The moral bias behind your search results | Andreas Ekström

譯者: Ming Gui Tan 審譯者: Allen Kuo

每當我拜訪一所學校 跟那裡的學生交流

So whenever I visit a school and talk to students,

I always ask them the same thing:

我都會問同樣的問題：

Why do you Google?

你為什麼用Google？

Why is Google the search engine of choice for you?

為什麼Google 是你獨愛的搜索引擎？

Strangely enough, I always get the same three answers.

很奇妙， 答案永遠是這三種。

One, "Because it works,"

一、因為有用。

which is a great answer; that's why I Google, too.

的確是不錯的答案， 我也是因此而使用Google的。

Two, somebody will say,

二、有些人會說，

"I really don't know of any alternatives."

「我真的不知道還有什麼選擇」

It's not an equally great answer and my reply to that is usually,

這不是很好的答案， 我通常這樣回應，

"Try to Google the word 'search engine,'

「試試看用Google搜索 『搜索引擎』

you may find a couple of interesting alternatives."

你將會找到其他 更有趣的選擇。」

And last but not least, thirdly,

最後但一樣重要的是，三、

inevitably, one student will raise her or his hand and say,

一定會有學生會舉手說，

"With Google, I'm certain to always get the best, unbiased search result."

「透過Google，我很肯定能找到 最好、最沒有偏差的結果」

Certain to always get the best, unbiased search result.

肯定能夠找到最好、 最沒有偏差的結果。

Now, as a man of the humanities,

學人文學的我，

albeit a digital humanities man,

雖然是數位人文學，

that just makes my skin curl,

聽到這句話真是令人發毛，

even if I, too, realize that that trust, that idea of the unbiased search result

即便我也發覺到這種信任、 這種無偏差搜尋結果的想法

is a cornerstone in our collective love for and appreciation of Google.

是我們對於Google共同的喜愛 和感激的基礎。

I will show you why that, philosophically, is almost an impossibility.

我等等會透過哲學思維 證明給你看這句話根本不可能成立。

But let me first elaborate, just a little bit, on a basic principle

但我要事先 稍微闡述每個搜尋查詢背後的

behind each search query that we sometimes seem to forget.

基本運作， 這些是我們常常忽略的。

So whenever you set out to Google something,

每次當你開始用Google查詢，

start by asking yourself this: "Am I looking for an isolated fact?"

先問問自己： 「我在尋找單一的事實嗎？」

What is the capital of France?

法國的首都在哪裡？

What are the building blocks of a water molecule?

構成水分子的 基本結構是什麼？

Great -- Google away.

很好--用Google搜尋吧！

There's not a group of scientists who are this close to proving

不會有一群科學家 有那麼一點點可能證明

that it's actually London and H30.

答案是倫敦和H3O的。

You don't see a big conspiracy among those things.

這當中沒有什麼陰謀。

We agree, on a global scale,

我們大家都同意

what the answers are to these isolated facts.

這些事實的真偽是什麼。

But if you complicate your question just a little bit and ask something like,

但如果你問的問題 稍微複雜一點，像是

"Why is there an Israeli-Palestine conflict?"

「為什麼以色列 和巴勒斯坦會有衝突？」

You're not exactly looking for a singular fact anymore,

你要的不只是單一的事實了，

you're looking for knowledge,

你要的是知識，

which is something way more complicated and delicate.

是更加複雜也更加細微的東西。

And to get to knowledge,

而為了獲得知識，

you have to bring 10 or 20 or 100 facts to the table

你得列出10個、20個 甚至100個事實

and acknowledge them and say, "Yes, these are all true."

然後承認它們，並且說： 「是的，這些都是事實。」

But because of who I am,

但會因為我是誰，

young or old, black or white, gay or straight,

是年輕人或老人、黑人或白人、 同性戀或異性戀，

I will value them differently.

而對它們產生不同評價。

And I will say, "Yes, this is true,

然後我會說：「對，這是事實，

but this is more important to me than that."

但我覺得這個比那個重要。」

And this is where it becomes interesting,

事情就從這一刻變得精彩，

because this is where we become human.

因為這就是我們為何身而為人，

This is when we start to argue, to form society.

我們會因此開始辯論， 而形成一個社會。

And to really get somewhere, we need to filter all our facts here,

要能真正有所進展， 我們首先要篩選手上的資訊，

through friends and neighbors and parents and children

透過朋友、鄰居、父母、孩子、

and coworkers and newspapers and magazines,

同事和報章雜誌，

to finally be grounded in real knowledge,

來取得最終真正的知識，

which is something that a search engine is a poor help to achieve.

這種事搜尋引擎很難辦得到。

So, I promised you an example just to show you why it's so hard

我剛剛答應你們我會舉例說明為什麼

to get to the point of true, clean, objective knowledge --

要獲得真實、純淨、 客觀的知識那麼困難--

as food for thought.

好讓你深思一下。

I will conduct a couple of simple queries, search queries.

我來現場搜尋一些簡單的東西。

We'll start with "Michelle Obama,"

我們就從「蜜雪兒·歐巴馬」

the First Lady of the United States.

美國的第一夫人開始吧。

And we'll click for pictures.

我們搜尋圖片。

It works really well, as you can see.

正如你所見，效果還不錯。

It's a perfect search result, more or less.

結果或多或少還算不錯啦。

It's just her in the picture, not even the President.

圖片裡都只有她， 連總統都沒有。

How does this work?

背後的運作是如何的呢？

Quite simple.

很簡單。

Google uses a lot of smartness to achieve this, but quite simply,

Google利用不少智慧型功能來 達成這些目的，但簡單來說

they look at two things more than anything.

他們主要看兩樣東西。

First, what does it say in the caption under the picture on each website?

首先，每一個網頁上 圖片的標題是什麼？

Does it say "Michelle Obama" under the picture?

圖片底下的標題是否是 「Michelle Obama」？

Pretty good indication it's actually her on there.

有的話代表圖中人物應該就是她。

Second, Google looks at the picture file,

第二、Google看圖片檔名，

the name of the file as such uploaded to the website.

上傳到網路上的檔名。

Again, is it called "MichelleObama.jpeg"?

我們來看看， 檔名是否是MichelleObama.jpeg？

Pretty good indication it's not Clint Eastwood in the picture.

很明顯圖片中不是 克林·伊斯威特(Clint Eastwoood)。

So, you've got those two and you get a search result like this -- almost.

上面那兩項條件會讓你 搜尋到這樣的結果--幾乎啦。

Now, in 2009, Michelle Obama was the victim of a racist campaign,

在2009年的時候，蜜雪兒·歐巴馬 變成一個種族歧視運動的受害者，

where people set out to insult her through her search results.

一些人透過搜尋結果來侮辱她。

There was a picture distributed widely over the Internet

有一張在網路上廣為流傳的照片，

where her face was distorted to look like a monkey.

照片中她的臉被扭曲成像猴子一樣。

And that picture was published all over.

而那張照片到處可見。

And people published it very, very purposefully,

而且這些人真的是故意在上傳，

to get it up there in the search results.

為的就是讓它成為搜尋結果。

They made sure to write "Michelle Obama" in the caption

他們確保有把 「Michelle Obama」寫入標題裡，

and they made sure to upload the picture as "MichelleObama.jpeg," or the like.

也確保被上傳的圖片的檔名是 「MichelleObama.jpeg」，或類似的。

You get why -- to manipulate the search result.

你應該知道為什麼-- 為了操縱搜尋結果。

And it worked, too.

結果真的成功了。

So when you picture-Googled for "Michelle Obama" in 2009,

當你在2009年用Google 搜尋「Michelle Obama」的圖片，

that distorted monkey picture showed up among the first results.

那張被改成像猴子的圖片 就會出現在結果的前端。

Now, the results are self-cleansing,

這些搜尋結果會自動清除，

and that's sort of the beauty of it,

這也算是Google的美啦，

because Google measures relevance every hour, every day.

因為Google每小時、每天 都在測量結果的相關性。

However, Google didn't settle for that this time,

然而，Google這次並沒有 讓這件事順其自然，

they just thought, "That's racist and it's a bad search result

他們想說：「這有種族歧視， 是不好的搜尋結果，

and we're going to go back and clean that up manually.

我們要手動清除掉這些，

We are going to write some code and fix it,"

我們需要寫一些程式把它給弄好。」

which they did.

而他們真的做到了。

And I don't think anyone in this room thinks that was a bad idea.

我不認為這裡有人會 覺得這是個餿主意吧。

Me neither.

對啊，我也不這麼認為。

But then, a couple of years go by,

但是，一直到幾年之後，

and the world's most-Googled Anders,

世上最多人Google搜尋的昂德史

Anders Behring Breivik,

昂德史·北令·布雷維克，

did what he did.

做了一件事。

This is July 22 in 2011,

那時是2011年7月22日，

and a terrible day in Norwegian history.

在挪威歷史上 是慘不忍睹的一天。

This man, a terrorist, blew up a couple of government buildings

這個人，一個恐怖分子， 炸毀了好幾棟

walking distance from where we are right now in Oslo, Norway

離這裡（奧斯陸）不遠的政府機關，

然後再到烏托亞島上

and then he traveled to the island of Utøya

射殺了一群孩子。

and shot and killed a group of kids.

Almost 80 people died that day.

那天，死了將近80人。

And a lot of people would describe this act of terror as two steps,

很多人認為這個惡行是兩部曲，

that he did two things: he blew up the buildings and he shot those kids.

認為他做了兩件事：炸毀建築物 以及射殺那群孩子。

It's not true.

不對。

It was three steps.

這件事其實是三部曲。

He blew up those buildings, he shot those kids,

他炸毀建築物， 射殺那群孩子，

and he sat down and waited for the world to Google him.

然後坐下來等待 天下人Google搜尋他。

And he prepared all three steps equally well.

而且他為這三部曲做足了準備。

And if there was somebody who immediately understood this,

如果說有誰馬上明白他的真正用意，

it was a Swedish web developer,

那就是一位瑞典網路設計者，

a search engine optimization expert in Stockholm, named Nikke Lindqvist.

住在斯德哥爾摩的搜尋引擎最佳化專家， 叫尼克·林德威斯特

He's also a very political guy

他也是個很有政治主見的人，

and he was right out there in social media, on his blog and Facebook.

他剛好就在社群網路上， 瀏覽他的部落格和臉書。

And he told everybody,

他告訴大家，

"If there's something that this guy wants right now,

「這個人現在最想要的是

能夠主宰他自己的形象。

it's to control the image of himself.

Let's see if we can distort that.

讓我們試著扭曲他的形象。

Let's see if we, in the civilized world, can protest against what he did

讓我們嘗試在文明世界裡，

透過他的搜尋結果侮辱他， 來抗議他的惡行。』

through insulting him in his search results."

And how?

要怎麼做呢？

He told all of his readers the following,

他讓所有的讀者這樣做，

"Go out there on the Internet,

「連上網絡

find pictures of dog poop on sidewalks --

搜尋一下狗狗在路邊大便的圖片--

find pictures of dog poop on sidewalks --

搜尋一下狗狗在路邊大便的圖片--

publish them in your feeds, on your websites, on your blogs.

上傳到你們的發文、網頁、部落格。

Make sure to write the terrorist's name in the caption,

記得一定要把這位恐怖分子 的名字寫到標題中，

make sure to name the picture file "Breivik.jpeg."

確保圖片檔名是『Breivik.jpeg』

Let's teach Google that that's the face of the terrorist."

一起來告訴Google 這就是那位恐怖分子的臉孔。」

And it worked.

後來真的成功了。

Two years after that campaign against Michelle Obama,

繼蜜雪兒·歐巴馬那件事的兩年之後，

this manipulation campaign against Anders Behring Breivik worked.

這次針對昂德史·北令·布雷維克 所發起的操縱運動成功了。

If you picture-Googled for him weeks after the July 22 events from Sweden,

你如果在7月22日後的幾個禮拜， 你在瑞典Google圖片搜尋他的話，

you'd see that picture of dog poop high up in the search results,

你會看到先出現的都是 狗狗在路邊大便的圖片，

as a little protest.

算是對他小小的討伐。

Strangely enough, Google didn't intervene this time.

奇怪的是，Google 這次竟撒手閉眼。

They did not step in and manually clean those search results up.

他們沒有介入， 手動把這些搜尋結果清除掉。

So the million-dollar question,

那我要問你們一個迫切而困難的問題，

is there anything different between these two happenings here?

這兩件事有什麼差別嗎？

Is there anything different between what happened to Michelle Obama

究竟發生在蜜雪兒·歐巴馬身上的事件

跟昂德史·北令·布雷維克的有何差別？

and what happened to Anders Behring Breivik?

Of course not.

當然沒有。

It's the exact same thing,

這兩件事根本是一樣的，

yet Google intervened in one case and not in the other.

但Google並沒有一視同仁。

Why?

為什麼？

Because Michelle Obama is an honorable person, that's why,

因為蜜雪兒·歐巴馬德高望重，

and Anders Behring Breivik is a despicable person.

而昂德史·北令·布雷維克十惡不赦。

See what happens there?

你看到了嗎？

An evaluation of a person takes place

有人被斷定其好壞，

and there's only one power-player in the world

而世上只有一個大玩家

with the authority to say who's who.

被賦予權利去判定對錯。

"We like you, we dislike you.

「我們喜歡你，我們不喜歡你。

We believe in you, we don't believe in you.

我們相信你， 我們不相信你。

You're right, you're wrong. You're true, you're false.

你對，你錯。 你說真話，你說謊。

你是歐巴馬，你是布雷維克。」

You're Obama, and you're Breivik."

That's power if I ever saw it.

這就是權勢。

So I'm asking you to remember that behind every algorithm

所以我在此提醒你在任何運算中

is always a person,

都有一個人在背後，

a person with a set of personal beliefs

一個擁有自己根深蒂固、 難以動搖的信仰的人。

that no code can ever completely eradicate.

And my message goes out not only to Google,

而我的不只是要對Google說，

but to all believers in the faith of code around the world.

我也想對世上所有 擁有相信某種教條的人說。

你必須要釐清 自己的個人偏差。

You need to identify your own personal bias.

You need to understand that you are human

你必須明瞭你身而為人

and take responsibility accordingly.

然後擔當起相對的責任。

And I say this because I believe we've reached a point in time

我這麼說是因為相信 我們已經到了一個

when it's absolutely imperative

必須無可避免地

that we tie those bonds together again, tighter:

重新把這些距離拉得更近的時機：

the humanities and the technology.

人文跟科技之間的距離。

Tighter than ever.

比以前更近。

And, if nothing else, to remind us that that wonderfully seductive idea

我也相信那誘人的觀念，

of the unbiased, clean search result

認為搜尋結果是無偏差、純淨的，

is, and is likely to remain, a myth.

只是個天方夜譚， 永遠是個天方夜譚。

Thank you for your time.

謝謝你撥冗聆聽。

(Applause)

（掌聲）