the same people in their rooms downloading pornography.

鼓舞人们躲在自己房间里，下载色情片。

That's not an option being considered too strongly.

但很多人却对这种想法不屑一顾。

So for every digital renegade that is revolting in the streets of Tehran,

每个德黑兰街头造反的数码变节者的背后

there may as well be two digital captives

都隐藏着

who are actually rebelling only in the World of Warcraft.

两个只在魔兽世界里反抗的数码俘虏。

And this is realistic. And there is nothing wrong about it

这就是现实。不过这并没有什么不好的，

because the Internet has greatly empowered many of these young people

因为互联网的确是给了很多年轻人力量。

and it plays a completely different social role for them.

它对于他们所产生的社会作用是完全不同的。

If you look at some of the surveys

如果你看看一些关于年轻人

on how the young people actually benefit from the Internet,

是如何从互联网中受益的问卷调查，

you'll see that the number of teenagers in China, for example,

你就会发现在中国

for whom the Internet actually broadens their sex life,

性生活因为互联网而得以扩展的青少年的数量

is three times more than in the United States.

比美国多三倍。

So it does play a social role,

所以互联网的确扮演着社会角色，

however it may not necessarily lead to political engagement.

只不过它不一定会带来任何实质性的政治讨论。

So the way I tend to think of it

所以我情愿把它看作是一种

is like a hierarchy of cyber-needs in space,

网络上的需要层次论——

a total rip-off from Abraham Maslow.

完全是照抄亚伯拉罕-马斯洛(Abraham Maslow)(需要层次论的创立者)。

But the point here is that

但重要的一点是

when we get the remote Russian village online,

当你把网络带给那些俄罗斯的边远乡村时，

what will get people to the Internet

真正能启发人们上网的

is not going to be the reports from Human Rights Watch.

并不会是“人权观察“的报告，

It's going to be pornography, "Sex and the City,"

而是色情片，《欲望城市》，

or maybe watching funny videos of cats.

或者是根猫有关的搞笑视频。

So this is something you have to recognize.

你们需要认识到这一点。

So what should we do about it?

对此，我们应该做些什么呢？

Well I say we have to stop thinking

我们需要摒弃

about the number of iPods per capita

人均iPod值的概念，

and start thinking about ways in which

而是开始思考各种方法

we can empower intellectuals,

将力量带给知识分子、

dissidents, NGOs and then the members of civil society.

不同意见者、非政府机构、以及所有文明社会的成员们。

Because even what has been happening up 'til now

因为随着“贴金网”和独裁约定的日渐壮大，

with the Spinternet and authoritarian deliberation,

这些人的声音

there is a great chance that those voices will not be heard.

很有可能会被淹没其中。

So I think we should shatter some of our utopian assumptions

所以我们要摒弃乌托邦的假想，

and actually start doing something about it.

开始脚踏实地地做一些实事。

Thank you.

（谢谢）

(Applause)

（掌声）