Mark Zuckerberg, a journalist was asking him a question about the news feed. And the journalist was asking him, "Why is this so important?"?

馬克·扎克伯格曾被一位記者問及動態(tài)消息的問題。這位記者問他，“為什么滾動新聞如此重要？”

And Zuckerberg said, "A squirrel dying in your front yard may be more relevant to your interests right now than people dying in Africa." And I want to talk about what a Web based on that idea of relevance might look like.

扎克伯格說，“此時，你前院奄奄一息的松鼠可能與你的興趣更加“相關”，比起非洲那些掙扎在死亡線上的人們。”我想談談建立在這個“相關”的思路上的一個網(wǎng)絡會是什么樣子。

So when I was growing up in a really rural area in Maine, the Internet meant something very different to me. It meant a connection to the world. It meant something that would connect us all together. And I was sure that it was going to be great for democracy and for our society.?

當我生活在緬因州、一個非常典型農(nóng)村地區(qū)的時候，互聯(lián)網(wǎng)對我而言，有著完全不同的意義。它意味著與整個世界的聯(lián)系，它意味著與將所有人聯(lián)系起來。那時，我確信它對民主、對我們的社會而言，都是件了不起的事。

But there's this shift in how information is flowing online, and it's invisible. And if we don't pay attention to it, it could be a real problem. So I first noticed this in a place I spend a lot of time -- my Facebook page. I'm progressive, politically -- big surprise -- but I've always gone out of my way to meet conservatives.?

但是，網(wǎng)上的信息流動發(fā)生了改變，并且這種改變是隱形的。假如我們對此毫不留意，它會成為一個真正的問題。所以，我最早是在我花了很多時間的地方注意到了這個問題——我的臉書頁面。政治上，我是改革派--很意外吧--但我常常會特意去一些保守派的頁面去看看。

I like hearing what they're thinking about; I like seeing what they link to; I like learning a thing or two. And so I was surprised when I noticed one day that the conservatives had disappeared from my Facebook feed.

我喜歡聽他們的想法；我喜歡看他們有哪些鏈接；我喜歡從中學到一兩件新鮮事。但有一天，我注意到，我臉譜新聞組里的保守派全都消失了，這讓我很吃驚。

And what it turned out was going on was that Facebook was looking at which links I clicked on, and it was noticing that, actually, I was clicking more on my liberal friends' links than on my conservative friends' links. And without consulting me about it, it had edited them out. They disappeared.

結果是臉譜會看我點擊的鏈接，實際上，它注意到相比我保守黨派的朋友們，我點擊了更多的自由派朋友們的鏈接。在沒有告知我的情況下，臉譜就把保守派信息編輯并刪除了。保守派的朋友們在我的頁面上消失了。

So Facebook isn't the only place that's doing this kind of invisible, algorithmic editing of the Web. Google's doing it too. If I search for something, and you search for something, even right now at the very same time, we may get very different search results.?

臉書不是唯一進行這樣隱形的、算法的編輯網(wǎng)絡的地方。谷歌也是如此。假如我搜索某種信息，你也搜索這種信息，甚至是現(xiàn)在，在同一時間，我們得到的搜索結果可能大不相同。

Even if you're logged out, one engineer told me, there are 57 signals that Google looks at -- everything from what kind of computer you're on to what kind of browser you're using to where you're located -- that it uses to personally tailor your query results.?

一位工程師告訴我，即使你退出帳號，還會有57種信號可供谷歌參考--?幾乎所有的信息：從你使用的電腦型號到你用的瀏覽器到你所在的位置--谷歌利用這些為你定制出個性化的查詢結果。

Think about it for a second: there is no standard Google anymore. And you know, the funny thing about this is that it's hard to see. You can't see how different your search results are from anyone else's.

稍微想想看：從此不再會有標準版谷歌。你知道，有趣一點的是，對此，人們很難察覺得到。你不會看到你的搜索結果與別人的搜索結果有什么不同。

But a couple of weeks ago, I asked a bunch of friends to Google "Egypt" and to send me screen shots of what they got. So here's my friend Scott's screen shot. And here's my friend Daniel's screen shot.?

但幾周前，我請一群朋友用谷歌搜索“埃及”，然后將他們搜索結果的屏幕截圖發(fā)給我。這是我朋友斯科特的截屏。這個是我朋友丹尼爾的。

When you put them side-by-side, you don't even have to read the links to see how different these two pages are. But when you do read the links, it's really quite remarkable. Daniel didn't get anything about the protests in Egypt at all in his first page of Google results.?

當你把它們并排放在一起，你甚至不必查看鏈接，就能看出這2個搜索頁面有多大差別。但當你查看這些鏈接后面的內(nèi)容時，差別真的相當相當大！在谷歌搜索結果的第一頁，丹尼爾根本就沒有任何有關埃及抗議報道的新聞。

Scott's results were full of them. And this was the big story of the day at that time. That's how different these results are becoming.

斯科特的搜索結果卻全是這類新聞。在當時，這可是當天的頭條新聞。搜索結果就是會如此的不同。

So it's not just Google and Facebook either. This is something that's sweeping the Web. There are a whole host of companies that are doing this kind of personalization. Yahoo News, the biggest news site on the Internet, is now personalized -- different people get different things.?

這不僅指谷歌，也不僅指臉譜。這種現(xiàn)象正在席卷整個網(wǎng)絡。有一大批的公司正在做這樣的個性化定制服務。雅虎新聞，網(wǎng)絡上最大的新聞網(wǎng)站，現(xiàn)在也個性化服務了--不同的人們得到不同的信息。

Huffington Post, the Washington Post, the New York Times -- all flirting with personalization in various ways. And this moves us very quickly toward a world in which the Internet is showing us what it thinks we want to see, but not necessarily what we need to see.?

赫芬頓郵報，華盛頓郵報，紐約時報--?它們都以不同的方式與個性化定制搭上邊。這會將我們很快地推向這樣一個世界——網(wǎng)絡給我們顯示它認為我們想要看到的信息，而未必是我們需要的信息。

As Eric Schmidt said, "It will be very hard for people to watch or consume something that has not in some sense been tailored for them."

正如埃里克·施密特所言，“要人們觀看或消費一些在某種意義上并非為他們個性定制的東西，是很難的?！?/p>

So I do think this is a problem. And I think, if you take all of these filters together, you take all these algorithms, you get what I call a filter bubble. And your filter bubble is your own personal, unique universe of information that you live in online.

所以，我認為這確實是個問題。我認為，如果你把所有這些過濾器放在一起，還有所有這些算法，你會得到一個我所謂的“過濾氣泡”。你的“過濾泡沫”是你自己個人的獨一無二的信息世界——也就是你所生活其中的網(wǎng)絡世界。

?And what's in your filter bubble depends on who you are, and it depends on what you do. But the thing is that you don't decide what gets in. And more importantly, you don't actually see what gets edited out. So one of the problems with the filter bubble was discovered by some researchers at Netflix.?

你的“過濾氣泡”中包含了什么取決于你是誰，也取決于你做的事情。但問題是你不能決定什么信息可以通過“過濾氣泡”。更重要的是，實際上，你也看不到那些被刪除的信息。所以奈飛DVD在線租賃公司（Netflix）的一些研發(fā)人員發(fā)現(xiàn)了“過濾氣泡”的一個問題。

And they were looking at the Netflix queues, and they noticed something kind of funny that a lot of us probably have noticed, which is there are some movies that just sort of zip right up and out to our houses. They enter the queue, they just zip right out. So "Iron Man" zips right out, and "Waiting for Superman" can wait for a really long time.

他們在查看奈飛數(shù)據(jù)隊列時，注意到一些有意思的事；可能我們很多人也已經(jīng)注意到了，那就是，有些電影脫穎而出，直接進入到千家萬戶。它們進入數(shù)據(jù)隊列，然后直接脫穎而出。因此，“鋼鐵俠”脫穎而出，而“等待超人”要等待很長一段時間。

What they discovered was that in our Netflix queues there's this epic struggle going on between our future aspirational selves and our more impulsive present selves. You know we all want to be someone who has watched "Rashomon," but right now we want to watch "Ace Ventura" for the fourth time.?

他們發(fā)現(xiàn)，在奈飛數(shù)據(jù)隊列中, 在未來滿心抱負的我們與今天更為沖動的我們之間始終存在著史詩般的斗爭。大家知道，我們都想成為看過“羅生門”的那個人，但現(xiàn)在我們想第四次看“神探飛機頭”。

So the best editing gives us a bit of both. It gives us a little bit of Justin Bieber and a little bit of Afghanistan. It gives us some information vegetables; it gives us some information dessert.?

而最好的編輯能兼顧這兩方面的信息。它會為我們提供一點兒有關賈斯汀·比伯的信息，也會提供一點兒有關阿富汗的信息。它會為我們提供一些信息“蔬菜”，同時也為我們提供一些信息“甜點”。

And the challenge with these kinds of algorithmic filters, these personalized filters, is that, because they're mainly looking at what you click on first, it can throw off that balance. And instead of a balanced information diet, you can end up surrounded by information junk food.

這些算法過濾器和這些個性化定制過濾器的挑戰(zhàn)，在于，因為它們主要參考你最先點擊的東西，所以，它可能最后無法實現(xiàn)那種（信息間的）平衡。非但不是平衡的信息“食譜”，大家最終得到的可能全是信息“垃圾食品”.

What this suggests is actually that we may have the story about the Internet wrong. In a broadcast society -- this is how the founding mythology goes -- in a broadcast society, there were these gatekeepers, the editors, and they controlled the flows of information.?

這表明，實際上，我們在講的可能是一個網(wǎng)絡欺騙的故事。在廣播社會里——最初的虛構事實就是這樣進行的--?在廣播社會里，有這些審核者，編輯，他們控制著信息流通。

And along came the Internet and it swept them out of the way, and it allowed all of us to connect together, and it was awesome. But that's not actually what's happening right now. What we're seeing is more of a passing of the torch from human gatekeepers to algorithmic ones.?

隨后出現(xiàn)了互聯(lián)網(wǎng)，它取而代之了過去所有的信息流通方式，它讓我們所有人都聯(lián)系在一起，這曾經(jīng)妙不可言。但今天，實際上，情況已經(jīng)發(fā)生了變化?，F(xiàn)在的情況，更像是(信息甄選的)“火炬”從人工審核者傳遞給了計算機算法“審核者”。

And the thing is that the algorithms don't yet have the kind of embedded ethics that the editors did. So if algorithms are going to curate the world for us, if they're going to decide what we get to see and what we don't get to see, then we need to make sure that they're not just keyed to relevance.?

但問題是，這些計算機算法自身并沒有編輯們所具備的職業(yè)道德。所以，假若讓算法為我們?nèi)?chuàng)建一個世界，假若它們來決定我們能看到什么、不能看到什么，那么，我們必須要確保它們不僅僅只是圍繞“相關性”而已。

We need to make sure that they also show us things that are uncomfortable or challenging or important -- this is what TED does -- other points of view.

我們得確保它們也會給我們展示那些不合意的、具有挑戰(zhàn)性的或重要的信息——這也是TED的所追求的——其他的觀點。

And the thing is, we've actually been here before as a society. In 1915, it's not like newspapers were sweating a lot about their civic responsibilities. Then people noticed that they were doing something really important.?

問題是，作為社會，我們實際上以前有過如此的經(jīng)歷。在1915年，報紙并沒有報道很多有關有關公民責任的信息。那是，人們意識到，報紙正在做的事情非常的重要。

That, in fact, you couldn't have a functioning democracy if citizens didn't get a good flow of information, that the newspapers were critical because they were acting as the filter, and then journalistic ethics developed.?

事實上，假如得不到充分的信息公民不可能實現(xiàn)有效的民主。報紙很關鍵，因為它們起的是信息過濾器的作用，隨后，新聞職業(yè)道德應運而生。

It wasn't perfect, but it got us through the last century. And so now, we're kind of back in 1915 on the Web. And we need the new gatekeepers to encode that kind of responsibility into the code that they're writing.

那時，它并不完美，但是，它帶我們走過了上個世紀。所以，現(xiàn)在，我們在網(wǎng)絡上好像又回到了1915年。我們需要新的信息審核者將這種道德責任輸入到他們所寫的算法代碼中。

I know that there are a lot of people here from Facebook and from Google -- Larry and Sergey -- people who have helped build the Web as it is, and I'm grateful for that. But we really need you to make sure that these algorithms have encoded in them a sense of the public life, a sense of civic responsibility.?

我知道，這里有很多來自臉譜和谷歌的朋友——拉里和謝爾蓋——有很多幫助建起現(xiàn)有互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的朋友，對此，我是表示感謝的。但我們真的需要你們來確?；ヂ?lián)網(wǎng)中的這些算法中考慮了公共生活和公民責任感。

We need you to make sure that they're transparent enough that we can see what the rules are that determine what gets through our filters. And we need you to give us some control so that we can decide what gets through and what doesn't.?

我們需要你們來確保這些算法有一定的透明，使人們能了解些那些決定什么能夠通過我們的過濾器的運行規(guī)則。我們需要你們給我們一些管理權限，這樣，我們就能決定什么信息可以通過，什么不能通過。

Because I think we really need the Internet to be that thing that we all dreamed of it being. We need it to connect us all together. We need it to introduce us to new ideas and new people and different perspectives. And it's not going to do that if it leaves us all isolated in a Web of one.

因為我認為我們真的需要互聯(lián)網(wǎng)成為我們所夢想的那樣。我們需要它使我們都聯(lián)系在一起。我們需要它向我們介紹新想法、新面孔及不同的視角。它不可能實現(xiàn)這些，假如它把我們都孤立在個性化的網(wǎng)絡中。

Thank you.

謝謝。