Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

已審核 字幕已審核
  • Twitter took unprecedented action recently on two tweets from President Donald Trump.


  • The first was adding a fact-check notification to a tweet about mail-in voting.


  • And the second was to place a warning in front of a tweet that insinuated looters would be shot amidst the protests over the death of George Floyd that the platform said violated its policies about glorifying violence.


  • The fact-check of the first tweet sparked ire from the president.


  • That was only increased by the warning label placed on the second tweet.


  • While Twitter has intervened into the president's posts, Facebook hasn't.

    雖然推特介入了總統的推文,但 Facebook 完全沒有動作。

  • Both messages appeared unaltered on the president's Facebook page.

    兩篇文章都在 Facebook 無修改地完整呈現出來。

  • We have a different policy I think than Twitter on this.


  • You know, I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn't be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online.

    我強烈認為 Facebook 不該擔任網路上人們發言的仲裁者。

  • Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has said the platform will continue to fact-check information about elections.

    推特總裁 Jack Dorsey 表示該平台會繼續查核與選舉有關的資訊。

  • But how did Facebook and Twitter come to take different views on moderating the president on their platforms?

    為何 Facebook 與推特在審核總統貼文上做了不同的決定?

  • It's the latest question in an ongoing debate about the responsibility tech companies have in policing speech online.


  • You can think of online content moderation a bit like book publishing.


  • If a book with objectionable content like hate speech was written, the publisher would be responsible for editing that stuff out before it shipped to book stores.


  • If that stuff somehow made it into the book, and that book somehow made it onto shelves, the bookstore couldn't be held responsible for what was in the book since it had no say in its creation.


  • Unlike say a newspaper or a traditional publisher, the platforms operate completely differently with the idea that they're sort of providing the place to put this stuff for individuals to publish themselves.


  • In the 1990s, many early online forums like CompuServe chose to not actively moderate content on their sites, while other sites like Prodigy did.

    在 1990 年代時,許多早期的網路論壇,像是 CompuServe 選擇不主動審核內容,而 Prodigy 等網站則會。

  • A series of court rulings determined that sites that actively moderated their content were more like publishers and therefore, could be held liable for defamatory content.


  • And this was viewed as kind of being a thing that was just going to greatly, sort of, slow down the development of the internet in general, and really sort of threaten the ability to build a functional ecosystem.


  • To address this issue, Congress included a provision in the 1996 Communications Decency Act called Section 230.

    為了解決這個問題,議會在 1996 年的通訊規範法中加入一則條款,稱作 230 條款。

  • So, Section 230 allowed them to be focused on being platforms and not on being publishers.

    230 條款讓這些網路平台能好好的當平台,而不需兼任「出版商」的身份。

  • They could intervene when they wanted to for the good of their platform.


  • But they didn't have any responsibility beyond sort of making sure that they weren't becoming sort of a cesspool of illegal behavior.


  • But this prioritization of growth over moderation came with consequences.


  • In 2016, social media disinformation campaigns during the election put pressure on Facebook and Twitter to step up their moderation efforts.

    2016 年時,選舉期間在社群軟體出現許多帶有假消息的競選廣告,這給 Facebook 與推特帶來了壓力,要改善審核系統。

  • We were too slow to spot this and too slow to act.


  • Propaganda through bots and human coordination, misinformation campaigns, and divisive filter bubbles.


  • That's not a healthy public square.


  • There was a sense that this was getting to be pre-lawless and also that these ecosystems were extremely vulnerable to manipulation.


  • Facebook and Twitter both ruled out fact-checking operations to combat misinformation.

    Facebook 與推特都排除了使用事實查核的方式來打擊假新聞。

  • Facebook's had sort of an independent fact-checking program.

    Facebook 自己有獨立的事實查核專案。

  • Twitter's done a bit more stuff internally.


  • But the general idea is that neither of the platforms want to do much regulation of speech, particularly when it comes to things like censoring the president of the United States.


  • But both internally and externally, tech companies have faced mounting pressure to confront what the president posts on their platforms.


  • None more so than Twitter.


  • Trump has been a very aggressive user of Twitter.


  • It's kind of his native medium.


  • And Twitter recently took a step.


  • Twitter's decision to add its fact-check label to the president's May 26th tweet was the first time the platform had fact-checked information outside of the coronavirus pandemic.

    推特在 5 月 26 日川普的推文上加上事實查核的標籤,這是該平台第一次在除了疫情之外的推文,加上如此的標籤。

  • Two days after the tweet, the president signed an executive order seeking to limit the broad legal protections tech companies have under Section 230.

    兩天後,總統簽署了一項行政命令,要限縮科技公司在 230 條款所得到的保護。

  • Currently, social media giants like Twitter receive an unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that they're a neutral platform, which they're not.


  • Section 230 doesn't have anything to do with political bias.

    230 條款與政治傾向一點關係都沒有。

  • In fact, the whole point of 230 was to allow them to intervene without fear of legal repercussion.

    事實上,230 條款的重點就是,讓這些平台能夠在不需擔憂法律後果的情況下管理平台。

  • So, this isn't kind of something that is a natural outgrowth of the law.


  • The morning after the executive order was signed, Twitter placed a warning message on the president's tweet about looters, while Facebook let the post appear unaltered.

    在行政命令被簽署後的隔天,推特在川普關於搶匪的推文中,放上了暴力警示的標誌,而 Facebook 則是什麼都沒做。

  • Mark Zuckerberg said that while he personally had a visceral negative reaction to the post, it didn't violate Facebook's policies.

    臉書總裁 Mark Zuckerberg 表示他個人對該貼文有負面觀感,但該貼文並沒有違反它們的政策。

  • When Twitter sort of stepped in to this thing, Facebook ducked.

    當推特決定介入這件事時,Facebook 退縮了。

  • Facebook has, for years, tried to stay out of regulating political speech, in particular political ads.

    Facebook 多年以來避免限制政治議題,尤其是政治廣告。

  • They have sort of resisted calls from what might have been natural allies to restrict this stuff.

    Facebook 無視了那些要求它們做出行動的建言。

  • Twitter has also applied another warning label in front of a tweet by Congressman Matt Gaetz, saying it also glorified violence.

    推特也在國會議員 Matt Gaetz 的推文上放上鼓吹暴力的標籤。

  • Twitter does seem to be making a decision that there are some limits it wants to put within U.S. politics.


  • And that's something that has been kind of a third rail for American technology companies.


  • Zuckerberg said Facebook will review existing policies on how it handles content related to civil unrest or violence.

    Zuckerberg 表示 Facebook 將會重新審視目前關於內亂與暴力的政策。

  • Where exactly the president's order and attempts at legal restrictions on the platforms and on their moderation go, is unclear.


  • This certainly seems like it's gonna draw them deeper into politics, and that's something that, you know, Mark Zuckerberg I think has been desperately trying to avoid.

    這絕對會使平台與政治的牽扯變得更深,而這是 Mark Zuckerberg 一直以來想要避免的。

Twitter took unprecedented action recently on two tweets from President Donald Trump.


已審核 字幕已審核

單字即點即查 點擊單字可以查詢單字解釋