Beware online "filter bubbles" | Eli Pariser

譯者: Ana Choi 審譯者: Felix Leung

Mark Zuckerberg,

有位新聞工作者問馬克·祖克柏

a journalist was asking him a question about the news feed.

一個關於動態消息的問题。

And the journalist was asking him,

那新聞工作者問他：

"Why is this so important?"

「動態消息究竟為什麼重要？」

And Zuckerberg said,

馬克·祖克柏說：

"A squirrel dying in your front yard

「一隻松鼠正死在你的前院，

may be more relevant to your interests right now

對你來說可能會比

than people dying in Africa."

非洲人正在死去更有關切性。」

And I want to talk about

現在我想談論

what a Web based on that idea of relevance might look like.

當網路基於「相關性」會是什麼樣子。

So when I was growing up

我在缅因州

in a really rural area in Maine,

極之郊區的環境長大，

the Internet meant something very different to me.

網路的意義對我極之不同。

It meant a connection to the world.

它意味著與世界的連接。

It meant something that would connect us all together.

它意味著與所有人的連接。

And I was sure that it was going to be great for democracy

當時我非常肯定它會有助民主

and for our society.

及會有助我們的社會。

But there's this shift

但現在網路上

in how information is flowing online,

资料流動的形色漸漸地、

and it's invisible.

無形地在轉移。

And if we don't pay attention to it,

假若我們不留心注意，

it could be a real problem.

它可能會變成一個問题。

So I first noticed this in a place I spend a lot of time --

我在我經常流覽的地方 首先注意到這個問題，

my Facebook page.

這個地方當然是我的臉書頁面。

I'm progressive, politically -- big surprise --

可想而知，我對政治的態度是進步主義，

but I've always gone out of my way to meet conservatives.

但我亦會叛經離道地結識保守主義者。

I like hearing what they're thinking about;

我喜歡知道他們在想什麼；

I like seeing what they link to;

我喜歡知道他們與什麼有聯繫；

I like learning a thing or two.

我喜歡能從中學到一些東西。

And so I was surprised when I noticed one day

因此有一天我很駕訝當我察覺到

that the conservatives had disappeared from my Facebook feed.

有關保守派主義的消息 從我臉書的動態消息消失。

And what it turned out was going on

理由是因為

was that Facebook was looking at which links I clicked on,

臉書能看見我按過哪些連結，

and it was noticing that, actually,

它注意到

我其實按自由黨朋友的連結

I was clicking more on my liberal friends' links

than on my conservative friends' links.

多過保守派朋友的連結。

And without consulting me about it,

在未與我商量過的情況下，

it had edited them out.

它便編走那些連結。

They disappeared.

那些消息全消失了。

So Facebook isn't the only place

但不是淨只是臉書

that's doing this kind of invisible, algorithmic

會做這種無形的、算法式的

editing of the Web.

來編輯網路。

Google's doing it too.

Google（谷歌）也會這樣。

If I search for something, and you search for something,

若我在搜尋一樣東西， 你也在搜索一樣東西，

even right now at the very same time,

即使是在現在、同一個時間，

we may get very different search results.

我們搜索的結果都會不同。

Even if you're logged out, one engineer told me,

一個工程師曾告訴過我， 即使你登出帳戶，

there are 57 signals

仍然有 57 個訊號

that Google looks at --

在被谷歌觀察著：

everything from what kind of computer you're on

從你所用的電腦類型

to what kind of browser you're using

到你所用的瀏覽器

to where you're located --

甚至是你的所在位置，

that it uses to personally tailor your query results.

它會以這些來量身訂造你的搜尋結果。

Think about it for a second:

試想一下：

there is no standard Google anymore.

現在已經沒有標準的谷歌。

And you know, the funny thing about this is that it's hard to see.

而且，好笑的是，這很難察覺的。

You can't see how different your search results are

你根本無法看到你的搜尋結果

from anyone else's.

會跟其他人的有所不同。

But a couple of weeks ago,

所以在兩個星期前，

I asked a bunch of friends to Google "Egypt"

我請一些朋友用谷歌搜尋「埃及」，

and to send me screen shots of what they got.

並且寄給我他們搜尋結果的螢幕截圖。

So here's my friend Scott's screen shot.

這張是我朋友史考特的截圖，

And here's my friend Daniel's screen shot.

而這張是我朋友丹尼爾的截圖。

When you put them side-by-side,

當你將它們並排比較，

you don't even have to read the links

你根本不用細看那些連結

to see how different these two pages are.

就可以看得出這兩頁是不一樣。

But when you do read the links,

但當你細看這些連結，

it's really quite remarkable.

這確實是蠻驚人的。

Daniel didn't get anything about the protests in Egypt at all

在丹尼爾的谷歌搜尋結果第一頁裡，

in his first page of Google results.

完全沒有關於埃及抗議的連結。

Scott's results were full of them.

在史考特的搜尋結果就有很多。

And this was the big story of the day at that time.

但在那陣子卻是當日的大新聞。

That's how different these results are becoming.

這就是搜尋結果越來越不同的例子。

So it's not just Google and Facebook either.

不只是谷歌及臉書。

This is something that's sweeping the Web.

這趨勢在網路正漸散播。

There are a whole host of companies that are doing this kind of personalization.

現有很多機構都實施個人化。

Yahoo News, the biggest news site on the Internet,

雅虎新聞，網路上最大型的新聞網站，

is now personalized -- different people get different things.

現在已經個人化， 即是不同人會看到不同的東西。

Huffington Post, the Washington Post, the New York Times --

哈芬登郵報、華盛頓郵報、紐約時報等等

all flirting with personalization in various ways.

都正在用不同方式盤弄個人化。

And this moves us very quickly

這種趨勢正在快速地推我們

toward a world in which

前往一個新世界，

the Internet is showing us what it thinks we want to see,

一個網路應為我們想看的世界，

but not necessarily what we need to see.

但未必是一個我們需要看到的世界。

As Eric Schmidt said,

正如艾立克·史密特所說：

"It will be very hard for people to watch or consume something

「現在很難要人們觀看或消化一些

that has not in some sense

一點兒也沒有替他們

been tailored for them."

量身訂造的東西。」

So I do think this is a problem.

我認為這是一個問題，

And I think, if you take all of these filters together,

而且我想，如果將 全部的過濾器放在一起，

you take all these algorithms,

用盡所有算法，

you get what I call a filter bubble.

得到的是一個我稱為 「過濾氣泡」的東西。

And your filter bubble is your own personal,

而你的過濾氣泡便是你個人

unique universe of information

在網上存在的

that you live in online.

獨特資料宇宙。

And what's in your filter bubble

你個人過濾氣泡的內容

depends on who you are, and it depends on what you do.

基於你是誰和你的行為。

But the thing is that you don't decide what gets in.

但問題是，氣泡的內容不是你可選擇。

And more importantly,

更重要的是，

you don't actually see what gets edited out.

你完全看不到什麼被刪除。

So one of the problems with the filter bubble

過濾氣泡的其中一個問題

was discovered by some researchers at Netflix.

被 Netflix 的研究員發現。

And they were looking at the Netflix queues, and they noticed something kind of funny

當在察看 Netflix 的電影列表時， 他們發覺一樣有趣的現象，

that a lot of us probably have noticed,

可能我們很多人亦有察覺到，

which is there are some movies

也就是，有些電影

that just sort of zip right up and out to our houses.

馬上就會被訂去看。

They enter the queue, they just zip right out.

才剛入上架，就馬上被訂去看了。

So "Iron Man" zips right out,

例如《鋼鐵人》很快就被看完，

and "Waiting for Superman"

但《等待超人》

can wait for a really long time.

便真要等很久。

What they discovered

他們發現

was that in our Netflix queues

在我們 Netflix 的列表裡，

there's this epic struggle going on

正在發生一個很巨型的鬥爭：

between our future aspirational selves

我們未來的自我志向

and our more impulsive present selves.

和現在較衝動的自我之間在拔河。

You know we all want to be someone

我們全都想成為那個

who has watched "Rashomon,"

曾經看過《羅生門》的人，

but right now

但現在

we want to watch "Ace Ventura" for the fourth time.

我們想看第四遍的《王牌威龍》。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

So the best editing gives us a bit of both.

所以其實最好的編輯 是每樣都給我們一些。

It gives us a little bit of Justin Bieber

它會給我們一點小賈斯汀，

and a little bit of Afghanistan.

亦會給我們一些阿富汗。

It gives us some information vegetables;

它會給我們一些像蔬菜一樣的重要資訊，

it gives us some information dessert.

亦會給我們一些像甜點一樣的資訊。

And the challenge with these kinds of algorithmic filters,

所以對這類算法式過濾和

these personalized filters,

這些個人過濾的挑戰，

is that, because they're mainly looking

是因為，它們主要是看

at what you click on first,

你首先按的是什麼連結，

it can throw off that balance.

這個方法會有阻平衡。

And instead of a balanced information diet,

你不但沒得到均衡的資訊菜單，

you can end up surrounded

你可能會得到

by information junk food.

很多垃圾資訊。

What this suggests

這個想法是在說

is actually that we may have the story about the Internet wrong.

可能我們對網路的印象是不正確。

In a broadcast society --

在這個廣播社會，

this is how the founding mythology goes --

根據流傳的說法，

in a broadcast society,

在這個廣播社會，

there were these gatekeepers, the editors,

有一些看門人，叫編輯者，

and they controlled the flows of information.

他們控制資料的流通。

And along came the Internet and it swept them out of the way,

隨後登場便是網際網路， 它掃走這些看門人，

and it allowed all of us to connect together,

讓我們全部人可無阻地聯繫在一起，

and it was awesome.

這真是棒啊。

But that's not actually what's happening right now.

但實在不是這樣。

What we're seeing is more of a passing of the torch

我們看到的是像傳火炬，

from human gatekeepers

由人類看門人

to algorithmic ones.

到算法看門人。

And the thing is that the algorithms

但現在這種算法程式

don't yet have the kind of embedded ethics

還未有編輯人

that the editors did.

所擁有的嵌入概念。

So if algorithms are going to curate the world for us,

所以若我們讓算法 用它的方式來看世界，

if they're going to decide what we get to see and what we don't get to see,

若讓它來決定我們 可看什麼、不可看什麼，

then we need to make sure

那我們便要確定

that they're not just keyed to relevance.

它的決定不只是基於關切性。

We need to make sure that they also show us things

我們要確定它亦會給我們看一些

that are uncomfortable or challenging or important --

我們看了未必舒服， 但有重要性及有挑戰性的東西，

this is what TED does --

正如 TED 大會那樣

other points of view.

會展示其他觀點。

And the thing is, we've actually been here before

其實像現在這種過濾

as a society.

在以前的社會也發生過。

In 1915, it's not like newspapers were sweating a lot

在 1915 年， 那時的報章對它們的民事責任

about their civic responsibilities.

不太在意。

Then people noticed

之後人們發覺到

that they were doing something really important.

報章實在很重要。

That, in fact, you couldn't have

因為事實上，

一個正常運作的民主社會是不存在的，

a functioning democracy

if citizens didn't get a good flow of information,

除非人民能獲得有效的資訊流通。

that the newspapers were critical because they were acting as the filter,

所以報章對事有評論， 因為它們扮演過濾網，

and then journalistic ethics developed.

也因此才有新聞道德的構成。

It wasn't perfect,

雖然不是完美，

but it got us through the last century.

但這種方式帶我們走過上一個世紀。

And so now,

現在，

we're kind of back in 1915 on the Web.

在網上我們又像回到 1915 年。

And we need the new gatekeepers

我們需要新的看門人

to encode that kind of responsibility

將道德責任

into the code that they're writing.

輸入它們算法的程式裡。

I know that there are a lot of people here from Facebook and from Google --

我知道在座很多人替臉書及谷歌工作，

Larry and Sergey --

像賴利和塞吉，

people who have helped build the Web as it is,

很多人參與建立現今的網際網路，

and I'm grateful for that.

我對此很感謝。

But we really need you to make sure

但我們真的需要你們確保

that these algorithms have encoded in them

這些算法的程式裡

a sense of the public life, a sense of civic responsibility.

要有公眾生活和民事責任感。

We need you to make sure that they're transparent enough

我們需要你們確保 它有一定的透明度，

that we can see what the rules are

讓我們能知道是用什麼準則

that determine what gets through our filters.

來決定什麼可通過過濾網。

And we need you to give us some control

而且我們需要你們 給予一些控制力，

so that we can decide

讓我們可以選擇

what gets through and what doesn't.

什麼能通過和不通過。

Because I think

因為我認為

we really need the Internet to be that thing

我們真的需要網路

that we all dreamed of it being.

成為一個我們夢寐以求的平臺。

We need it to connect us all together.

我們需要它連結所有人。

We need it to introduce us to new ideas

我們需要它給我們介紹新的想法、

and new people and different perspectives.

新的人和不同觀點。

And it's not going to do that

而它是不可能辦到這些，

if it leaves us all isolated in a Web of one.

如果它將我們孤立在 唯一自我旳網路裡就絕不可能。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（鼓掌）