How Twitter needs to change | Jack Dorsey

譯者: Val Zhang 審譯者: Xiaowei Dong

Chris Anderson: What worries you right now?

克里斯•安德森（安）： 你目前擔心的是什麼？

You've been very open about lots of issues on Twitter.

你對許多推特爭議持開放的態度。

What would be your top worry

對於現狀你最擔心的是什麼？

about where things are right now?

Jack Dorsey: Right now, the health of the conversation.

傑克•多爾西（多）： 目前擔心對話是否良性。

So, our purpose is to serve the public conversation,

我們致力於為公眾提供對話平臺，

and we have seen a number of attacks on it.

但也看到對此的攻擊不斷。

We've seen abuse, we've seen harassment,

像是那些濫用、騷擾、操弄、

we've seen manipulation,

automation, human coordination, misinformation.

自動化、人類協作、錯誤資訊。

So these are all dynamics that we were not expecting

這並非 13 年前我們 創立時，所預期的變化。

13 years ago when we were starting the company.

But we do now see them at scale,

但這些現象現已不容小覷，

and what worries me most is just our ability to address it

而最讓我擔心的是，我們是否有能力

in a systemic way that is scalable,

大規模、系統性地處理這些狀況，

that has a rigorous understanding of how we're taking action,

能有一套嚴謹的系統、

透徹地瞭解我們該如何採取行動，

a transparent understanding of how we're taking action

and a rigorous appeals process for when we're wrong,

當我們犯錯時， 也有嚴謹的上訴程序，

because we will be wrong.

因為我們一定會犯錯。

Whitney Pennington Rodgers: I'm really glad to hear

惠妮•潘尼頓•羅傑斯（羅）： 我很高興聽到

that that's something that concerns you,

你關心這個議題，

because I think there's been a lot written about people

因為常看到有人寫到

他們覺得自己在推特上 被辱罵和騷擾，

who feel they've been abused and harassed on Twitter,

最常遇到這種事的 就是女性、有色人種女性

and I think no one more so than women and women of color

and black women.

和黑人女性。

And there's been data that's come out --

已經有些資料顯示——

Amnesty International put out a report a few months ago

幾個月前，國際特赦組織發表報告，

where they showed that a subset of active black female Twitter users

報告顯示，部分活躍使用 推特的黑人女性中，

were receiving, on average, one in 10 of their tweets

平均每十則回覆中就有一則

were some form of harassment.

是某種形式的騷擾。

And so when you think about health for the community on Twitter,

當想到推特社群的良性發展，

I'm interested to hear, "health for everyone,"

我很想要聽到「人人良性對話」，

but specifically: How are you looking to make Twitter a safe space

但明確地說：你打算如何 將推特變成安全的空間，

for that subset, for women, for women of color and black women?

尤其是對那些少數，包含女性、 有色人種的女性及黑人女性而言？

JD: Yeah.

多：是的。

So it's a pretty terrible situation

這是個很糟的情況，

when you're coming to a service

當你使用一項服務，

that, ideally, you want to learn something about the world,

理想情況下， 只是想了解世界資訊，

and you spend the majority of your time reporting abuse, receiving abuse,

但你卻花了多數的時間於： 檢舉或受到辱罵、

receiving harassment.

被人騷擾。

So what we're looking most deeply at is just the incentives

我們在探究的是

that the platform naturally provides and the service provides.

由平臺及服務所產生的誘因。

Right now, the dynamic of the system makes it super-easy to harass

目前系統的互動模式，讓使用者

被輕易地利用來騷擾和辱罵他人，

and to abuse others through the service,

and unfortunately, the majority of our system in the past

不幸的是，過去系統的運作，

worked entirely based on people reporting harassment and abuse.

絕大部分都依賴使用者 主動檢舉騷擾以及濫用。

So about midway last year, we decided that we were going to apply

大約在去年， 我們決定針對這個問題

a lot more machine learning, a lot more deep learning to the problem,

採用更多的機器學習、深度學習，

and try to be a lot more proactive around where abuse is happening,

並嘗試在發生濫用前先發制人，

so that we can take the burden off the victim completely.

替受害者完全卸下負擔。

And we've made some progress recently.

最近我們有些進展。

About 38 percent of abusive tweets are now proactively identified

機器學習演算法可以主動找出

大約 38% 的濫用推文，

by machine learning algorithms

so that people don't actually have to report them.

使用者不需要主動檢舉這些推文。

But those that are identified are still reviewed by humans,

但被識別出來的濫用推文 會再由人工複審，

so we do not take down content or accounts without a human actually reviewing it.

在人工複審前，我們不會 刪除任何的推文或帳號。

But that was from zero percent just a year ago.

這比一年前的 0% 大有進步。

So that meant, at that zero percent,

意思就是，在 0% 時，

every single person who received abuse had to actually report it,

每個收到辱罵的人都得主動檢舉，

which was a lot of work for them, a lot of work for us

對他們和我們來說都很麻煩，

and just ultimately unfair.

歸根究柢就是很不公平。

The other thing that we're doing is making sure that we, as a company,

我們做的另外一件事 是確保作為一個企業

have representation of all the communities that we're trying to serve.

被服務的所有群體皆有其代表。

We can't build a business that is successful

我們要打造一個成功的企業，

unless we have a diversity of perspective inside of our walls

內部就必須擁有多元觀點，

且每天都深切地體會這些爭議。

that actually feel these issues every single day.

And that's not just with the team that's doing the work,

不只是前端負責 執行的團隊要夠多元，

it's also within our leadership as well.

領導階層也一樣。

So we need to continue to build empathy for what people are experiencing

我們要對人們的感受保有同理心

and give them better tools to act on it

並為客戶提供更好的工具，

and also give our customers a much better and easier approach

還有更優質、更簡易的方法，

to handle some of the things that they're seeing.

來處理他們所目睹的事情。

So a lot of what we're doing is around technology,

我們做的事大多環繞著科技，

but we're also looking at the incentives on the service:

但我們也在研究因服務產生的誘因：

What does Twitter incentivize you to do when you first open it up?

當你一打開推特， 它誘使你去做什麼？

And in the past,

在過去，

it's incented a lot of outrage, it's incented a lot of mob behavior,

推特誘導了許多紛爭、 暴行、集體騷擾。

it's incented a lot of group harassment.

And we have to look a lot deeper at some of the fundamentals

我們得更深入地探討 服務內容的本質，

of what the service is doing to make the bigger shifts.

才能做重大調整。

We can make a bunch of small shifts around technology, as I just described,

我們可以在技術上 做許多小改變，如剛所敘，

but ultimately, we have to look deeply at the dynamics in the network itself,

但最終我們得更深入 觀察網絡裡的動態，

and that's what we're doing.

那正是我們在做的。

CA: But what's your sense --

安：你的看法是什麼——

what is the kind of thing that you might be able to change

你可能做出什麼樣的改變，

that would actually fundamentally shift behavior?

才能從根本上改變使用者行為呢？

JD: Well, one of the things --

多：其中一樣——

we started the service with this concept of following an account,

舉例來說，我們推出了一種服務，

概念是跟隨帳號，

as an example,

and I don't believe that's why people actually come to Twitter.

我不認為這是大家 使用推特的原因。

I believe Twitter is best as an interest-based network.

我認為推特最好定位為 以興趣為基礎的網絡。

People come with a particular interest.

大家因為某種特定的興趣而來。

They have to do a ton of work to find and follow the related accounts

他們得要花很多心力 才能找到並跟隨

around those interests.

和那些興趣相關的帳號。

What we could do instead is allow you to follow an interest,

我們可以換一種方式， 讓你跟隨一種興趣，

follow a hashtag, follow a trend,

跟隨一個「#主題標籤」、一種趨勢、

follow a community,

跟隨一個社群，

which gives us the opportunity to show all of the accounts,

這樣我們就有機會 呈現所有相關的帳號、

all the topics, all the moments, all the hashtags

所有相關的主題、時刻、「#主題標籤」，

that are associated with that particular topic and interest,

只要是和那個主題及興趣 有關的都會呈現出來，

which really opens up the perspective that you see.

這真的能夠開拓你的視野。

But that is a huge fundamental shift

但這樣大幅度的結構性轉變

to bias the entire network away from just an account bias

讓整個平臺從偏重於帳號

towards a topics and interest bias.

轉而偏向於主題和興趣 。

CA: Because isn't it the case

安：現實情況不是這樣的嗎？

that one reason why you have so much content on there

推特之所以有那麼多內容的原因之一

is a result of putting millions of people around the world

不就是將全世界幾百萬人放在一個

in this kind of gladiatorial contest with each other

類似競技場式的比賽

for followers, for attention?

去競爭跟隨者、關注？

Like, from the point of view of people who just read Twitter,

對只看而不發推特的人來說，

that's not an issue,

這不是問題，

but for the people who actually create it, everyone's out there saying,

但對創造內容的人而言， 許多人會說：

"You know, I wish I had a few more 'likes,' followers, retweets."

「我真希望有多一點 喜歡、跟隨者、轉推。」

And so they're constantly experimenting,

所以他們經常在做實驗，

trying to find the path to do that.

試著找出方法達到目的。

And what we've all discovered is that the number one path to do that

而我們所發現的是最常見途徑就是：

is to be some form of provocative,

帶有挑釁成分的、

obnoxious, eloquently obnoxious,

罵起人來頭頭是道，

like, eloquent insults are a dream on Twitter,

彷彿，頭頭是道的辱罵， 是人們在推特的目標。

where you rapidly pile up --

這樣便能快速傳播——

and it becomes this self-fueling process of driving outrage.

而這變成一種導致憤怒的惡性循環。

How do you defuse that?

你要如何平息這個狀況？

JD: Yeah, I mean, I think you're spot on,

多：是的，你切中核心，

but that goes back to the incentives.

但這又回到誘因。

Like, one of the choices we made in the early days was

在早期，我們所做的選擇之一

we had this number that showed how many people follow you.

就是突出你的跟隨者人數。

We decided that number should be big and bold,

我們決定讓那個數字 要用粗體大字呈現，

and anything that's on the page that's big and bold has importance,

網頁上只要用到粗體大字， 通常都是重要的，

and those are the things that you want to drive.

那些就會是你想要追求的東西。

Was that the right decision at the time?

在那時，那個決策正確嗎？

Probably not.

可能不正確。

If I had to start the service again,

如果能重頭來過，

I would not emphasize the follower count as much.

我不會這麼強調跟隨者人數。

I would not emphasize the "like" count as much.

我不會這麼強調「喜歡」的數目。

I don't think I would even create "like" in the first place,

我甚至根本不會創造 「喜歡」這個功能，

because it doesn't actually push

因為這個功能無法真的

what we believe now to be the most important thing,

推動我們現在最重要的理念，

which is healthy contribution back to the network

也就是對網路做良性的回饋貢獻，

and conversation to the network,

以及與網路對話、

participation within conversation,

參與對話，

learning something from the conversation.

從對話中學習。

Those are not things that we thought of 13 years ago,

我們 13 年前沒有想到這些，

and we believe are extremely important right now.

現在我們認為這些非常重要。

So we have to look at how we display the follower count,

所以我們得要研究 如何呈現跟隨者人數、

how we display retweet count,

如何呈現轉推數，

how we display "likes,"

如何呈現「喜歡」，

and just ask the deep question:

並深思：

Is this really the number that we want people to drive up?

我們真的希望大家 把這個數字衝高嗎？

Is this the thing that, when you open Twitter,

我們真的希望當你打開推特時，

you see, "That's the thing I need to increase?"

你會說「我得要增加這個數字」嗎？

And I don't believe that's the case right now.

我不認為是這樣的。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

WPR: I think we should look at some of the tweets

羅：我們來看一些觀眾的推文。

that are coming in from the audience as well.

CA: Let's see what you guys are asking.

安：來看看大家想問什麼。

I mean, this is -- generally, one of the amazing things about Twitter

一般來說，這是推特 很棒的優點之一，

is how you can use it for crowd wisdom,

可以把它用在群眾智慧上，

you know, that more knowledge, more questions, more points of view

像是：更多知識、問題、觀點，

than you can imagine,

超越想像，

and sometimes, many of them are really healthy.

有時，許多內容是非常良性的。

WPR: I think one I saw that passed already quickly down here,

羅：有一則訊息進來：

"What's Twitter's plan to combat foreign meddling in the 2020 US election?"

「推特對抗外國干預 2020 年 美國大選的計畫是什麼？」

I think that's something that's an issue we're seeing

這是我們在網路上

on the internet in general,

一般都會看見的議題，

that we have a lot of malicious automated activity happening.

有許多惡意的、自動化的活動。

And on Twitter, for example, in fact, we have some work

在推特上，比如，我們有

that's come from our friends at Zignal Labs,

我們的朋友 Zignal 實驗室的作品，

and maybe we can even see that to give us an example

也許我們能以此為例，

of what exactly I'm talking about,

闡述我的觀點，

where you have these bots, if you will,

有些機器人，

or coordinated automated malicious account activity,

或自動化協同的惡意帳號活動，

that is being used to influence things like elections.

被用來影響選舉等等。

And in this example we have from Zignal which they've shared with us

這個例子是 Zignal 和我們分享的，

using the data that they have from Twitter,

他們使用來自推特的資料，

you actually see that in this case,

各位可以看見，

white represents the humans -- human accounts, each dot is an account.

在這裡白色代表人—— 人的帳戶，每一個點是一個帳戶。

The pinker it is,

顏色越粉紅，

the more automated the activity is.

就表示越多自動化的活動。

And you can see how you have a few humans interacting with bots.

可以看見有些人和機器人互動。

In this case, it's related to the election in Israel

在這個例子中，這些活動 和以色列大選有關，

and spreading misinformation about Benny Gantz,

散播關於本尼•甘茨的不實資訊，

and as we know, in the end, that was an election

我們知道，

that Netanyahu won by a slim margin,

最後尼坦雅胡以些微差距勝出，

and that may have been in some case influenced by this.

那結果可能受到推特的影響。

And when you think about that happening on Twitter,

想到這樣的事發生在推特，

what are the things that you're doing, specifically,

你會採取哪些明確的措施，

to ensure you don't have misinformation like this spreading in this way,

以確保不會有錯誤資訊 藉此散播出去，

influencing people in ways that could affect democracy?

影響到大家，進而影響到民主？

JD: Just to back up a bit,

多：先倒帶一下，

we asked ourselves a question:

我們會自問：

Can we actually measure the health of a conversation,

我們真的能測量良性對話的程度嗎？

and what does that mean?

良性對話是什麼意思？

And in the same way that you have indicators

就像你有指標，

and we have indicators as humans in terms of are we healthy or not,

有指標可以表示人類是否健康，

such as temperature, the flushness of your face,

比如體溫、面色紅潤度，

we believe that we could find the indicators of conversational health.

我們相信能找到良性對話的指標。

And we worked with a lab called Cortico at MIT

我們和麻省理工學院的 Cortico 實驗室合作，

to propose four starter indicators

提出了四個初始指標，

that we believe we could ultimately measure on the system.

我們相信，最終能在系統中測量。

And the first one is what we're calling shared attention.

第一個指標我們稱之為「共同焦點」。

It's a measure of how much of the conversation is attentive

它計算的是：

人們對話的主題是集中還是分散。

on the same topic versus disparate.

The second one is called shared reality,

第二個指標叫「共同依據」，

and this is what percentage of the conversation

它指的是對話有多少比例

shares the same facts --

來自同樣的依據——

not whether those facts are truthful or not,

不論那些依據是否屬實，

but are we sharing the same facts as we converse?

只看我們對話時 是否有共同的依據。

The third is receptivity:

第三個指標是「接納歧見」：

How much of the conversation is receptive or civil

對話是否是開放、文明有禮的，

or the inverse, toxic?

或反過來說，是令人無法接受的？

And then the fourth is variety of perspective.

第四個指標是「多元觀點」。

So, are we seeing filter bubbles or echo chambers,

我們是否身處同溫層，或迴聲室？

or are we actually getting a variety of opinions

或我們真的能在對話中

within the conversation?

聽見多元的聲音？

And implicit in all four of these is the understanding that,

這四個指標蘊含的是：

as they increase, the conversation gets healthier and healthier.

指標越是提升，對話越顯良性。

So our first step is to see if we can measure these online,

第一步就是嘗試能否 實際測量這些指標，

which we believe we can.

我們相信是可行的。

We have the most momentum around receptivity.

「接納歧見」的指標最有具動能。

We have a toxicity score, a toxicity model, on our system

系統裡有不悅度分數及模型，

that can actually measure whether you are likely to walk away

它可以測量你是否有可能會離開

from a conversation that you're having on Twitter

你在推特上參與的對話，

because you feel it's toxic,

因為它讓你感到不悅，

with some pretty high degree.

這個指標已達相當水準。

We're working to measure the rest,

我們正致力於其它指標的測量，

and the next step is,

下一步是，

as we build up solutions,

當我們在建立解決方案時，

to watch how these measurements trend over time

去觀察這些測量值的變化趨勢，

and continue to experiment.

並持續地實驗。

And our goal is to make sure that these are balanced,

目標是要確保這些 指標之間達到平衡，

because if you increase one, you might decrease another.

因為如果有一項增加， 可能讓另一項減少。

If you increase variety of perspective,

如果「多元觀點」提升了，

you might actually decrease shared reality.

同時亦可能減少「共同依據」。

CA: Just picking up on some of the questions flooding in here.

安：從湧入的問題中挑一個。

JD: Constant questioning.

多：不間斷的問題。

CA: A lot of people are puzzled why,

安：很多人不明白，

like, how hard is it to get rid of Nazis from Twitter?

像是讓極端種族主義分子的言論 從推特上消失有多難？

JD: (Laughs)

多：（笑）

So we have policies around violent extremist groups,

針對暴力極端團體 我們有相關的政策，

and the majority of our work and our terms of service

我們主要的工作及服務條款

works on conduct, not content.

是在處理行為，而非內容。

So we're actually looking for conduct.

所以我們其實在尋找特定行為。

Conduct being using the service

比如是使用服務

to repeatedly or episodically harass someone,

來重覆或不定期騷擾某人，

using hateful imagery

使用仇恨的意象，

that might be associated with the KKK

可能是與三 K 黨有關，

or the American Nazi Party.

或是美國納粹黨。

Those are all things that we act on immediately.

那些都是我們可以立即處理的。

We're in a situation right now where that term is used fairly loosely,

目前的情況是大家 並不嚴謹地使用那個字，

and we just cannot take any one mention of that word

我們實在無法只因為 那個字被提起一次，

accusing someone else

就指控某個人

as a factual indication that they should be removed from the platform.

說有事實證據指出 他應該被踢出平臺。

So a lot of our models are based around, number one:

我們許多模型的根據都是，第一：

Is this account associated with a violent extremist group?

這個帳號和暴力極端團體有關聯嗎？

And if so, we can take action.

如果有，我們就能採取行動。

And we have done so on the KKK and the American Nazi Party and others.

我們已對三 K 黨、美國 納粹黨，及其他團體施行。

And number two: Are they using imagery or conduct

第二：他們是否也有採用

that would associate them as such as well?

和這些團體相關的意象或是行為？

CA: How many people do you have working on content moderation

安：有多少員工負責審核內容

to look at this?

以觀察這些行為？

JD: It varies.

多：不一定。

We want to be flexible on this,

這方面我們想要保持彈性，

because we want to make sure that we're, number one,

因為我們想要確保，第一，

building algorithms instead of just hiring massive amounts of people,

我們要運用演算法， 而非僅透過大量人力，

because we need to make sure that this is scalable,

因為我們必須確保 作法是可以大範圍使用的，

and there are no amount of people that can actually scale this.

再多的人力也不足以大規模擴展。

So this is why we've done so much work around proactive detection of abuse

這是我們費盡心力做 主動偵測濫用的原因，

that humans can then review.

接著讓人類來審查。

We want to have a situation

我們想要做到讓

where algorithms are constantly scouring every single tweet

演算法能不斷搜索每一則推文，

and bringing the most interesting ones to the top

把最值得注意的推文置頂，

so that humans can bring their judgment to whether we should take action or not,

這麼一來，人類可以去判斷 我們是否要採取行動，

based on our terms of service.

依據服務條款來決定。

WPR: But there's not an amount of people that are scalable,

羅：大量人力 對系統性擴展並無幫助，

but how many people do you currently have monitoring these accounts,

但目前有多少人在監控這些帳戶？

and how do you figure out what's enough?

又如何判斷已經足夠了？

JD: They're completely flexible.

多：這部分彈性很大。

Sometimes we associate folks with spam.

有時，我們讓大家去處理濫發廣告。

Sometimes we associate folks with abuse and harassment.

有時，我們讓大家去處理辱罵和騷擾。

We're going to make sure that we have flexibility in our people

我們要確保人員的彈性，

so that we can direct them at what is most needed.

讓我們可以把他們導到 最需要的地方，

有時，是選舉。

Sometimes, the elections.

在墨西哥有一連串的選舉， 印度馬上也會有一場選舉，

We've had a string of elections in Mexico, one coming up in India,

obviously, the election last year, the midterm election,

很顯然，還有去年的美國期中選舉，

so we just want to be flexible with our resources.

我們希望能夠彈性運用資源。

So when people --

所以，當人們——

just as an example, if you go to our current terms of service

舉例，如果去看目前的服務條款，

and you bring the page up,

把網頁打開來，

and you're wondering about abuse and harassment that you just received

你會想說，你遭受到的辱罵和騷擾

and whether it was against our terms of service to report it,

是否有違反我們的服務條款， 這樣你就可以舉報，

the first thing you see when you open that page

而你打開頁面之後首先看到的

is around intellectual property protection.

和智慧財產權保護有關。

You scroll down and you get to abuse, harassment

向下拉，就會看到辱罵、騷擾，

and everything else that you might be experiencing.

及其他你可能經歷到的狀況。

So I don't know how that happened over the company's history,

我不知道在公司歷史上 這是如何發展出來的，

but we put that above the thing that people want

但我們會把大家最需要的資訊

the most information on and to actually act on.

拉到頁面上方，並真的採取行動。

And just our ordering shows the world what we believed was important.

順序就是在昭告天下 我們的價值觀。

So we're changing all that.

我們在改變這些規則。

We're ordering it the right way,

我們在做正確的排序，

but we're also simplifying the rules so that they're human-readable

但我們也把規則簡化， 讓人們容易閱讀，

so that people can actually understand themselves

讓大家能夠真的靠自己去瞭解

when something is against our terms and when something is not.

什麼狀況和我們的條款 有抵觸，什麼狀況沒有。

And then we're making --

接著，我們在——

again, our big focus is on removing the burden of work from the victims.

同前述，我們很重視 不要讓受害者承擔。

So that means push more towards technology,

意味著採用更多技術，

rather than humans doing the work --

而不是讓人類來做這些工作——

that means the humans receiving the abuse

那包括了受到辱罵的人，

and also the humans having to review that work.

以及要做審查工作的人。

So we want to make sure

我們想要確保：

that we're not just encouraging more work

我們並非只鼓勵花更多心力

around something that's super, super negative,

在極度負面的事物上，

and we want to have a good balance between the technology

而是在運用科技及發揮 人類創意之間取得平衡，

and where humans can actually be creative,

which is the judgment of the rules,

像是人類對規則的判斷，

and not just all the mechanical stuff of finding and reporting them.

而不只是所有機械化的方法 去找出、舉報它們。

So that's how we think about it.

那是我們的看法。

CA: I'm curious to dig in more about what you said.

安：我想要進一步 討論你剛所說的。

I mean, I love that you said you are looking for ways

我很喜歡你說你們在想辦法

to re-tweak the fundamental design of the system

重新調整系統的基本設計，

to discourage some of the reactive behavior, and perhaps --

來阻止一些反應性行為，也許——

to use Tristan Harris-type language --

用崔斯坦．哈里斯的話說——

engage people's more reflective thinking.

促使大家做更多反思。

How far advanced is that?

這部分的進展如何？

What would alternatives to that "like" button be?

「喜歡」按鈕的替代方案會像什麼？

JD: Well, first and foremost,

多：首先，也是最重要的，

my personal goal with the service is that I believe fundamentally

對這項服務，我個人的 目標是，基本上我相信，

that public conversation is critical.

公眾對話是至關重要的。

There are existential problems facing the world

現今全世界一同 面臨攸關存亡的問題，

that are facing the entire world, not any one particular nation-state,

並不僅限於特定的民族國家，

that global public conversation benefits.

因此全球公眾對話能從中受益。

And that is one of the unique dynamics of Twitter,

那是推特的獨特動力之一，

that it is completely open,

它是完全開放的、

it is completely public,

它是完全公開的、

it is completely fluid,

它是完全流動的、

and anyone can see any other conversation and participate in it.

任何人都能看見並參與任何對話。

So there are conversations like climate change.

有些話題是氣候變遷、

There are conversations like the displacement in the work

有些話題是工作被人工智慧取代、

through artificial intelligence.

There are conversations like economic disparity.

有些話題是貧富差距。

No matter what any one nation-state does,

不論任何單一民族國家怎麼做，

they will not be able to solve the problem alone.

都無法獨自解決問題。

It takes coordination around the world,

需要全世界的協調，

and that's where I think Twitter can play a part.

而我認為推特此時便能發揮影響力。

The second thing is that Twitter, right now, when you go to it,

第二，目前你去用推特時，

you don't necessarily walk away feeling like you learned something.

你不見得會在離開時 覺得你獲得了新知。

Some people do.

有些人會，

Some people have a very, very rich network,

有些人擁有非常豐沛的人脈、

a very rich community that they learn from every single day.

非常優質的社群，讓他們 每天都能從中學到東西。

But it takes a lot of work and a lot of time to build up to that.

但要很多時間心力才能建立起來。

So we want to get people to those topics and those interests

我們想讓大家以更快的速度， 找到那些主題、興趣，

much, much faster

and make sure that they're finding something that,

並確保他們能找到東西，

no matter how much time they spend on Twitter --

不論人們花多少時間在推特，

and I don't want to maximize the time on Twitter,

我想要最大化的 不是人們花在推特的時間，

I want to maximize what they actually take away from it

而是人們從推特帶走的東西，

and what they learn from it, and --

讓人們學到東西……

CA: Well, do you, though?

安：但你能這麼做嗎？

Because that's the core question that a lot of people want to know.

那是許多人想知道的核心問題，

Surely, Jack, you're constrained, to a huge extent,

當然，傑克，你受到 很大程度的限制，

by the fact that you're a public company,

因為你們是上市公司，

you've got investors pressing on you,

你有來自投資者的壓力，

the number one way you make your money is from advertising --

廣告是最大的收入來源．

that depends on user engagement.

那和使用者參與程度有關。

Are you willing to sacrifice user time, if need be,

必要的話，你是否願意 犧牲使用者停留時間，

to go for a more reflective conversation?

來換取更具反思性的談話？

JD: Yeah; more relevance means less time on the service,

多：會，若高相關性 意味更短的停留時間，

and that's perfectly fine,

那完全沒問題，

because we want to make sure that, like, you're coming to Twitter,

因為我們想要確保的是， 當你上了推特，

and you see something immediately that you learn from and that you push.

可以馬上看到某樣東西， 能從中學習，並會轉推。

We can still serve an ad against that.

我們仍然能於此情境下搭配廣告。

That doesn't mean you need to spend any more time to see more.

那並不表示需要 花更多時間、看更多東西。

The second thing we're looking at --

我們在研究的第二件事——

安：單就那個目標， 每日活躍使用量，

CA: But just -- on that goal, daily active usage,

if you're measuring that, that doesn't necessarily mean things

如果你要測量它，它並不見得是

that people value every day.

人們真正重視的價值。

It may well mean

它也有可能是

things that people are drawn to like a moth to the flame, every day.

能把大家像是飛蛾撲火般 吸引過去的東西。

We are addicted, because we see something that pisses us off,

我們會上癮，是因為 看到惹毛我們的東西，

so we go in and add fuel to the fire,

我們就會上推特，去火上加油，

and the daily active usage goes up,

而每日活躍使用量就會上升，

and there's more ad revenue there,

那就是更多的廣告收入，

but we all get angrier with each other.

但大家對彼此更生氣。

How do you define ...

你要如何定義……

"Daily active usage" seems like a really dangerous term to be optimizing.

若要最佳化「每日活躍 使用量」，似乎挺危險的。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

JD: Taken alone, it is,

多：單獨看的確是，

but you didn't let me finish the other metric,

但你還沒讓我講完另一項度量，

which is, we're watching for conversations

那就是，我們在留意對話及對話鏈。

and conversation chains.

So we want to incentivize healthy contribution back to the network,

我們想要提供不同的激勵， 讓良性對話回這個平臺，

and what we believe that is is actually participating in conversation

並鼓勵人們參與良性對話，

that is healthy,

as defined by those four indicators I articulated earlier.

所謂的良性，就是由 前述的四個指標所定義。

So you can't just optimize around one metric.

不能只將一項度量給最佳化。

You have to balance and look constantly

得要平衡，且經常要注意

at what is actually going to create a healthy contribution to the network

什麼能夠對這個網路 創造出良性的貢獻，

and a healthy experience for people.

為大家創造正向的體驗。

Ultimately, we want to get to a metric

最終我們想要達到的標準是

where people can tell us, "Hey, I learned something from Twitter,

大家能告訴我們：「嘿， 我從推特學到了些東西，

and I'm walking away with something valuable."

我帶著有價值的東西離開。」

That is our goal ultimately over time,

那是我們的最終目標，

but that's going to take some time.

但那會花不少時間。

CA: You come over to many, I think to me, as this enigma.

安：對許多人來說你是個謎， 對我來說是如此。

This is possibly unfair, but I woke up the other night

這樣說可能不公平， 但有天晚上我醒來，

with this picture of how I found I was thinking about you and the situation,

腦中的畫面是我 想著你和目前的狀態，

that we're on this great voyage with you on this ship called the "Twittanic" --

我們和你一同航向偉大的旅程，

在艘名為「推達尼號」的船上，

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

and there are people on board in steerage

船上有些在最低價艙等的人，

who are expressing discomfort,

他們表示感到不舒服，

and you, unlike many other captains,

而你和其他船長不同，

are saying, "Well, tell me, talk to me, listen to me, I want to hear."

你說：「告訴我，跟我說， 聽我說，我想要知道。」

And they talk to you, and they say, "We're worried about the iceberg ahead."

他們跟你談，他們說： 「我們很擔心前面的冰山。」

And you go, "You know, that is a powerful point,

你說：「那是很有力的論點，

and our ship, frankly, hasn't been built properly

老實說，我們的船並沒有妥善製造，

for steering as well as it might."

無法操作得如預期理想。」

And we say, "Please do something."

我們說：「請做些什麼。」

And you go to the bridge,

你到了駕駛臺，

and we're waiting,

我們在等待，

and we look, and then you're showing this extraordinary calm,

我們看著，你表現出超凡的冷靜，

but we're all standing outside, saying, "Jack, turn the fucking wheel!"

但我們都站在外面說： 「傑克，轉那他媽的舵！」

You know?

你知道嗎？

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

(Applause)

（掌聲）

I mean --

我是說——

(Applause)

（掌聲）

It's democracy at stake.

民主岌岌可危。

It's our culture at stake. It's our world at stake.

我們的文化和世界岌岌可危。

And Twitter is amazing and shapes so much.

推特很了不起且有極大的影響力。

It's not as big as some of the other platforms,

或許它不比其他的平臺大，

but the people of influence use it to set the agenda,

但有影響力的人用它來排定議程，

and it's just hard to imagine a more important role in the world than to ...

很難想像世界上 還有更重要的角色，

I mean, you're doing a brilliant job of listening, Jack, and hearing people,

我是指，傑克，你在 傾聽這方面做得很出色，

但正視其急迫性 並努力推動改變——

but to actually dial up the urgency and move on this stuff --

will you do that?

你願意這麼做嗎？

JD: Yes, and we have been moving substantially.

多：會的，我們已取得 一些實質進展。

I mean, there's been a few dynamics in Twitter's history.

推特經歷過一些巨變。

One, when I came back to the company,

當我重回公司時，

we were in a pretty dire state in terms of our future,

我們未來的處境非常危急，

and not just from how people were using the platform,

不僅是因為人們 使用這個平臺的方法，

but from a corporate narrative as well.

還因為公司結構的問題。

So we had to fix a bunch of the foundation,

所以我們得改變一些公司基礎，

turn the company around,

轉變公司的方向，

go through two crazy layoffs,

歷經兩次瘋狂的裁員，

because we just got too big for what we were doing,

因為當時做的太多，

and we focused all of our energy

我們將工作重心

on this concept of serving the public conversation.

放在為公眾對話服務上。

這花了一些心力。

And that took some work.

And as we dived into that,

當我們開始深入探討時，

we realized some of the issues with the fundamentals.

我們意識到一些根本性的問題。

We could do a bunch of superficial things to address what you're talking about,

為了達成你所說的目的， 可以採取一些表面功夫，

but we need the changes to last,

但我們需要可長可久的變革，

and that means going really, really deep

而這意味著必須非常深入，

and paying attention to what we started 13 years ago

並觀察我們 13 年前建立的東西，

and really questioning

並且反思檢視：

how the system works and how the framework works

這個系統和框架是怎樣運作的，

and what is needed for the world today,

現今社會需要的是什麼，

given how quickly everything is moving and how people are using it.

考慮到世界變化之快 和人們使用它的方法。

So we are working as quickly as we can, but quickness will not get the job done.

我們已經快馬加鞭了，

但「快」對完成任務並無幫助。

It's focus, it's prioritization,

重要的是：專注、優先順序、

it's understanding the fundamentals of the network

對網路之基礎的理解，

and building a framework that scales

建構可以靈活變動、適應變化的機制。

and that is resilient to change,

and being open about where we are and being transparent about where are

並對進度開誠布公，

so that we can continue to earn trust.

這樣我們才能繼續贏得人們的信任。

我對已經投入執行的機制感到自豪、

So I'm proud of all the frameworks that we've put in place.

I'm proud of our direction.

我對我們選定的前進方向感到自豪。

We obviously can move faster,

顯然我們可以再加緊腳步，

but that required just stopping a bunch of stupid stuff we were doing in the past.

但這包含放棄過去 一連串愚蠢的決定。

安：好的。

CA: All right.

Well, I suspect there are many people here who, if given the chance,

我想如果有機會的話，在場很多人

would love to help you on this change-making agenda you're on,

都樂意協助你完成這一項重大改變，

and I don't know if Whitney --

惠特尼是否還有問題——

Jack, thank you for coming here and speaking so openly.

傑克，感謝你能來與我們 開誠布公地討論。

It took courage.

這需要勇氣。

I really appreciate what you said, and good luck with your mission.

我很欣賞你剛所說的， 祝你好運完成任務。

JD: Thank you so much. Thanks for having me.

多：非常感謝。謝謝你們邀請我。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

Thank you.

謝謝。