What obligation do social media platforms have to the greater good? | Eli Pariser

譯者: Chen Pince 審譯者: Thomas Tam

I was talking to a guy at a party in California

在加州的一場派對上， 我跟一個傢伙談到

about tech platforms

科技平臺，

and the problems they're creating in society.

及這些平臺在社會上造成的問題。

And he said, "Man, if the CEOs just did more drugs

他說：「嘿，如果那些 CEO 們能多嗑點藥，

and went to Burning Man,

參加下火人節，

we wouldn't be in this mess."

就不會像這樣一團糟了。」

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

I said, "I'm not sure I agree with you."

我說：「我不太認同你的說法。」

首先，這些 CEO 大多 都已經去過火人節了。

For one thing, most of the CEOs have already been to Burning Man.

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

But also, I'm just not sure that watching a bunch of half-naked people

而且，我也不太確定， 看著一群半裸的人，

run around and burn things

跑來跑去燒東西，

is really the inspiration they need right now.

會給予他們現在所需的靈感。

（笑聲）

(Laughter)

But I do agree that things are a mess.

但我確實同意狀況是一團糟。

我們等下會再回來談這個傢伙，

And so, we're going to come back to this guy,

但咱們先來談談這一團糟。

but let's talk about the mess.

Our climate's getting hotter and hotter.

我們的氣候越來越熱，

It's getting harder and harder to tell truth from fiction.

越來越難分辨真實或是杜撰的事情。

And we've got this global migratory crisis.

現在還有全球性的遷移危機。

And just at the moment when we really need new tools

在這種時刻，我們需要新工具

and new ways of coming together as a society,

和新方法來形成團結的社會，

it feels like social media is kind of tearing at our civic fabric

但感覺好像社交媒體在 撕扯我們的公民結構，

and setting us against each other.

讓我們彼此反目成仇。

We've got viral misinformation on WhatsApp,

在 WhatsApp 上 有瘋傳的錯誤訊息，

bullying on Instagram

在 Instagram 上有霸凌，

and Russian hackers on Facebook.

在臉書上有俄國駭客。

And I think this conversation that we're having right now

我們現在針對

about the harms that these platforms are creating

這些平臺帶來的傷害所做的討論

is so important.

相當重要。

But I also worry

但，我也擔心，

that we could be letting a kind of good existential crisis in Silicon Valley

我們錯過了關鍵時刻， 浪費掉現存的、有建設性的

go to waste

矽谷危機，

if the bar for success is just that it's a little harder

因為成功的標準竟然只是

for Macedonian teenagers to publish false news.

讓馬其頓青少年較難發出虛假消息。

The big question, I think, is not just

重要的問題不只在

what do we want platforms to stop doing,

希望平臺停止做什麼，

but now that they've effectively taken control of our online public square,

更在於，它們現在實際上已控制了 線上的公共空間，

what do we need from them for the greater good?

它們能造出 我們需求的公共福祉嗎？

To me, this is one of the most important questions of our time.

對我來說，這是我們 這個時代最重要的問題之一。

我們讓科技平臺擁有了 淩駕於公眾話語之上的權力。

What obligations do tech platforms have to us

in exchange for the power we let them hold over our discourse?

作為交換，它們又對我們 承擔了什麼義務？

I think this question is so important,

我認為這個問題很重要，

because even if today’s platforms go away,

因為，即使現今的平臺都消失了，

we need to answer this question

仍然得回答這個問題，

in order to be able to ensure that the new platforms that come back

才能確保再回來的新平臺

are any better.

比原本的更好。

So for the last year, I've been working with Dr. Talia Stroud

所以去年，我和奧斯汀德州大學的

at the University of Texas, Austin.

塔利亞·史特勞德博士合作。

We've talked to sociologists and political scientists

我們和社會學家、政治科學家，

and philosophers

以及哲學家都談過，

to try to answer this question.

希望能回答這個問題。

And at first we asked,

一開始，我們問：

"If you were Twitter or Facebook and trying to rank content for democracy

「如果你是推特或臉書， 且你將內容排名的方式根據民主，

rather than for ad clicks or engagement,

而不是據廣告點閱率 或參與度排序，

what might that look like?"

那會是怎樣的光景？」

But then we realized,

接著我們就了解到，

this sort of suggests that this is an information problem

這樣問就意味著是一個資訊問題

or a content problem.

或者內容問題。

And for us, the platform crisis is a people problem.

對我們來說， 平臺危機是人的問題。

It's a problem about the emergent weird things that happen

問題在於，當成群人聚集起來時，

when large groups of people get together.

新的怪事便會發生。

And so we turned to another, older idea.

所以我們轉向一個較舊的想法。

We asked,

我們會問：

"What happens when we think about platforms as spaces?"

「如果我們將不同平台 當成多個空間又如何？」

We know from social psychology that spaces shape behavior.

從社會心理學得知， 不同空間可塑造不一樣的行為。

You put the same group of people in a room like this,

你把一群人放在這樣的房間，

and they're going to behave really differently

他們的行為，會和在那個房間裏

than in a room like this.

截然不同

When researchers put softer furniture in classrooms,

當研究者在教室擺放比較軟的家具，

participation rates rose by 42 percent.

參與率就提升了 42%。

And spaces even have political consequences.

空間甚至會造成政治方面的後果。

When researchers looked at neighborhoods with parks

研究者去比較有公園的鄰里

versus neighborhoods without,

和沒有公園的鄰里，

after adjusting for socioeconomic factors,

在調整了社會經濟變量之後，

they found that neighborhoods with parks had higher levels of social trust

他們發現，有公園的鄰里 會有比較高的社會信任，

and were better able to advocate for themselves politically.

且在政治倡議上表現得更好。

So spaces shape behavior,

所以，空間會塑造行為，

partly by the way they're designed

有部分是透過空間設計來塑造，

and partly by the way that they encode certain norms about how to behave.

有部分則是透過空間制定行為規範。

We all know that there are some behaviors that are OK in a bar

我們都知道，有些行為 在酒吧是可接受的，

that are not OK in a library,

但在圖書館就不適當，

and maybe vice versa.

反過來也一樣。

And this gives us a little bit of a clue,

這就給了我們點頭緖，

because there are online spaces

因為有些線上空間

that encode these same kinds of behavioral norms.

制定了與線下空間 相類似的行為規範。

So, for example, behavior on LinkedIn

比如，在領英社交網路上的行為

seems pretty good.

似乎相當好。

Why?

為什麼？

Because it reads as a workplace.

因為它就像是工作場所。

And so people follow workplace norms.

所以使用者會遵循工作場所的規範。

You can even see it in the way they dress in their profile pictures.

就連使用者在個人檔案 照片中的穿著都可以看出這點。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

So if LinkedIn is a workplace,

如果領英是一個工作場所，

what is Twitter like?

那推特像什麼？

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Well, it's like a vast, cavernous expanse,

嗯，它就像是個浩瀚和廣闊的區域，

where there are people talking about sports,

在那裡，有人會聊運動、

arguing about politics, yelling at each other, flirting,

爭論政治、互相吼叫、調情、

trying to get a job,

試著找工作，

all in the same place, with no walls, no divisions,

全都在同一地方， 沒有牆壁同分隔，

and the owner gets paid more the louder the noise is.

噪音越大，平臺擁有人賺得越多。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

No wonder it's a mess.

也難怪會是一團糟。

And this raises another thing that become obvious

明顯地，我們可以想像

when we think about platforms in terms of physical space.

平台成為物理空間。

Good physical spaces are almost always structured.

好的現實空間幾乎都是有結構的。

They have rules.

這些空間有規則。

Silicon Valley is built on this idea that unstructured space is conducive

矽谷建立在去結構化的空間 催化人類行為的

for human behavior.

理念之上。

And I actually think there's a reason for this myopia

其實，我認為這種短視

built into the location of Silicon Valley itself.

就矽谷之所在，是有原因的。

So, Michele Gelfand is a sociologist

米雪兒·葛爾凡是一位社會學家，

who studies how norms vary across cultures.

她研究對應文化的人們規範。

And she watches how cultures like Japan -- which she calls "tight" --

她觀察像是日本的文化—— 她稱「緊繃」的文化——

is very conformist, very rule-following,

因循守舊、墨守成規；

and cultures like Brazil are very loose.

而像巴西的文化就非常寬鬆。

You can see this even in things like

這些差別從很多地方都能看到，

how closely synchronized the clocks are on a city street.

即如城市街道中時鐘的時間有多同步。

So as you can see, the United States is one of the looser countries.

所以，可以知道，美國是個 比較寬鬆的國家。

And the loosest state in the United States is,

在美國，最寬鬆的一個州是，

you got it, California.

沒錯，加州。

And Silicon Valley culture came out of the 1970s Californian counterculture.

矽谷文化來自於 七〇年代的加州反正統文化。

So, just to recap:

讓我們先總結一下：

the spaces that the world is living in

這個世界所依賴的矽谷，

came out of the loosest culture in the loosest state

是來自於世界上最寬鬆的國家之一，

in one of the loosest countries in the world.

最自由的州群和最寬鬆的文化。

No wonder they undervalue structure.

也難怪他們會輕視結構。

And I think this really matters, because people need structure.

我認為這點很重要， 因為人需要結構。

You may have heard this word "anomie."

各位可能有聽過 「社會失範」。

It literally means "a lack of norms" in French.

它是法文，字面 意思是「缺乏規範」。

It was coined by Émile Durkheim

涂爾幹發明了這個詞，

to describe the vast, overwhelming feeling

是要描述當人身處在 沒有規範的空間中時，

that people have in spaces without norms.

所產生的一種巨大、 無法招架的感覺。

Anomie has political consequences.

社會失範會造成政治上的後果。

Because what Gelfand has found is that, when things are too loose,

因為，葛爾凡發現， 當一切都太寬鬆時，

people crave order and structure.

大家就會渴求秩序和結構。

And that craving for order and structure correlates really strongly

這些渴求會引起許多有相同想法的人

with support for people like these guys.

強力支持這些傢伙。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

I don't think it's crazy to ask

我不認為問這個問題會很怪：

if the structurelessness of online life is actually feeding anxiety

若果人們對無結構狀態的 線上行為有恐懼，

that's increasing a responsiveness to authoritarianism.

就會增強對獨裁主義的響應。

So how might platforms bring people together

所以，平臺要用什麼方式 將人們聚集在一起，

in a way that creates meaning

才能創造意義，

and helps people understand each other?

並協助大家了解彼此？

And this brings me back to our friend from Burning Man.

這就要回到先前談到 有關火人節的那位朋友了。

Because listening to him, I realized:

因為，我在聽他說時，我發現：

it's not just that Burning Man isn't the solution --

參加火人節並非解決方案，

it's actually a perfect metaphor for the problem.

火人節根本就是這個問題 本身的完美比喻。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

You know, it's a great place to visit for a week,

它所處的地方很棒， 適合造訪一週，

this amazing art city, rising out of nowhere in the dust.

是個難以想象的藝術城市， 在一片沙土中無中生有。

But you wouldn't want to live there.

但你不會想要住在那裡。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

There's no running water,

那裡沒有自來水，

there's no trash pickup.

沒有收垃圾服務。

At some point, the hallucinogens run out,

到了某個時點， 你會從自我陶醉中蘇醒，

and you're stuck with a bunch of wealthy white guys

發覺自己和一群富裕的白人

in the dust in the desert.

被困在沙漠的沙土中。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Which, to me, is sometimes how social media feels in 2019.

對我來說，2019 年的社交媒體 有時就會給我這種感覺。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

A great, fun, hallucinatory place to visit has become our home.

又好、又棒和很有趣的 虛幻之地，變成了我們的家。

And so,

所以，

if we look at platforms through the lens of spaces,

如果我們從空間的角度來看待平臺，

we can then ask ourselves:

我們就可以自問：

Who knows how to structure spaces for the public good?

有誰知道如何為公眾利益架構空間？

And it turns out, this is a question

結果發現這正正是

people have been thinking about for a long time about cities.

大家長久以來思考的城市問題。

Cities were the original platforms.

城市就是原始的平臺。

Two-sided marketplace?

擁有兩方面的市場嗎？

Check.

有。

Place to keep up with old friends and distant relatives?

和老朋友及遠方親戚 保持聯絡的地方？

Check.

有。

Vector for viral sharing?

瘋傳分享的媒介？

Check.

有。

In fact, cities have encountered

事實上，城市遇過的

a lot of the same social and political challenges

許多社會和政治難題，

that platforms are now encountering.

都和平臺現今遇到的難題相同。

They've dealt with massive growth that overwhelmed existing communities

城市已處理過讓既有社區 難以招架的急速膨脹，

and the rise of new business models.

以及新商業模式的興起。

They've even had new, frictionless technologies

他們甚至擁有過日新月異、 無障礙的新科技，

that promised to connect everyone together

承諾將每一個人連結，

and that instead deepened existing social and race divides.

卻也加深了既有的 社會和種族分裂。

But because of this history of decay and renewal

但，正因為有這些衰落又更新、

and segregation and integration,

隔離又融合的歷史，

cities are the source of some of our best ideas

城市可以提供給我們 一些最佳的點子，

about how to build functional, thriving communities.

指導我們如何建立 繁榮有成效的社區。

Faced with a top-down, car-driven vision of city life,

面對自上而下， 汽車驅動城市的生活設想，

pioneers like Jane Jacobs said,

像珍·雅各這樣的先鋒說，

let’s instead put human relationships at the center of urban design.

咱們換個方式，把人類關係 放在都市設計的中心。

Jacobs and her fellow travelers like Holly Whyte, her editor,

雅各和她的旅伴， 像她的編輯荷莉·懷特，

were these really great observers of what actually happened on the street.

他們是了不起的街頭觀察家。

They watched: Where did people stop and talk?

他們會去看： 人們在哪裡會停下來談話？

When did neighbors become friends?

鄰居何時會變成朋友？

And they learned a lot.

他們學到了很多。

For example, they noticed that successful public places

比如，他們注意到， 成功的公眾空間

generally have three different ways that they structure behavior.

通常會用三種不同的方式 來建構行為。

There's the built environment,

有建造出來的環境，

you know, that we're going to put a fountain here or a playground there.

我們打算把噴泉放在這裡， 或把遊樂場放在那裡。

But then, there's programming,

接著，還有日程安排，

like, let's put a band at seven and get the kids out.

比如，在七點安排一隊樂團表演， 和使到年輕人出來。

And there's this idea of mayors,

還有一個市長的概念，

people who kind of take this informal ownership of a space

人們雖非正式擁有這地方，

但要弄到清潔， 且能包容和歡迎別人。

to keep it welcoming and clean.

All three of these things actually have analogues online.

這三種方式都可以對應到網路上。

But platforms mostly focus on code,

但平臺的設計多半關註在編碼上，

on what's physically possible in the space.

於網絡空間技術上 能創建的環境。

And they focus much less on these other two softer, social areas.

平台設計師大都忽視 後兩個軟性社會的範疇。

What are people doing there?

人們在那裡幹什麽？

Who's taking responsibility for it?

誰要為此負責？

So like Jane Jacobs did for cities,

就像珍·雅各對城市所做的那樣，

Talia and I think we need a new design movement

我和塔利亞認為， 我們需要一場

for online space,

新網絡空間構建運動。

one that considers

我們不僅僅考慮

not just "How do we build products that work for users or consumers?"

「怎樣生產用戶 和消費者所喜愛的內容？」

「怎樣使到產品更能 满足用户的需求？」

"How do we make something user-friendly?"

but "How do we make products that are public-friendly?"

而是「我們如何可造出 滿足公眾需求的產品？」

Because we need products that don't serve individuals

因為我們要使平台

並非在於滿足個人而在消耗 我們賴以為生的社會結構。

at the expense of the social fabric on which we all depend.

And we need it urgently,

我們非常需要

because political scientists tell us

政治科學家告訴我們的、

that healthy democracies need healthy public spaces.

真正自由民主需要建基的 健康公共空間。

So, the public-friendly digital design movement that Talia and I imagine

所以，我和塔利亞暢想在公共網絡 構建友好空間的運動

asks this question:

提出了這個問題：

What would this interaction be like if it was happening in physical space?

如果這種互動發生 在現實空間中會是怎樣?

And it asks the reverse question:

我們又提出了相反的問題：

What can we learn from good physical spaces

那些我們可從良好的實際環境學到

about how to structure behavior in the online world?

能建構在線的行為？

For example, I grew up in a small town in Maine,

比如，我在緬因州的一個小鎮長大，

and I went to a lot of those town hall meetings that you hear about.

我去了很多公民大會， 你們聽過的那種。

And unlike the storybook version, they weren't always nice.

不會像故事書中展現的和諧， 氣氛通常並不友好。

Like, people had big conflicts, big feelings ...

比如，人們有激烈的沖突， 過度情緒化……

It was hard sometimes.

有時非常難處理。

But because of the way that that space was structured,

但因為空間得到規範，

we managed to land it OK.

終究會議能順利進行。

How?

是怎麽做到的？

Well, here's one important piece.

嗯，這就是重要的一環了。

The downcast glance, the dirty look,

沮喪的一瞥、憤怒的目光、

the raised eyebrow, the cough ...

詫異地揚眉和咳嗽……

When people went on too long or lost the crowd,

當人們持續大久或離開群眾了，

they didn't get banned or blocked or hauled out by the police,

並不會遭到禁言、拉黑， 或是警察拖走的對待，

they just got this soft, negative social feedback.

他們只會得到溫和的社交負反饋。

And that was actually very powerful.

這實際上非常有力。

我認為臉書和推特 也可以搞個類似的玩意，

I think Facebook and Twitter could build this,

something like this.

就像這樣。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

I think there are some other things that online spaces can learn

我認為線上空間 還有很多其它東西，

可以從線下空間得到借鑒。

from offline spaces.

Holly Whyte observed that in healthy public spaces,

霍利·懷特觀察到， 在健康的公共空間裏，

there are often many different places that afford different ways of relating.

很多不同空間都賦予 不一樣的連繫方式。

So the picnic table where you have lunch with your family

所以戶外的野餐桌， 是家人午餐的地方，

may not be suited for the romantic walk with a partner

就不適合作伴侶浪漫步行，

or the talk with some business colleagues.

或跟同事聊天之用了。

And it's worth noting that in real space,

值得注意的是， 在現實空間中，

in none of these places are there big, visible public signs of engagement.

這些地方都沒有 大而明顯的公眾參與的跡象。

So digital designers could think about

所以網絡設計者可以想一想，

what kind of conversations do we actually want to invite,

要邀請哪些類型的對話，

and how do we build specifically for those kinds of conversations.

又該如何具體構建此等對話。

還記得我們之前提到的 那個建立了社會信任的公園嗎？

Remember the park that we talked about that built social trust?

That didn't happen because people were having these big political arguments.

但在平台並沒有發生， 因為人們有那麼嚴重的政治爭議。

Most strangers don't actually even talk to each other

事實上，大部分陌生人

the first three or four or five times they see each other.

最初三至五次碰上，並不會交談。

But when people, even very different people,

但當人們——即使很不同的人，

see each other a lot,

頻繁相遇後，

they develop familiarity,

就發展了熟悉感，

and that creates the bedrock for relationships.

為形成的關系奠下了基石。

And I think, actually, you know,

事實上，

maybe that early idea of cyberspace as kind of this bodiless meeting place

也許早期的網絡空間 是虛擬的聚集地，

of pure minds and pure ideas

充滿單純的思考與意念，

sent us off in the wrong direction.

將我們送上了錯誤的方向。

Maybe what we need instead is to find a way to be in proximity,

也許我們反而需要的是， 找到一條接近彼此的道路，

mostly talking amongst ourselves,

讓大部分人互相交談，

but all sharing the same warm sun.

大家亦共享溫暖的陽光。

And finally:

最後：

healthy public spaces create a sense of ownership and equity.

健康的公共空間， 產生擁有及公平的感覺。

And this is where the city metaphor becomes challenging.

作為城市之喻，愈發具有挑戰性。

Because, if Twitter is a city,

因為，如果推特是一座城市，

it's a city that's owned by just a few people

只是一座由少數人占有，

and optimized for financial return.

而有極大化的財富收入的城市。

I think we really need digital environments

我認為我們需要的網絡環境，

that we all actually have some real ownership of,

是每個人可擁有一些，

environments that respect the diversity of human existence

人類互相尊重的多元化環境，

and that give us some say and some input into the process.

而能夠給予我們話語權 及在進程中投入機會。

And I think we need this urgently.

我認為這個是急需的。

Because Facebook right now --

因為臉書現在——

I sort of think of, like, 1970s New York.

就我看來有點像 70 年代的紐約。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

The public spaces are decaying, there's trash in the streets,

公共空間正在腐爛，垃圾滿街

people are kind of, like, mentally and emotionally

人們猶似精神上和情感上

warming themselves over burning garbage.

都在燃燒的垃圾堆中取暖。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

And --

還有——

(Applause)

（掌聲）

And the natural response to this is to hole up in your apartment

對此最自然的反應，是窩居家裡，

or consider fleeing for the suburbs.

或者考慮逃到郊區。

It doesn't surprise me

這樣做並不令我驚訝，

that people are giving up on the idea of online public spaces

因為人們放棄在線公共空間的想法，

the way that they've given up on cities over their history.

貼近歷史上人們放棄城市的念頭。

And sometimes -- I'll be honest --

我實話實說，有時——

it feels to me like this whole project of, like, wiring up a civilization

感覺整個計劃就像連接上 一個文明世界，

and getting billions of people to come into contact with each other

和數十億人互相連結的宏偉計劃，

is just impossible.

本就不可能實現。

But modern cities tell us that it is possible

但現代城市告訴我們，

對於數以百萬不同背景的人，

for millions of people who are really different,

sometimes living right on top of each other,

有時生活彼此對立，

not just to not kill each other,

但不只不會互相殘殺，

but to actually build things together,

反而共同建構事物，

find new experiences,

㝷找新經驗，

create beautiful, important infrastructure.

開創美妙而重要的基礎設施。

And we cannot give up on that promise.

同時我們不能放棄這承諾。

If we want to solve the big, important problems in front of us,

如果我們想解決這個 擺在眼前極其重要的問題，

we need better online public spaces.

我們就需要更好的網絡公共空間，

We need digital urban planners,

我們要有新的網絡城市規劃師，

new Jane Jacobses,

眾多新珍·雅各，

who are going to build the parks and park benches of the online world.

他們將建造網絡世界裏的 公園與公園長凳。

And we need digital, public-friendly architects,

我們需要公忠堅毅的網絡建築師，

建造艾裏克·克裏南伯格 的「人民殿堂」——

who are going to build what Eric Klinenberg calls

"palaces for the people" -- libraries and museums and town halls.

圖書館、博物館以及市政廳。

And we need a transnational movement,

同時我們需要跨國的運動，

where these spaces can learn from each other,

讓這些空間均能相互彼此學習，

just like cities have,

就像城市經歷過一般，

about everything from urban farming to public art to rapid transit.

學習由城市農業到公眾藝術 和快速運輸，不一而足。

Humanity moves forward

人性趨向於

when we find new ways to rely on and understand and trust each other.

尋找可信賴、互相了解 和信任的新方向。

And we need this now more than ever.

我們比以往更需要它。

If online digital spaces are going to be our new home,

如果網絡空間 將會成為我們新的家園，

讓我們把它建設成 一個舒適而美麗的居處，

let's make them a comfortable, beautiful place to live,

a place we all feel not just included

我們所有人都不只能容納在內，

but actually some ownership of.

還有種感覺擁有它。

A place we get to know each other.

一個我們了解彼此的地方。

A place you'd actually want not just to visit

一個你不僅想拜訪，

but to bring your kids.

還想帶上孩子的地方。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）