Facebook是如何打壓民主的

There is a saying that came out of the 1960s: “The personal is political.”

上世紀(jì)60年代出現(xiàn)的一個(gè)說法叫：“個(gè)人的即是政治的。”

It’s still true, but in ways that might make you worry about the future of democracy.

這句話現(xiàn)在依然成立，但個(gè)中緣由卻可能會(huì)讓你擔(dān)憂民主的未來。

John Herrman reports in The New York Times Magazine on publications that essentially live on Facebook, with a mission to provoke as much as to inform.

約翰·赫爾曼(John Herrman)發(fā)表在《紐約時(shí)報(bào)雜志》(The New York Times Magazine)上的報(bào)道，介紹了一些本質(zhì)上以Facebook為生的出版物，在它們的使命里，挑起事端的重要性不亞于告知信息。

People click on headlines in their Facebook feeds like “No Media Is Telling You About the Muslim Who Attacked Donald Trump, So We Will …,” or “Did Hillary Clinton Just Admit on LIVE TV That Her Iraq War Vote Was a Bribe?” From there, they are taken to pages encrusted with sketchy ads.

在自己的Facebook時(shí)間線上，人們會(huì)點(diǎn)擊《媒體不會(huì)告訴你有關(guān)襲擊唐納德·特朗普(Donald Trump)的穆斯林的真相，因此我們將……》，或是《希拉里·克林頓(Hillary Clinton)剛剛在電視直播中承認(rèn)了她投票支持伊拉克戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)是行賄?》這樣的標(biāo)題。之后，他們會(huì)被帶去滿是劣質(zhì)廣告的頁面。

John quotes site operators who make $20,000 a month or more on their sites, often saving on the costs of actually reporting and writing by reposting crazy stuff they find on the internet, then giving it a racy headline.

約翰以一些網(wǎng)站運(yùn)營商為例。通過把在網(wǎng)上找到的瘋狂言論重發(fā)一遍，再起個(gè)聳動(dòng)的標(biāo)題，它們往往能降低實(shí)際報(bào)道和寫稿的成本，以此月入至少2萬美元(約合13萬元人民幣)。

Facebook isn’t getting much revenue directly from this kind of publishing, but its interests converge mightily with these publishers when it comes to sharing.

Facebook并未直接從這種發(fā)帖中獲取多少收入，但在說到分享時(shí)，它和這些發(fā)布者的利益非常一致。

Publishers like sharing because it puts a story in front of a lot more people who are likely to click on the story link. After all, one’s friends tend to share one’s political biases. Facebook likes sharing because it builds loyalty to Facebook.

發(fā)布者喜歡分享功能是因?yàn)樗盐恼路旁诹烁嗫赡軙?huì)點(diǎn)擊報(bào)道鏈接的人面前。畢竟，朋友之間政治傾向往往相同。Facebook喜歡分享則是因?yàn)樗鼤?huì)構(gòu)建對(duì)自己的忠誠。

Sharing, to Facebook, is a way that you build your personal brand, a statement of ego that is likely to keep you on the site longer. That is why Facebook’s computers watch what you do on the site. It wants to know what kind of stories to put in front of you, so you will read and share them.

對(duì)Facebook來說，分享是用戶構(gòu)建個(gè)人品牌的一種途徑，是一份自我聲明，很可能會(huì)延長(zhǎng)你在Facebook上停留的時(shí)間。這正是Facebook的電腦會(huì)觀察你在該網(wǎng)站上的一舉一動(dòng)的原因。它想知道把什么樣的故事放在你面前，你就會(huì)閱讀并分享它們。

On one hand, this is a nice service: You get the kind of news you seem to enjoy reading, which speaks to your worldview. On the other hand, this impedes encountering views unlike yours.

一方面，這是一種貼心的服務(wù)：你會(huì)看到自己似乎會(huì)喜歡看的那一類新聞，它們代表著你的世界觀。另一方面，這會(huì)妨礙你遇到和自己不一樣的觀點(diǎn)。

Approaching difference with empathy is at the heart of democracy, so the more our own views are endorsed by algorithms, the worse off democracy is. Look no further than the incomprehension and contempt with which many on both sides view each other in the current election season.

對(duì)不同之處報(bào)以同理心是民主的本質(zhì)，因此，算法越是支持我們的觀點(diǎn)，民主的境況就越是糟糕。無需往遠(yuǎn)了說，看看當(dāng)前這個(gè)選舉季中雙方均有很多人對(duì)彼此不理解和藐視就知道了。

Of course, this existed long before Facebook. Talk radio and cable news enabled a range of viewpoints, and the biggest networks run programs that endorse a worldview of the right or the left. Direct marketing isolates us too, with lifestyle promises targeted to the people in our ZIP code.

當(dāng)然，在Facebook出現(xiàn)之前，這種現(xiàn)象早已存在。談話廣播節(jié)目和有線電視新聞讓一系列觀點(diǎn)得以呈現(xiàn)，最大的廣播網(wǎng)播出的節(jié)目支持的不是右派的世界觀，就是左派的。直接營銷也把我們孤立了起來，生活方式上的承諾只針對(duì)使用同一個(gè)郵政編碼的人。

Online life took this to a whole new level, with Google-type ad targeting that is as personal as an individual’s search and shopping choices.

通過谷歌(Google)那種私人化程度直抵個(gè)人的搜索和購物選擇的廣告定位，網(wǎng)絡(luò)生活把這種現(xiàn)象帶向了一個(gè)全新的水平。

The latest advances in machine learning and artificial intelligence may compound the problem. These are statistical systems with narrow aims: If it turns out you like something, you’ll get more of it, which you may like and share, ensuring you’ll get more of it.

機(jī)器學(xué)習(xí)和人工智能領(lǐng)域的最新進(jìn)展可能會(huì)加劇這個(gè)問題。它們是目標(biāo)有限的統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)系統(tǒng)：如果事實(shí)證明你喜歡某種東西，你就會(huì)看到更多這類東西，你可能會(huì)喜歡并分享它們，而這又確保你會(huì)看到更多這類東西。

Somebody could build a recommendation engine intended to foster a sympathetic view of others’ lives and values. But don’t count on it. That makes people nervous, and less likely to buy products or share links on Facebook.

也許有人會(huì)打造一個(gè)推薦引擎，用來培養(yǎng)對(duì)他人生活和價(jià)值觀的同情心。但不要指望它。那樣會(huì)讓人感到緊張，并降低購買產(chǎn)品或在Facebook上分享鏈接的可能性。