Evgeny Morozov: How the Internet strengthens dictatorships

譯者: Wenjer Leuschel 審譯者: Ching-Yi Wu

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

早安！我想人家讓我這個性情乖戾的東歐人

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

今天早上來扮演的是烏鴉嘴，故請多多包涵

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

我來自前蘇聯白俄羅斯共和國

which, as some of you may know,

你們之中可能有些人知道

is not exactly an oasis of liberal democracy.

那兒不算是自由民主的綠洲

So that's why I've always been fascinated

因此我一向很有興趣

with how technology could actually reshape

想瞭解科技如何開放並重新塑造

and open up authoritarian societies like ours.

我們那樣的威權社會

So, I'm graduating college

那時我剛從大學畢業

and, feeling very idealistic,

滿懷理想

I decided to join the NGO

決定加入非政府組織

which actually was using new media

他們正在利用新媒體

to promote democracy and media reform

要在前蘇聯的大範圍內

in much of the former Soviet Union.

推廣民主和媒體改革

However, to my surprise,

不過令我吃驚的是

I discovered that dictatorships

我發現獨裁政權

do not crumble so easily.

並不那麼容易瓦解

In fact, some of them actually

事實上有些獨裁政權

survived the Internet challenge,

打敗這個挑戰

and some got even more repressive.

有些還變得更為強硬

So this is when I ran out of my idealism and

這時我的理想就全涼了

decided to quit my NGO job

決定辭去非政府組織的工作

and actually study how the Internet could impede democratization.

轉而研究網際網路如何阻礙民主發展

Now, I must tell you that this was never

我得告訴你們

a very popular argument,

這個議題在當時可沒那麼討喜

and it's probably not very popular yet

到今天也可能還不怎麼討喜

with some of you sitting in this audience.

雖然有在座的各位捧場

It was never popular with many political leaders,

對許多政治領袖而言，這個議題從來不討喜

especially those in the United States

－尤其是對美國的政治領袖

who somehow thought that new media

他們多少以為新媒體

would be able to do what missiles couldn't.

可以達到飛彈所不能達到的效果

That is, promote democracy in difficult places

也就是在困難的地方推廣民主

where everything else has already been tried and failed.

在那裡什麼都試過了也失敗了

And I think by 2009,

而在2009年的今天

this news has finally reached Britain,

我想這個信息終於來到了英國

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

因此我也許應該把布朗總理納入這份名單

However, there is an underlying argument about logistics,

不過有個與訊息流通相關的論調

which has driven so much of this debate. Right?

主導著這個論辯，是吧？

So if you look at it close enough,

那麼請仔細察看一下

you'll actually see that much of this

你們就會看到這個論調

is about economics.

談的大多是訊息流通的經濟運作

The cybertopians say, much like fax machines

網托邦人說，就像傳真機和影印機

and Xerox machines did in the '80s,

在八零年代所達到的效果那樣

blogs and social networks

網誌和社交網路已經

have radically transformed the economics of protest,

根本地改變了抗議的訊息流通經濟

so people would inevitably rebel.

因此人們肯定會起來反抗

To put it very simply,

簡而言之

the assumption so far has been

到目前為止有這麼個假設：

that if you give people enough connectivity,

如果人們有充分的聯繫

if you give them enough devices,

有足夠的聯繫裝置

democracy will inevitably follow.

民主自然而然水到渠成

And to tell you the truth,

說個實話

I never really bought into this argument,

我從來不相信這種論調

in part because I never saw three American presidents

部分原因是我從來沒看過三位美國總統

agree on anything else in the past.

在過去對任何事情有過相同看法

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

But, you know, even beyond that,

但即使不談這個

if you think about the logic underlying it,

如果想一想那背後的邏輯

is something I call iPod liberalism,

有個我稱之為iPod自由主義的東西在作祟

where we assume that every single Iranian or Chinese

那個想法是說如果每個伊朗人或中國人

who happens to have and love his iPod

碰巧擁有也喜愛iPod

will also love liberal democracy.

他也會熱愛自由民主

And again, I think this is kind of false.

再說一次，我認為這個想法錯了

But I think a much bigger problem with this

不過我想更大的問題是

is that this logic --

這樣的邏輯：

that we should be dropping iPods not bombs --

我們得投擲iPod而不是炸彈

I mean, it would make a fascinating title

我看這很可以是傅利曼

for Thomas Friedman's new book.

下一本書的響亮標題

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

But this is rarely a good sign. Right?

不過這很不可能是個好兆頭，是吧？

So, the bigger problem with this logic

那麼這個想法所帶來的更大問題是

is that it confuses the intended

它把科計被設定的作用

versus the actual uses of technology.

及其實際上的作用搞混了

For those of you who think that

如果你們有人認為

new media of the Internet

網際網路的新媒體

could somehow help us avert genocide,

多少能夠有助於防止屠殺，那麼遠的不看

should look no further than Rwanda,

只要看看盧安達便知道錯了

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

九零年代正是該國兩家廣播電台

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

要對當時煽動種族仇恨負起最大的責任

But even beyond that, coming back to the Internet,

但即使不談這個，再回到網際網路

what you can actually see

實際可以看到的是

is that certain governments

某些政府有充分的能力

have mastered the use of cyberspace

掌握網路空間的利用

for propaganda purposes. Right?

來達到其宣傳目的，是吧？

And they are building what I call the Spinternet.

他們建構的是我所謂的「攪和網」

The combination of spin, on the one hand,

這個詞來自Spin和Internet

and the Internet on the other.

即在網際網路上攪和以混水摸魚

So governments from Russia to China to Iran

俄羅斯、中國和伊朗的政府的確一直在

are actually hiring, training and paying bloggers

徵召、訓練並付錢給網路寫手（俗稱五毛）

in order to leave ideological comments

在網上留下意識形態的評論

and create a lot of ideological blog posts

創造出許多意識形態的貼文

to comment on sensitive political issues. Right?

評論敏感的政治議題，是吧？

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

那麼你可能納悶他們這是在幹什麼？

Why are they engaging with cyberspace?

他們為什麼活躍於網路空間？

Well my theory is that

我的理論為：

it's happening because censorship actually

發生這種事情是因為在許多地方

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

進行審查實在達不到預期效果

The moment you put something critical in a blog,

一旦在網誌上貼了批評文字

even if you manage to ban it immediately,

即使能馬上把它禁掉

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

那文字還是會擴散到成千上萬的其它網誌去

So the more you block it,

因此越是封鎖它

the more it emboldens people to actually avoid the censorship

就越使人們想出法子規避審查

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

來贏得這場貓捉老鼠的遊戲

So the only way to control this message

所以要控制這個訊息唯一的辦法是

is actually to try to spin it

著著實實攪和它

and accuse anyone who has written something critical

比方指控寫出批評文章的人

of being, for example, a CIA agent.

是中情局的間諜

And, again, this is happening quite often.

再舉例說明這種經常發生的做法

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

比方說，在中國是這麼操作的：

There was a big case in February 2009

2009年二月有個大案子

called "Elude the Cat."

叫做「躲貓貓」

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

我給不知情的人簡單總結一下這個案子

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

話說一位24歲的中國籍男士

a Chinese man, died in prison custody.

在他被拘留的看守所裡死亡了

And police said that it happened

公安說事情的原委是

because he was playing hide and seek,

因為他當時

which is "elude the cat" in Chinese slang,

正在和別的囚犯玩捉迷藏

with other inmates and hit his head

中國俗稱「躲貓貓」

against the wall,

結果一頭撞牆了

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

許多中國網民對這種說法頗不滿意

So they immediately began posting a lot of critical comments.

因此立即出現許多批評的貼文

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

短短幾個小時內在流行的QQ網站上

had 35,000 comments

出現了三萬五千則

on this issue within hours.

有關此事的貼文

But then authorities did something very smart.

不過當局採取了很聰明的做法

Instead of trying to purge these comments,

他們沒有刪除這些貼文

they instead went and reached out to the bloggers.

反倒懷柔貼文的網民

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

他們基本上說：「好吧，你們來當網絡調查員。」

So 500 people applied,

於是有五百人申請當調查員

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

然後挑出四個實地造訪出事地點

and thus inspect it and then blog about it.

進行探查後貼出相關文章

Within days the entire incident was forgotten,

不消幾天整個事件就被遺忘了

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

採取封鎖肯定不會是這樣的結果

People would keep talking about it for weeks.

人們會對此事談上好幾個星期

And this actually fits with another interesting theory

這恰恰符合另一個理論的看法

about what's happening in authoritarian states

這個理論是有關在威權國家裡

and in their cyberspace.

以及在網路空間裡所發生的事情

This is what political scientists call authoritarian deliberation,

政治學家稱之為「威權運作」

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

這發生在政府對其批評者實際進行懷柔

and letting them engage with each other online.

讓他們在線上熱烈討論

We tend to think

我們傾向於認為

that somehow this is going to harm these dictatorships,

這多少會傷害到獨裁政權

but in many cases it only strengthens them.

但這往往反倒更加強化獨裁

And you may wonder why.

你可能納悶怎會這樣

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

我馬上給你短短的解說

why authoritarian deliberation

為什麼威權運作

may actually help the dictators.

對獨裁者實有助益

And first it's quite simple.

首先，道理很簡單

Most of them operate in a complete information vacuum.

獨裁者大多完全在資訊真空中操作政治

They don't really have the data they need

他們原本沒有所需的資料

in order to identify emerging threats facing the regime.

來辨識萌芽中的政權威脅

So encouraging people to actually go online

因此，最好鼓勵人們上線

and share information and data

分享資訊和資料

on blogs and wikis is great

貼到網誌和維基上都好

because otherwise, low level apparatchiks and bureaucrats

否則，低階層的黨工和官僚

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

會繼續隱瞞國內的實情，是吧？

So from this perspective, having blogs and wikis

那麼讓網誌和維基

produce knowledge has been great.

產出情資是好事一樁

Secondly, involving public in any decision making

其次，讓社會大眾參與決策

is also great

也是好極了

because it helps you to share the blame

因為要是政策失敗

for the policies which eventually fail.

這能幫你分攤責難

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

因為可以說：「問過你們

we consulted you, you voted on it.

聽過建議也讓投過票了

You put it on the front page of your blog.

你網誌首頁貼的就是

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

這下可好，該罵的是你。」

And finally, the purpose of

最後，任何威權運作

any authoritarian deliberation efforts

其目的都是

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

要在國內外提升政權的合法性

So inviting people to all sorts of public forums,

那麼邀請人們到各種公共論壇

having them participate in decision making,

讓他們參與決策

it's actually great.

實在好極了

Because what happens is that then

因為這樣一來

you can actually point to this initiative and say,

大可以指出這論壇說：

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

「看，我們有民主，我們有論壇。」

Just to give you an example,

舉個例子

one of the Russian regions, for example,

某俄羅斯地區

now involves its citizens

現在讓其公民參與

in planning its strategy up until year 2020.

規劃到2020年的發展策略，是吧？

Right? So they can go online

你可以上線

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

提出該地區2020年會是怎樣的想法

I mean, anyone who has been to Russia would know

我說，到過俄羅斯的人

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

都知道俄羅斯向來沒有下個月的規劃

So having people involved in planning for 2020

因此讓人們參與2020年的規劃

is not necessarily going to change anything,

不必然會改變什麼

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

因為要怎麼做還是獨裁者說了算

Just to give you an example from Iran,

舉個伊朗的例子

we all heard about the Twitter revolution

我們都聽說那裡

that happened there,

發生了推特革命

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

但夠仔細瞧就會發現

that many of the networks and blogs

許多網站和網誌

and Twitter and Facebook were actually operational.

以及推特和臉書背後都有操作

They may have become slower,

那些網站也許會變慢些

but the activists could still access it

但社運人士還能取用

and actually argue that having access to them

而且能取用那些網站

is actually great for many authoritarian states.

對許多威權國家是好極了

And it's great simply because

好極了的原因簡單

they can gather open source intelligence.

因為他們能由此獲得開放源的情資

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

過去若不需幾個月也要幾個星期

to identify how Iranian activists connect to each other.

才能辨識出伊朗社運人士間有什麼聯繫

Now you actually know how they connect to each other

現在輕而易舉可以判定他們之間的聯繫

by looking at their Facebook page.

看他們在臉書上的網頁就是

I mean KGB, and not just KGB,

我說KGB還有不只KGB

used to torture in order to actually get this data.

以往要獲取那些情資還得動刑呢

Now it's all available online.

現在線上什麼都有了

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

But I think the biggest conceptual pitfall

我想網托邦人在概念上最大的自我設限

that cybertopians made

是在他們提到網友

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

也就是一群跟著網路長大的人時

We often hear about cyber activism,

比方說，我們常聽到網路行動主義

how people are getting more active because of the Internet.

有多少人因網際網路而更具行動力

Rarely hear about cyber hedonism, for example,

很少聽到有關網路享樂主義

how people are becoming passive.

即人們如何因網路變得消極

Why? Because they somehow assume that the Internet

為什麼？因為人們多少認定

is going to be the catalyst of change

網際網路會是改變的催化劑

that will push young people into the streets,

將會把年輕人推上街頭

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

而實際上網路可能是人民的新鴉片

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

會讓同一群人留在房裡下載色情影像

That's not an option being considered too strongly.

這絕不是我們所要的選項

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

而在德黑蘭街上造反的數位叛徒裡

there may as well be two digital captives

或也有受困於兩個數位世界的囚犯

who are actually rebelling only in the World of Warcraft.

他們只在「魔獸世界」裡造反

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

這是現實情況，沒什麼對錯

because the Internet has greatly empowered many of these young people

因為網路賦予這些年輕人很大力量

and it plays a completely different social role for them.

網路對他們有迴異的社會意義

If you look at some of the surveys

如果看看某些關於年輕人

on how the young people actually benefit from the Internet,

如何受益於網路的問卷調查

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

就會發現，例如在中國

for whom the Internet actually broadens their sex life,

性生活因網路而擴展的十來歲孩子

is three times more than in the United States.

三倍於美國

So it does play a social role,

那麼網路確實具有社會意義

however it may not necessarily lead to political engagement.

但這並不一定帶來政治參與

So the way I tend to think of it

因此我想的無寧是

is like a hierarchy of cyber-needs in space,

網際網路的需求層次

a total rip-off from Abraham Maslow.

這完全剽竊自馬斯洛

But the point here is that

不過在此的重點是

when we get the remote Russian village online,

如果讓俄羅斯偏遠村莊上線

what will get people to the Internet

會教人們上網的

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

不會是人權觀察報告

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

而是色情、慾望城市

or maybe watching funny videos of cats.

或是觀賞小貓搞笑的視訊

So this is something you have to recognize.

這是必須認清的事實

So what should we do about it?

對此該怎麼辦呢？

Well I say we have to stop thinking

我認為我們

about the number of iPods per capita

必須拋棄人均iPod數量的想法

and start thinking about ways in which

要開始思考各種方法

we can empower intellectuals,

將力量賦予知識份子、

dissidents, NGOs and then the members of civil society.

異議份子、NGOs和所有公民社會的成員

Because even what has been happening up 'til now

因為儘管至今已做了許多努力

with the Spinternet and authoritarian deliberation,

只要攪和網和威權運作存在

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

那些聲音很有可能會淹沒其中

So I think we should shatter some of our utopian assumptions

因此我認為我們應該打破一些假想

and actually start doing something about it.

實實在在做點什麼

Thank you.

謝謝

(Applause)

（掌聲）