How you can help transform the internet into a place of trust | Claire Wardle

翻译人员: Nan Yang 校对人员: Jiasi Hao

No matter who you are or where you live,

无论你是谁或者住在哪，

I'm guessing that you have at least one relative

我猜你们身边至少有一位

that likes to forward those emails.

喜欢转发那些电子邮件的亲戚。

You know the ones I'm talking about --

你们知道我说的那些邮件

是带有可疑声明 或阴谋论录像的邮件。

the ones with dubious claims or conspiracy videos.

And you've probably already muted them on Facebook

而且你们可能已经在 Facebook 上屏蔽了他们，

for sharing social posts like this one.

不想收到这种信息，像这个。

It's an image of a banana

这是一张香蕉的图片，

with a strange red cross running through the center.

香蕉中间有一个奇怪的红色十字。

And the text around it is warning people

旁边的文字在警告人们

not to eat fruits that look like this,

不要吃这样的水果，

suggesting they've been injected with blood

指出了它们已经被注射了

contaminated with the HIV virus.

被 HIV 病毒污染的血液。

And the social share message above it simply says,

而且它上面的分享消息写着：

"Please forward to save lives."

“为了拯救生命，请转发。”

Now, fact-checkers have been debunking this one for years,

事实审查员多年来 一直在揭露这一说法的真相，

but it's one of those rumors that just won't die.

但这只是那些 永远不会消失的传闻之一。

A zombie rumor.

一个僵尸谣言。

And, of course, it's entirely false.

当然它是完全虚假的。

It might be tempting to laugh at an example like this, to say,

去嘲笑这样一个例子可能很诱人，

大家会说： “反正，谁会相信这个呢？”

"Well, who would believe this, anyway?"

But the reason it's a zombie rumor

但说这是僵尸谣言的原因是

is because it taps into people's deepest fears about their own safety

它利用了关于人们对自身安全 和他们所爱之人的

and that of the people they love.

最深层次的恐惧。

And if you spend as enough time as I have looking at misinformation,

而且如果你们花费和我一样多 的时间来看这个误传，

you know that this is just one example of many

你们会知道这只是众多

that taps into people's deepest fears and vulnerabilities.

利用人们最深层的 恐惧和脆弱的例子之一。

Every day, across the world, we see scores of new memes on Instagram

每一天，在世界范围内， 我们都能看到 Instagram 上出现的

encouraging parents not to vaccinate their children.

大量新表情包在鼓励父母 不要给孩子接种疫苗。

We see new videos on YouTube explaining that climate change is a hoax.

我们看到 YoutTube 上的新视频 在解释说气候变化问题是个骗局。

And across all platforms, we see endless posts designed to demonize others

在所有平台上，我们看见了 因为种族、宗教或性取向的不同，

on the basis of their race, religion or sexuality.

而妖魔化他人的无穷无尽的帖子。

Welcome to one of the central challenges of our time.

欢迎来到我们这个时代 的主要挑战之一。

How can we maintain an internet with freedom of expression at the core,

我们如何在维护互联网 言论自由核心的同时，

while also ensuring that the content that's being disseminated

也能确保正在传播的内容

doesn't cause irreparable harms to our democracies, our communities

不会对我们的民主、我们的社区 和我们的身心健康

and to our physical and mental well-being?

造成不可弥补的伤害？

Because we live in the information age,

因为我们生活在信息时代，

yet the central currency upon which we all depend -- information --

但是我们所有人都依赖的 中央货币——信息——

is no longer deemed entirely trustworthy

不再完全值得信赖，

and, at times, can appear downright dangerous.

而且有时会显得非常危险。

This is thanks in part to the runaway growth of social sharing platforms

这部分“归功”于 社交共享媒体的迅猛发展，

that allow us to scroll through,

让我们可以在谎言和真相

where lies and facts sit side by side,

并存的世界里滑屏浏览，

but with none of the traditional signals of trustworthiness.

但是没有任何 传统的可信赖的信号。

And goodness -- our language around this is horribly muddled.

天啊——我们关于这方面 的语言极其混乱。

People are still obsessed with the phrase "fake news,"

人们仍然沉迷于“假新闻”这一短语，

despite the fact that it's extraordinarily unhelpful

尽管事实是，该短语毫无帮助，

and used to describe a number of things that are actually very different:

并且被用来描述一系列实际上 非常不同的东西：

谎言、谣言、恶作剧、 阴谋、宣传鼓吹……

lies, rumors, hoaxes, conspiracies, propaganda.

And I really wish we could stop using a phrase

我非常希望我们可以停止使用

that's been co-opted by politicians right around the world,

这一世界各地的政治家 共同选择的一个短语，

from the left and the right,

从左派到右派，

used as a weapon to attack a free and independent press.

停止将它作为武器来攻击 自由和独立的新闻媒体。

(Applause)

（掌声）

Because we need our professional news media now more than ever.

因为我们比以往任何时候 都更需要我们的专业新闻媒体。

And besides, most of this content doesn't even masquerade as news.

而且除此之外，大多数内容 甚至都没有被伪装成新闻，

It's memes, videos, social posts.

而是以表情包、视频、 社交帖子的形式存在。

And most of it is not fake; it's misleading.

而且大部分内容 不是假的，而是误导。

我们倾向于专注在真假上。

We tend to fixate on what's true or false.

But the biggest concern is actually the weaponization of context.

但是最大的担忧实际上是 语境的武器化。

Because the most effective disinformation

因为最有效的虚假信息

has always been that which has a kernel of truth to it.

一直是具有真实内核的那些。

Let's take this example from London, from March 2017,

举一个 2017 年 3 月伦敦的例子，

a tweet that circulated widely

在威斯敏斯特桥

in the aftermath of a terrorist incident on Westminster Bridge.

恐怖袭击事件发生后 的一个广为流传的推文。

This is a genuine image, not fake.

这是个真实的图片，不是假的。

The woman who appears in the photograph was interviewed afterwards,

照片里的女子在事后接受了采访，

她解释到 她精神上完全受到了打击。

and she explained that she was utterly traumatized.

She was on the phone to a loved one,

事件发生当时 她和爱人在打电话，

and she wasn't looking at the victim out of respect.

出于尊重， 她没有看向身旁的受害者。

But it still was circulated widely with this Islamophobic framing,

但是它仍然以 伊斯兰恐惧症为主题广为流传，

with multiple hashtags, including: #BanIslam.

并带有多个主题标签， 包括：#BanIslam（禁止伊斯兰人）。

Now, if you worked at Twitter, what would you do?

如果你在推特工作， 你会怎么做？

Would you take that down, or would you leave it up?

你会把它撤下平台， 还是让它留在那？

My gut reaction, my emotional reaction, is to take this down.

我的直觉和情感反应 是把它撤下来。

I hate the framing of this image.

我讨厌对这个图片的“包装”。

But freedom of expression is a human right,

但是言论自由是人类的权力，

and if we start taking down speech that makes us feel uncomfortable,

如果我们开始 把让我们感到不舒服的言论撤下，

we're in trouble.

我们就有麻烦了。

And this might look like a clear-cut case,

而且这个可能看起来是 一个清晰明了的案例，

but, actually, most speech isn't.

但实际上，大多数言论不是。

These lines are incredibly difficult to draw.

这些边界很难描绘。

What's a well-meaning decision by one person

一个人的善意决定

is outright censorship to the next.

是对下一个人的公然审查。

What we now know is that this account, Texas Lone Star,

现在我们知道的是， 这个账户，德克萨斯孤星，

was part of a wider Russian disinformation campaign,

是一个更大的 俄罗斯造谣运动的一部分，

one that has since been taken down.

此后已经被扳倒。

Would that change your view?

这会改变你的看法吗？

It would mine,

会改变我的，

because now it's a case of a coordinated campaign

因为现在这个案子的性质 变成了一场播种不和谐种子的

to sow discord.

协作运动。

And for those of you who'd like to think

而对于你们中那些认为

that artificial intelligence will solve all of our problems,

人工智能将会解决我们 所有问题的人来说，

I think we can agree that we're a long way away

我认为我们可以同意

在人工智能能够理解这种帖子前 我们还有很长的一段路要走。

from AI that's able to make sense of posts like this.

So I'd like to explain three interlocking issues

所以我想解释一下 让这事变得如此复杂的

that make this so complex

三个环环相扣的问题，

and then think about some ways we can consider these challenges.

然后琢磨出些方法来思考这些挑战。

First, we just don't have a rational relationship to information,

首先，我们只是没有 与信息建立起理性关系，

we have an emotional one.

我们的关系是感性的。

It's just not true that more facts will make everything OK,

并非更多的事实真相 会让一切顺利，

because the algorithms that determine what content we see,

因为决定我们 能看见什么内容的算法，

well, they're designed to reward our emotional responses.

是被设计来 奖励我们的情感反应。

And when we're fearful,

而当我们恐惧时，

oversimplified narratives, conspiratorial explanations

过于简化的叙述、阴谋论解释，

and language that demonizes others is far more effective.

和妖魔化事物的语言 更加有效。

And besides, many of these companies,

此外，有很多公司，

their business model is attached to attention,

他们的商业模式 与人们的关注度息息相关，

which means these algorithms will always be skewed towards emotion.

这意味着这些算法 总是会偏向情感。

Second, most of the speech I'm talking about here is legal.

第二，我现在谈论的 大多数言论是合法的。

如果我在说的是

It would be a different matter

if I was talking about child sexual abuse imagery

儿童性虐待图片， 或者是煽动暴力的内容，

or content that incites violence.

就是另外一回事。

It can be perfectly legal to post an outright lie.

公开撒谎可以是完全合法的。

But people keep talking about taking down "problematic" or "harmful" content,

但是人们一直在讨论撤下 “有问题的”或“有害的”内容，

but with no clear definition of what they mean by that,

但是并没有对它们是什么 有明确的定义，

including Mark Zuckerberg,

包括马克·扎克伯格，

他最近呼吁 全球监管来缓和言论。

who recently called for global regulation to moderate speech.

And my concern is that we're seeing governments

而我的担心是，我们看见了

right around the world

世界各地的政府

rolling out hasty policy decisions

推出仓促的政策决定，

that might actually trigger much more serious consequences

但是它可能实际上触发了

when it comes to our speech.

对于我们的言论更严重的后果。

而且即使我们可以决定 哪个言论留住或撤下来，

And even if we could decide which speech to take up or take down,

we've never had so much speech.

我们从来没有过 现在这么多的言论。

Every second, millions of pieces of content

每一秒，几百万的内容，

are uploaded by people right around the world

以不同的语言

被世界各地的人上传，

in different languages,

drawing on thousands of different cultural contexts.

吸取了上千种不同的文化背景。

We've simply never had effective mechanisms

我们根本没有有效的机制，

to moderate speech at this scale,

无论是通过人工还是技术手段

whether powered by humans or by technology.

去缓和这种规模的言论内容，

And third, these companies -- Google, Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp --

然后第三，这些公司—— 谷歌，推特，脸书，WhatsApp ——

they're part of a wider information ecosystem.

它们是广阔的 信息生态系统的一部分。

We like to lay all the blame at their feet, but the truth is,

我们喜欢把所有责任 都推到他们身上，但事实是，

the mass media and elected officials can also play an equal role

大众媒体和民选官员 只要他们想，

in amplifying rumors and conspiracies when they want to.

也可以在扩大谣言和阴谋上 发挥同等作用。

As can we, when we mindlessly forward divisive or misleading content

我们也一样，当我们漫不经心地 转发分裂性或误导性的内容时，

without trying.

甚至没有费力。

We're adding to the pollution.

我们正在加剧这种“污染”。

I know we're all looking for an easy fix.

我知道我们都在 寻找简单的解决方法。

But there just isn't one.

但就是一个都没有。

Any solution will have to be rolled out at a massive scale, internet scale,

任何解决方案都必须 以大规模推出，互联网的规模，

and yes, the platforms, they're used to operating at that level.

而且的确，这些平台 已经习惯在那种级别的规模上运行。

But can and should we allow them to fix these problems?

但是我们可以并应该 允许他们来解决这些问题吗？

They're certainly trying.

他们当然在努力。

But most of us would agree that, actually, we don't want global corporations

但是我们大多数人都会同意， 实际上，我们不希望跨国公司

to be the guardians of truth and fairness online.

成为网上真理与公平的守护者。

And I also think the platforms would agree with that.

我也认为这些平台也会同意。

And at the moment, they're marking their own homework.

此时此刻， 他们正在展现属于自己的成果。

They like to tell us

他们想告诉我们

that the interventions they're rolling out are working,

他们实施的干预措施正在奏效，

but because they write their own transparency reports,

但是因为他们编写的是 他们自己的透明度报告，

there's no way for us to independently verify what's actually happening.

我们无法独立验证实际的情况。

(Applause)

（掌声）

And let's also be clear that most of the changes we see

我们也要清楚， 大多数我们看到的变化

only happen after journalists undertake an investigation

只发生在记者进行了调查

and find evidence of bias

并找到了存在

or content that breaks their community guidelines.

违反社区规则的偏见 和内容的证据之后。

So yes, these companies have to play a really important role in this process,

所以是的，这些公司必须 在这个过程中扮演重要角色，

but they can't control it.

但是他们无法控制它。

So what about governments?

那么政府呢？

Many people believe that global regulation is our last hope

很多人相信全球监管

in terms of cleaning up our information ecosystem.

是清理我们信息生态系统的 最后希望。

But what I see are lawmakers who are struggling to keep up to date

但是我看见的是正在努力跟上

with the rapid changes in technology.

技术迅速变革的立法者。

And worse, they're working in the dark,

更糟的是， 他们在黑暗中摸索工作，

because they don't have access to data

因为他们没有获取数据的权限

to understand what's happening on these platforms.

来了解这些平台上 正在发生些什么。

And anyway, which governments would we trust to do this?

更何况，我们会相信 哪个政府来做这件事呢？

We need a global response, not a national one.

我们需要全球的回应， 不是国家的。

So the missing link is us.

所以缺少的环节是我们。

It's those people who use these technologies every day.

是每天使用这些技术的那些人。

Can we design a new infrastructure to support quality information?

我们能不能设计一个新的基础设施 来支持高质量信息？

Well, I believe we can,

我相信我们可以，

and I've got a few ideas about what we might be able to actually do.

我已经有了一些想法， 关于我们实际上可以做什么。

So firstly, if we're serious about bringing the public into this,

所以首先，如果认真考虑 让公众参与进来，

can we take some inspiration from Wikipedia?

我们可以从维基百科 汲取一些灵感吗？

They've shown us what's possible.

他们已经向我们展示了可能的方法。

Yes, it's not perfect,

是的，它并不完美，

but they've demonstrated that with the right structures,

但是他们已经用正确的结构，

全球的视野 和很高很高的透明度证明了

with a global outlook and lots and lots of transparency,

you can build something that will earn the trust of most people.

你们可以建立一些 将赢得大多数人信任的东西。

Because we have to find a way to tap into the collective wisdom

因为我们必须找到一种方法， 充分利用集体的智慧

and experience of all users.

和所有用户的经验。

This is particularly the case for women, people of color

妇女，有色人种和 未能充分代表大众的群体

and underrepresented groups.

尤其如此。

Because guess what?

猜猜为什么？

They are experts when it comes to hate and disinformation,

他们是仇恨和虚假信息方面的专家，

because they have been the targets of these campaigns for so long.

因为他们很久以来都是 这些信息运动的目标。

And over the years, they've been raising flags,

多年来，他们一直摇旗呐喊，

and they haven't been listened to.

但是从来没有被听见。

This has got to change.

这必须改变。

So could we build a Wikipedia for trust?

所以我们能否为信任 创建一个维基百科？

Could we find a way that users can actually provide insights?

我们能否找到一种 用户可以真正提供见解的方法？

They could offer insights around difficult content-moderation decisions.

他们可以对有难度的 内容审核决定提出见解。

They could provide feedback

当平台决定要推出新变更时，

when platforms decide they want to roll out new changes.

他们可以提出反馈。

Second, people's experiences with the information is personalized.

第二，人们对信息的体验 是个性化的。

My Facebook news feed is very different to yours.

我脸书上的新闻推荐 与你们的非常不同。

Your YouTube recommendations are very different to mine.

你们的 YouTube 推荐 与我的也很不同。

That makes it impossible for us to actually examine

这使得我们无法实际检查

what information people are seeing.

大家看到的是什么信息。

So could we imagine

那么，我们是否可以想象

developing some kind of centralized open repository for anonymized data,

为匿名数据 开发某种集中式开放存储库，

with privacy and ethical concerns built in?

并内置隐私和道德问题？

Because imagine what we would learn

因为想象一下， 如果我们建立一个

if we built out a global network of concerned citizens

由关心且忧虑的 公民组成的全球网络，

who wanted to donate their social data to science.

他们希望将其社交数据捐赠给科学， 那么我们将学到什么？

Because we actually know very little

因为我们实际上对

about the long-term consequences of hate and disinformation

仇恨和虚假信息对 人们态度和行为产生的

on people's attitudes and behaviors.

长期后果知之甚少。

And what we do know,

而我们知道的是，

most of that has been carried out in the US,

其中大部分是在美国进行的，

despite the fact that this is a global problem.

尽管这是一个全球性问题。

We need to work on that, too.

我们也需要为此努力。

And third,

第三点，

我们可以找到方法来连接个体吗？

can we find a way to connect the dots?

No one sector, let alone nonprofit, start-up or government,

没有一个部门可以解决这个问题， 更不用说非营利组织，初创企业

is going to solve this.

或政府部门了。

But there are very smart people right around the world

但是世界各地有 那些非常聪明的人们

working on these challenges,

在应对这些挑战，

from newsrooms, civil society, academia, activist groups.

包括新闻编辑部，民间社会组织， 学术界和维权组织。

And you can see some of them here.

你们在这可以看见其中的一些。

Some are building out indicators of content credibility.

有些正在建立内容可信度的指标。

Others are fact-checking,

其他人在做事实核查，

so that false claims, videos and images can be down-ranked by the platforms.

以至于虚假声明，视频和图像 可以被平台撤下。

A nonprofit I helped to found, First Draft,

我协助建立的一个非营利组织， 名叫“初稿”（First Draft），

is working with normally competitive newsrooms around the world

正在与世界各地通常竞争激烈的 新闻编辑室合作，

to help them build out investigative, collaborative programs.

以帮助他们建立调查性协作项目。

And Danny Hillis, a software architect,

丹尼·希利斯， 一个软件设计师，

is designing a new system called The Underlay,

正在设计一个 叫做 The Underlay 的新系统，

which will be a record of all public statements of fact

它将记录所有与其来源相连接的

connected to their sources,

公开事实陈述，

so that people and algorithms can better judge what is credible.

以便人们和算法可以 更好地判断什么是可信的。

And educators around the world are testing different techniques

而且世界各地的教育者 在测试不同的技术，

for finding ways to make people critical of the content they consume.

以找到能使人们对所看到内容 产生批判的方法。

All of these efforts are wonderful, but they're working in silos,

所有的这些努力都很棒， 但是他们埋头各自为战，

and many of them are woefully underfunded.

而且很多都严重资金不足。

There are also hundreds of very smart people

在这些公司内部

working inside these companies,

也有成百上千的聪明人在努力，

but again, these efforts can feel disjointed,

但是同样， 这些努力让人感到不够连贯，

because they're actually developing different solutions to the same problems.

因为他们正在为同样的问题 建立不同的解决方案。

How can we find a way to bring people together

我们怎么能找到一种方法， 把这些人同时

in one physical location for days or weeks at a time,

聚集在同一个地点几天或几周，

so they can actually tackle these problems together

这样他们可以真正从不同角度

but from their different perspectives?

共同解决这些问题？

So can we do this?

那么我们能做到吗？

Can we build out a coordinated, ambitious response,

我们能否建立一种协调一致， 雄心勃勃的应对措施，

one that matches the scale and the complexity of the problem?

使其与问题的规模和复杂性相匹配？

I really think we can.

我真的认为我们可以。

Together, let's rebuild our information commons.

加入我们，重建我们的信息共享吧。

Thank you.

谢谢。

(Applause)

（掌声）