Dear Facebook, this is how you're breaking democracy | Yael Eisenstat

譯者: LoHsien Huang 審譯者: Yi-Ping Cho (Marssi)

Around five years ago,

大約五年前，

it struck me that I was losing the ability

我感到很震驚，因為我無法

to engage with people who aren't like-minded.

跟那些立場和我不同的人對話討論。

The idea of discussing hot-button issues with my fellow Americans

我與美國同胞討論敏感議題的想法

was starting to give me more heartburn

讓我胃痛的程度，

than the times that I engaged with suspected extremists overseas.

比和海外的可疑極端分子對話還嚴重。

It was starting to leave me feeling more embittered and frustrated.

這件事開始讓我更加苦惱和沮喪。

And so just like that,

就這樣，

I shifted my entire focus

我轉移我的焦點，

from global national security threats

從一開始的全球國家安全威脅

to trying to understand what was causing this push

轉移到試著了解是什麼造成

towards extreme polarization at home.

國內極端分化的原因。

As a former CIA officer and diplomat

我身為前中情局的官員和外交官，

who spent years working on counterextremism issues,

曾經花了好幾年的時間 處理反極端主義的問題，

I started to fear that this was becoming a far greater threat to our democracy

我開始感到害怕，因為這件事情 對我們的民主產生巨大威脅，

than any foreign adversary.

更甚任何國外的威脅。

And so I started digging in,

所以我開始深入發掘，

and I started speaking out,

而且開始疾呼，

which eventually led me to being hired at Facebook

這最終讓我在臉書找到一份工作，

and ultimately brought me here today

最後讓我今天能夠站在這裡，

to continue warning you about how these platforms

繼續提醒各位這些社群平台

are manipulating and radicalizing so many of us

如何操縱我們， 讓我們許多人變得激進，

and to talk about how to reclaim our public square.

並且告訴大家如何 奪回我們的輿論制度。

I was a foreign service officer in Kenya

我在肯亞的時候是名外交人員，

just a few years after the September 11 attacks,

那是 911 攻擊事件過後沒幾年，

and I led what some call "hearts and minds" campaigns

我在沿著索馬利亞的邊境

along the Somalia border.

發起了一個所謂 「贏得民心」的運動。

A big part of my job was to build trust with communities

很大一部分的工作是， 在社群之間建立信任，

deemed the most susceptible to extremist messaging.

這些社群被認為最容易受到 極端主義訊息的影響。

I spent hours drinking tea with outspoken anti-Western clerics

我花了數小時與個性坦率的 反西方宗教領袖喝茶，

and even dialogued with some suspected terrorists,

甚至與疑似恐怖分子的人交談，

and while many of these engagements began with mutual suspicion,

儘管許多這樣的交涉 剛開始都出於互相懷疑，

I don't recall any of them resulting in shouting or insults,

但我不記得有哪次引起爭執或侮辱，

and in some case we even worked together on areas of mutual interest.

在某些情況下，我們甚至在 共同關心的領域中一同努力。

The most powerful tools we had were to simply listen, learn

我們擁有最有力的工具就是 單純的傾聽、學習，

and build empathy.

而且建立同理心。

This is the essence of hearts and minds work,

這是贏得人心工作的本質，

because what I found again and again is that what most people wanted

因為我一再發現到大部分人想要的

was to feel heard, validated and respected.

就是感覺被人傾聽、認可和尊重。

And I believe that's what most of us want.

我相信這就是大多數人想要的。

So what I see happening online today is especially heartbreaking

而我看到現今網路上發生的事 特別令人心痛，

and a much harder problem to tackle.

而這是更難解決的問題。

We are being manipulated by the current information ecosystem

我們正被目前的資訊生態系統操縱，

entrenching so many of us so far into absolutism

讓我們許多人深陷 難以動搖的絕對主義中，

that compromise has become a dirty word.

以致於「妥協」已成了骯髒的字眼。

Because right now,

因為目前，

social media companies like Facebook

社群媒體公司，像是臉書，

profit off of segmenting us and feeding us personalized content

它們的獲利方式就是區分我們 和提供我們個人化的內容，

that both validates and exploits our biases.

這既可以驗證我們的偏好 還可以利用我們的偏見來獲利。

Their bottom line depends on provoking a strong emotion

他們的獲利取決於 激發人們強烈的情緒，

to keep us engaged,

讓我們保持參與，

often incentivizing the most inflammatory and polarizing voices,

通常會激發最具煽動性 和兩極分化的聲音，

to the point where finding common ground no longer feels possible.

直到我們覺得不可能達成共識。

And despite a growing chorus of people crying out for the platforms to change,

儘管越來越多人大聲疾呼 要這些社群平台做出改變，

it's clear they will not do enough on their own.

但很顯然，他們自己不會做足這些事。

So governments must define the responsibility

所以政府一定要界定出

for the real-world harms being caused by these business models

這些商業模式對現實世界 造成危害的責任，

and impose real costs on the damaging effects

並要求他們對 帶來破壞的影響付出代價，

they're having to our public health, our public square and our democracy.

他們破壞了我們的公共健康、 輿論制度，以及我們的民主制度。

But unfortunately, this won't happen in time for the US presidential election,

但很不幸的是，這不會發生在 美國總統大選期間，

so I am continuing to raise this alarm,

所以我繼續疾呼這項警訊，

because even if one day we do have strong rules in place,

因為即使有一天 我們確實有嚴格的規定，

it will take all of us to fix this.

也需要我們所有人來解決這問題。

When I started shifting my focus from threats abroad

當我開始轉移焦點，從國外的威脅

to the breakdown in civil discourse at home,

轉移到國內公民對話的瓦解，

I wondered if we could repurpose some of these hearts and minds campaigns

我在想，我們是否可能重新調整 一些贏得民心運動的目標，

to help heal our divides.

來修復我們的隔閡。

Our more than 200-year experiment with democracy works

我們兩百多年的民主實驗能夠有效，

in large part because we are able to openly and passionately

很大程度是因為我們能夠 公開並且熱情地

debate our ideas for the best solutions.

辯論我們的想法， 以尋求最佳的解決方法。

But while I still deeply believe

即便我仍深信

in the power of face-to-face civil discourse,

面對面的公民對話所產生的力量，

it just cannot compete

但這都無法和兩極分化的影響力

with the polarizing effects and scale of social media right now.

和當今社群媒體的規模來抗衡。

The people who are sucked down these rabbit holes

那些被社群媒體的憤慨深淵

of social media outrage

所吸引的人群，

often feel far harder to break of their ideological mindsets

比那些我曾合作過的脆弱社群來說，

than those vulnerable communities I worked with ever were.

通常更難打破他們的思想觀念。

So when Facebook called me in 2018

所以當臉書在 2018 年邀請我，

and offered me this role

並且提供我這個職位，

heading its elections integrity operations for political advertising,

讓我領導公正選舉業務進行政治宣傳，

I felt I had to say yes.

我覺得我必須答應。

I had no illusions that I would fix it all,

我沒有天真以為能夠解決所有問題，

but when offered the opportunity

但當我得到這個機會

to help steer the ship in a better direction,

能夠協助去導正方向時，

I had to at least try.

我至少要盡力去嘗試。

I didn't work directly on polarization,

我當時並沒有直接針對 兩極分化的問題，

but I did look at which issues were the most divisive in our society

但我確實關注哪些問題 在我們社會中分歧最大，

and therefore the most exploitable in elections interference efforts,

因此最容易被利用來干預選舉。

which was Russia's tactic ahead of 2016.

這是俄羅斯在 2016 選前的策略。

So I started by asking questions.

所以我從提出問題著手。

I wanted to understand the underlying systemic issues

我想了解檯面下，

that were allowing all of this to happen,

讓所有事情爆發的系統性問題。

in order to figure out how to fix it.

就是為了想通如何解決這事。

Now I still do believe in the power of the internet

現在我還是相信網路的力量

to bring more voices to the table,

能把更多聲音帶到檯面上，

but despite their stated goal of building community,

但儘管他們聲稱目標是建立社群，

the largest social media companies as currently constructed

然而目前建立起來的 最大社群媒體公司，

are antithetical to the concept of reasoned discourse.

與理性對話的概念互相牴觸。

There's no way to reward listening,

用心傾聽無法得到任何回報，

to encourage civil debate

無法去鼓勵公民辯論

and to protect people who sincerely want to ask questions

還有保護那些真心想提問的人，

in a business where optimizing engagement and user growth

而這是在一個追求參與度和用戶增長

are the two most important metrics for success.

作為成功最重要的 兩個指標的商業模式下。

There's no incentive to help people slow down,

沒有動機去幫助人們放慢腳步，

to build in enough friction that people have to stop,

去製造足夠的摩擦力讓大家停下來，

recognize their emotional reaction to something,

辨識他們對某些事物的情緒反應，

and question their own assumptions before engaging.

並且在投入之前， 質疑他們自己的假設。

The unfortunate reality is:

但不幸的事實是，

lies are more engaging online than truth,

謊言比真相得到更多的共鳴，

and salaciousness beats out wonky, fact-based reasoning

淫邪擊敗了講究細節 且基於事實的真知灼見，

in a world optimized for frictionless virality.

而這都發生在這個特別讓人毫不費力 就能瘋傳訊息的世界裡。

As long as algorithms' goals are to keep us engaged,

只要演算法的目標 是要讓我們繼續參與，

they will continue to feed us the poison that plays to our worst instincts

他們就會繼續餵我們毒藥

激出我們最壞的本能和人性弱點。

and human weaknesses.

And yes, anger, mistrust,

沒錯，就是憤怒、懷疑、

the culture of fear, hatred:

恐懼的文化、仇恨：

none of this is new in America.

這些在美國早已不是什麼新鮮事了。

But in recent years, social media has harnessed all of that

但在最近幾年， 社群媒體已經駕馭所有事情，

and, as I see it, dramatically tipped the scales.

就我看來，天秤已經嚴重的傾斜了。

And Facebook knows it.

臉書知道這個問題。

A recent "Wall Street Journal" article

華爾街日報近期的文章

exposed an internal Facebook presentation from 2018

揭露臉書 2018 年的內部會議，

that specifically points to the companies' own algorithms

特別指出公司自己的演算法

for growing extremist groups' presence on their platform

助長極端分子組織在平臺上活動，

and for polarizing their users.

兩極分化他們的用戶。

But keeping us engaged is how they make their money.

但讓我們持續參與 就是他們賺錢的方法。

The modern information environment is crystallized around profiling us

現代訊息環境 是透過我們的個資形成，

and then segmenting us into more and more narrow categories

然後將我們細分到 越來越狹窄的類別，

to perfect this personalization process.

讓個人化的過程能更加完善。

We're then bombarded with information confirming our views,

然後我們被和我們觀點 相符的訊息轟炸，

reinforcing our biases,

這些訊息強化我們的偏見，

and making us feel like we belong to something.

而且讓我們感覺自己有所歸屬。

These are the same tactics we would see terrorist recruiters

這些是我們看到恐怖分子招募者

using on vulnerable youth,

對弱勢青年使用的相同策略，

albeit in smaller, more localized ways before social media,

儘管在社群媒體前，這招募方式 規模小，且較為本地化，

with the ultimate goal of persuading their behavior.

但其最終目的還是說服他們。

Unfortunately, I was never empowered by Facebook to have an actual impact.

不幸的是，臉書從來沒給我權力 發揮實際的影響。

In fact, on my second day, my title and job description were changed

事實上，我工作的第二天， 我的職銜和工作內容就被改掉了，

and I was cut out of decision-making meetings.

而且我被排除在決策會議之外。

My biggest efforts,

我付出的最大努力被否決。

trying to build plans

我那時試著擬定計畫

to combat disinformation and voter suppression in political ads,

打擊政治廣告中的虛假訊息

were rejected.

和選民受阻的事件，

And so I lasted just shy of six months.

所以我只待了不到六個月的時間。

But here is my biggest takeaway from my time there.

但是我當時在那工作最大的收穫是，

There are thousands of people at Facebook

有數千人在臉書公司，

who are passionately working on a product

他們投注熱情在一個產品上，

that they truly believe makes the world a better place,

且深信這讓世界變得更好。

but as long as the company continues to merely tinker around the margins

但是只要公司還繼續只在

of content policy and moderation,

內容政策與審核的 枝微末節上進行修改，

as opposed to considering

而不是考慮

how the entire machine is designed and monetized,

如何設計整個機器和獲利方式，

they will never truly address how the platform is contributing

他們將永遠無法真正解決

該平台如何助長仇恨、 分裂和激進化的問題。

to hatred, division and radicalization.

And that's the one conversation I never heard happen during my time there,

我在那裡工作的日子， 從沒聽過這樣的談話，

because that would require fundamentally accepting

因為這需要從根本上接受一件事：

that the thing you built might not be the best thing for society

你所打造的東西 可能對社會來說不是最好的，

and agreeing to alter the entire product and profit model.

並且同意更改整個產品和獲利模式。

So what can we do about this?

所以我們可以針對這事做些什麼？

I'm not saying that social media bears the sole responsibility

我並不是說社交媒體

要對我們今天的處境承擔全部責任。

for the state that we're in today.

Clearly, we have deep-seated societal issues that we need to solve.

我們顯然有根深柢固的 社會議題需要解決。

But Facebook's response, that it is just a mirror to society,

但臉書的回應是： 它們只是社會的一面鏡子。

is a convenient attempt to deflect any responsibility

這個便利想法 讓他們可以轉移任何責任，

from the way their platform is amplifying harmful content

像是它們的平台上 放大有害內容的方式，

and pushing some users towards extreme views.

還有把使用者推向極端觀點的責任。

And Facebook could, if they wanted to,

臉書是做得到的，如果他們願意的話。

fix some of this.

去解決這些問題吧。

They could stop amplifying and recommending the conspiracy theorists,

他們可以停止放大， 且停止推薦陰謀論者、

the hate groups, the purveyors of disinformation

仇恨團體、虛假訊息提供者，

and, yes, in some cases even our president.

還有，甚至在一些案例中， 停止推薦我們的總統。

They could stop using the same personalization techniques

他們可以停止使用

向我們出售運動鞋時相同的 個人化技術來傳達政治言論。

to deliver political rhetoric that they use to sell us sneakers.

They could retrain their algorithms

他們可以重新訓練演算法，

to focus on a metric other than engagement,

聚焦在參與度之外的指標，

and they could build in guardrails to stop certain content from going viral

而且他們可以打造一個防護網 阻止特定訊息在審核前

before being reviewed.

被大肆宣傳。

And they could do all of this

他們可以做到這所有事情，

without becoming what they call the arbiters of truth.

無須成為他們所說的「真理仲裁者」。

But they've made it clear that they will not go far enough

但是他們已經表明，

要是沒有被逼迫 就不會花力氣去做對的事，

to do the right thing without being forced to,

and, to be frank, why should they?

而且說實話，他們為什麼應該這麼做？

The markets keep rewarding them, and they're not breaking the law.

這個市場持續給予他們回報， 而且他們又沒有違法。

Because as it stands,

因為就目前而言，

there are no US laws compelling Facebook, or any social media company,

美國沒有法律能夠制裁臉書， 或是制裁任何一家社群媒體公司，

to protect our public square,

去保獲我們的輿論空間、

our democracy

我們的民主，

and even our elections.

甚至是我們的選舉。

We have ceded the decision-making on what rules to write and what to enforce

我們已經將決策權交給 營利性網路公司的執行長，

to the CEOs of for-profit internet companies.

讓他們決定制定什麼規則 以及執行什麼規則。

Is this what we want?

這就是我們想要的嗎？

A post-truth world where toxicity and tribalism

我們想要一個 「真相是次要的世界」？

trump bridge-building and consensus-seeking?

希望毒素和部落主義 比調解和尋求共識更為重要？

I do remain optimistic that we still have more in common with each other

我保持樂觀相信： 相較現在媒體和網路環境所描繪的，

than the current media and online environment portray,

我們彼此仍有更多相似之處，

and I do believe that having more perspective surface

而且我確實相信，擁有更多的視角

makes for a more robust and inclusive democracy.

可以建立一個更加健全 和包容的民主體制。

But not the way it's happening right now.

但是並非指現在這種呈現方式。

And it bears emphasizing, I do not want to kill off these companies.

而且需要強調的是， 我不想弄倒這些公司。

I just want them held to a certain level of accountability,

我只希望他們承擔一定的責任，

just like the rest of society.

就像社會上其他人一樣。

It is time for our governments to step up and do their jobs

現在正是時候讓我們的政府挺身而出

of protecting our citizenry.

保護自己的公民。

And while there isn't one magical piece of legislation

而且當沒有一條具有威力的法律

that will fix this all,

來解決這所有問題時，

I do believe that governments can and must find the balance

我相信政府有辦法， 且一定要找到平衡點，

between protecting free speech

兼顧言論自由，

and holding these platforms accountable for their effects on society.

同時讓這些平台負責 其對社會所造成的影響。

And they could do so in part by insisting on actual transparency

他們可藉著堅持公開實際情形 來做到這一點，

around how these recommendation engines are working,

像是公開這些推薦引擎是如何運作，

around how the curation, amplification and targeting are happening.

公開如何呈現、擴大用戶看到的資訊， 以及如何選擇廣告目標群眾。

You see, I want these companies held accountable

你知道，我想讓這些公司負起責任，

not for if an individual posts misinformation

不是為了個人張貼錯誤訊息

or extreme rhetoric,

或是極端言詞負責，

but for how their recommendation engines spread it,

而是要對他們的推薦引擎 散播這些訊息而負責，

how their algorithms are steering people towards it,

對他們的演算法 引導大家接觸這些訊息負責，

and how their tools are used to target people with it.

對他們的工具 鎖定特定大眾而負責。

I tried to make change from within Facebook and failed,

我嘗試從臉書內部進行改變 但是失敗了。

and so I've been using my voice again for the past few years

因此過去幾年我一直發聲，

to continue sounding this alarm

持續呼籲大家，

and hopefully inspire more people to demand this accountability.

希望啟發更多人， 要求這些公司負起責任。

My message to you is simple:

我想告訴大家的事很簡單：

pressure your government representatives

對你的政府官員施壓，

to step up and stop ceding our public square to for-profit interests.

請他們挺身而出，並且禁止 我們的輿論空間割讓給營利團體。

Help educate your friends and family

協助教導你的親朋好友，

about how they're being manipulated online.

他們在網路上是怎麼被操控。

Push yourselves to engage with people who aren't like-minded.

鼓勵自己與立場不同的人對話。

Make this issue a priority.

優先處理這個問題。

We need a whole-society approach to fix this.

我們需要一個遍及社會的方法 來解決這個問題。

And my message to the leaders of my former employer Facebook is this:

而我想對臉書的領導們說：

right now, people are using your tools exactly as they were designed

現在，大家正在使用你們設計的工具

to sow hatred, division and distrust,

來散播仇恨，分裂和不信任，

and you're not just allowing it, you are enabling it.

你們不只允許這件事發生， 而且還協助這件事發生。

And yes, there are lots of great stories

沒錯，世界上有很多正面的好故事

of positive things happening on your platform around the globe,

在你們的平台上發生，

but that doesn't make any of this OK.

但這不意味著可以分裂群眾。

And it's only getting worse as we're heading into our election,

而且當我們進入選舉期間， 事情只會變得越來越糟，

and even more concerning,

更令人擔心的是，

face our biggest potential crisis yet,

我們將面臨最大的潛在危機，

if the results aren't trusted, and if violence breaks out.

如果選舉結果不可信， 如果爆發暴力衝突。

So when in 2021 you once again say, "We know we have to do better,"

所以 2021 年，你們又會說： 「我們知道必須做得更好。」

I want you to remember this moment,

我希望大家記得這個時刻，

because it's no longer just a few outlier voices.

因為這不再是一些局外人的聲音。

Civil rights leaders, academics,

民權領袖、學者、

journalists, advertisers, your own employees,

記者、廣告商、你自己的員工，

are shouting from the rooftops

都在大聲疾呼：

that your policies and your business practices

你們的政策和商業行為

are harming people and democracy.

正在傷害人民及民主。

You own your decisions,

你們擁有自己的決定，

but you can no longer say that you couldn't have seen it coming.

但你們不能再說看不到問題的到來。

Thank you.

謝謝大家。