a journalist was asking him a question about the news feed.

當一位新聞工作者問他對一個消息來源的問题。

And the journalist was asking him,

那新聞工作者問他:

"Why is this so important?"

「這[消息來源]究竟為什麼重要?」

And Zuckerberg said,

馬克·扎克伯格說:

"A squirrel dying in your front yard

「一隻松鼠在你的前院正在死去，

may be more relevant to your interests right now

對你的興趣來說可能會比

than people dying in Africa."

非洲人正在死去更有關切性。」

And I want to talk about

現在我想談論

what a Web based on that idea of relevance might look like.

當互聯網是基于相關性會是什麼樣子。

So when I was growing up

我是在缅因州

in a really rural area in Maine,

極之郊區的環境長大,

the Internet meant something very different to me.

互聯網的意義對我極之不同。

It meant a connection to the world.

它意味着與世界的連接。

It meant something that would connect us all together.

它意味着與所有人的連接。

And I was sure that it was going to be great for democracy

當時我非常肯定它會有助民主主義

and for our society.

及會有助我們的社會。

But there's this shift

但現在互聯網上

in how information is flowing online,

资料流動的形色漸漸地,

and it's invisible.

無形漸地在轉移。

And if we don't pay attention to it,

假若我們不留心注意,

it could be a real problem.

它可能會變成一個問题。

So I first noticed this in a place I spend a lot of time --

我是在我經常流覽的地方首先注意到這個問題,

my Facebook page.

這個地方當然是我的facebook。

I'm progressive, politically -- big surprise --

可想而知,我對政治的態度是進步主義,

but I've always gone out of my way to meet conservatives.

但我亦會叛經離道地結識保守主義者。

I like hearing what they're thinking about;

我喜歡知道他們在想什麼;

I like seeing what they link to;

我喜歡知道他們對什麼有聯繫;

I like learning a thing or two.

我喜歡能從中學到一些東西。

And so I was surprised when I noticed one day

因此有一天我很駕訝當我察覺到

that the conservatives had disappeared from my Facebook feed.

有關保守派主意的消息由我 Facebook 的新聞供應消失。

And what it turned out was going on

理由是因為

was that Facebook was looking at which links I clicked on,

Facebook 能看見我按過哪些鏈接，

and it was noticing that, actually,

它注意到

I was clicking more on my liberal friends' links

我其實按自由黨朋友的鏈接

than on my conservative friends' links.

多過保守派朋友的鏈接。

And without consulting me about it,

在未與我商量過的情況下，

it had edited them out.

它便編走那些鏈接。

They disappeared.

那些鏈接全消失。

So Facebook isn't the only place

但不是淨只是Facebook

that's doing this kind of invisible, algorithmic

會做這種無形的, 算法式的

editing of the Web.

來編輯互聯網。

Google's doing it too.

Google (谷歌) 也有這樣。

If I search for something, and you search for something,

若我在搜索一樣東西，你亦在搜索一樣東西，

even right now at the very same time,

即使是在現在同一個時間，

we may get very different search results.

我們搜索的結果都或會不同。

Even if you're logged out, one engineer told me,

一個工程司曾告訴過我，即使你登出(你的帳戶),

there are 57 signals

仍然有57個訊號

that Google looks at --

在被谷歌觀察着 --

everything from what kind of computer you're on

由你所用的電腦類型

to what kind of browser you're using

到你所用的瀏覽器

to where you're located --

以至你的地點位置--

that it uses to personally tailor your query results.

它會以這些來度身訂造你的搜索結果。

Think about it for a second:

試想一想：

there is no standard Google anymore.

現已再沒有標準的谷歌。

And you know, the funny thing about this is that it's hard to see.

而且，可笑的是這個是很難看得到。

You can't see how different your search results are

你根本是無法看到你的搜索結果會跟

from anyone else's.

其他人的有所不同。

But a couple of weeks ago,

所以在兩個星期前，

I asked a bunch of friends to Google "Egypt"

我要一些朋友用谷歌搜尋 「埃及」

and to send me screen shots of what they got.

並且寄給我他們搜尋結果的屏幕快照。

So here's my friend Scott's screen shot.

這幅是我朋友史考特的屏幕，

And here's my friend Daniel's screen shot.

而這幅是我朋友丹尼爾的屏幕。

When you put them side-by-side,

當你將它們並排比較，

you don't even have to read the links

你根本不用細看那些鏈接

to see how different these two pages are.

都可以看得出這兩頁是不一樣。

But when you do read the links,

但當你細看這些鏈接，

it's really quite remarkable.

這確實是難以置信。

Daniel didn't get anything about the protests in Egypt at all

在丹尼爾的谷歌搜尋結果第一頁裡

in his first page of Google results.

是完全沒有鏈接是關於埃及的抗議。

Scott's results were full of them.

在史考特的搜尋結果就有很多。

And this was the big story of the day at that time.

但在那陣子卻是當日的大新聞。

That's how different these results are becoming.

這便是搜尋結果越來越不同的例子。

So it's not just Google and Facebook either.

而且不只限於谷歌及 Facebook。

This is something that's sweeping the Web.

這趨勢在互聯網正漸撒播。

There are a whole host of companies that are doing this kind of personalization.

現有很多機構都實施個人化。

Yahoo News, the biggest news site on the Internet,

雅虎新聞--互聯網上最大型的新聞網站，

is now personalized -- different people get different things.

現在已是個人化--即是不同人會看到不同的東西。

Huffington Post, the Washington Post, the New York Times --

赫芬頓郵報，華盛頓郵報，紐約時報--

all flirting with personalization in various ways.

都正在用不同方式盤弄個人化。

And this moves us very quickly

這種趨勢正在快速地推我們

toward a world in which

前往一個新世界，

the Internet is showing us what it thinks we want to see,

一個互聯網應為我們想看的世界，

but not necessarily what we need to see.

但未必是一個我們需要看到的世界。

As Eric Schmidt said,

正如埃里克•施密特所說：

"It will be very hard for people to watch or consume something

「現已是很難要人們觀看或消化一些

that has not in some sense

是一點兒也沒有替他們

been tailored for them."

度身訂造的東西。」

So I do think this is a problem.

我認為這是一個問題，

And I think, if you take all of these filters together,

而且我在想，若然將全部的過濾器用齊，

you take all these algorithms,

用盡所有算法，

you get what I call a filter bubble.

得到的是一個我稱為過濾氣泡。

And your filter bubble is your own personal,

而你的過濾氣泡便是你個人

unique universe of information

在網上存在

that you live in online.

獨特的資料宇宙。

And what's in your filter bubble

你個人過濾氣泡的內容

depends on who you are, and it depends on what you do.

是基於你是誰和你的行爲。

But the thing is that you don't decide what gets in.

但問題是氣泡的內容不是你可選擇。

And more importantly,

更重要的是，

you don't actually see what gets edited out.

你完全看不到什麼被刪除。

So one of the problems with the filter bubble

過濾氣泡的其中一個問題

was discovered by some researchers at Netflix.

是被一個在 Netflix 的研究員發現。

And they were looking at the Netflix queues, and they noticed something kind of funny

當在察看 Netflix 的影片隊列時，他們發覺一樣有趣的現象，

that a lot of us probably have noticed,

可能我們很多人都亦有察覺到，

which is there are some movies

便是有些影片

that just sort of zip right up and out to our houses.

在隊列裡即浮上面到我們眼前。

They enter the queue, they just zip right out.

它們剛入隊列，但很容易便進入有利位置。

So "Iron Man" zips right out,

例如「鐵甲奇俠」很快上位，

and "Waiting for Superman"

但「等待超人」

can wait for a really long time.

便真要等很久。

What they discovered

他們發現

was that in our Netflix queues

在我們 Netflix 的影片隊例裡，

there's this epic struggle going on

正在發生一個很巨型的鬥爭，

between our future aspirational selves

在我們未來的自我志向

and our more impulsive present selves.

和我們現在較衝動的自我之間。

You know we all want to be someone

眾所週知我們全部都想成為那個

who has watched "Rashomon,"

曾經看過「羅生門」的人，

but right now

但現在

we want to watch "Ace Ventura" for the fourth time.

我們想再第四次看「王牌威龍」。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

So the best editing gives us a bit of both.

所以其實最好的編輯是每樣都給我們一些。

It gives us a little bit of Justin Bieber

它會給我們一點賈斯汀•比伯，

and a little bit of Afghanistan.

亦會給我們一些阿富汗。

It gives us some information vegetables;

它會給我們一些蔬菜式的資訊，

it gives us some information dessert.

亦會給我們一些甜點類的資料。

And the challenge with these kinds of algorithmic filters,

所以對這類算法式過濾和

these personalized filters,

這些個人過濾的挑戰，

is that, because they're mainly looking

便是它們主要是看

at what you click on first,

你首先按什麼鏈接，

it can throw off that balance.

這個方法會有阻平衡。

And instead of a balanced information diet,

現已不是一個均衡的資訊餐單，

you can end up surrounded

而是你可能會得到

by information junk food.

很多資訊零食垃圾。

What this suggests

這個想法是在說

is actually that we may have the story about the Internet wrong.

可能我們對互聯網的印象是不正確。

In a broadcast society --

在這個廣播社會--

this is how the founding mythology goes --

根據流傳的說法--

in a broadcast society,

在這個廣播社會，

there were these gatekeepers, the editors,

有一些看門人，叫編輯者，

and they controlled the flows of information.

他們控制着資料的流通。

And along came the Internet and it swept them out of the way,

隨後登場便是互聯網，它掃走這些看門人，

and it allowed all of us to connect together,

令我們全部人可無阻地聯糸一起，

and it was awesome.

這真正是值得興奮。

But that's not actually what's happening right now.

但實在不是這樣。

What we're seeing is more of a passing of the torch

我們看到的是像傳輸火炬，

from human gatekeepers

由人類看門人

to algorithmic ones.

到算法看門人。

And the thing is that the algorithms

但現時這種算法程式

don't yet have the kind of embedded ethics

還未有種入編輯人

that the editors did.

所擁有的嵌入概念。

So if algorithms are going to curate the world for us,

所以若我們讓算法用它的方式來看世界，

if they're going to decide what we get to see and what we don't get to see,

若是讓它來決定我們可看什麼，不可看什麼，

then we need to make sure

那我們便要確定

that they're not just keyed to relevance.

它的決定不只是基於關切性。

We need to make sure that they also show us things

我們要確定它亦會給我們看一些

that are uncomfortable or challenging or important --

未必令我們舒適，但有重要性及有挑戰性的東西--

this is what TED does --

正如 TED 大會那樣

other points of view.

會展示其他觀點。

And the thing is, we've actually been here before

其實像現在這種過濾在以前的

as a society.

社會也發生過。

In 1915, it's not like newspapers were sweating a lot

在一九一五年，那時的報章對它們的民事責任

about their civic responsibilities.

不太在意。

Then people noticed

之後人們發覺到

that they were doing something really important.

報章實在很重要。

That, in fact, you couldn't have

因為事實上，根本沒可能

a functioning democracy

有在一個可運作的民主社會，

if citizens didn't get a good flow of information,

若然它的人民沒有有效的資訊流通。

that the newspapers were critical because they were acting as the filter,

所以報章對事有評論，因為它們是扮演過濾網，

and then journalistic ethics developed.

也因此才有新聞道德的構成。

It wasn't perfect,

雖然不是完美，

but it got us through the last century.

但不竟帶我們經過上一個世紀。

And so now,

現在，

we're kind of back in 1915 on the Web.

在網上我們又像回到一九一五年。

And we need the new gatekeepers

我們要新的看門人

to encode that kind of responsibility

能將些道德責任

into the code that they're writing.

輸入它們算法的編程。

I know that there are a lot of people here from Facebook and from Google --

我知道有很多人在這裡從 Facebook 及 谷歌來--

Larry and Sergey --

拉里和賽奇--

people who have helped build the Web as it is,

有很多人參與建立到至今的互聯網，

and I'm grateful for that.

我是感謝的。

But we really need you to make sure

但我們真的需要你們確實

that these algorithms have encoded in them

這些算法的編程裡要有

a sense of the public life, a sense of civic responsibility.

公衆生活和民事責任感。

We need you to make sure that they're transparent enough

我們需要你們確實它們有一定的透明度，

that we can see what the rules are

讓我們能看見是用什麼準則來

that determine what gets through our filters.

決定什麼可通過過濾網。

And we need you to give us some control

而且我們需要你們能給予一些控制力，

so that we can decide

讓我們可以選擇

what gets through and what doesn't.

什麼能通過和不通過。

Because I think

因為我認為

we really need the Internet to be that thing

我們真的需要互聯網能成為一個

that we all dreamed of it being.

我們夢寐以求的平臺。

We need it to connect us all together.

我們需要它將全部人連結。

We need it to introduce us to new ideas

我們需要它給我們介紹新的想法，

and new people and different perspectives.

新的人和不同觀點。

And it's not going to do that

而它是無可能辦到這些，

if it leaves us all isolated in a Web of one.

若它將我們孤立在一個唯一自我旳互聯網。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（鼓掌）