I always ask them the same thing:

每當我拜訪一所學校 跟那裡的學生交流

Why do you Google?

我都會問同樣的問題：

Why is Google the search engine of choice for you?

你為什麼用Google？

Strangely enough, I always get the same three answers.

為什麼Google 是你獨愛的搜索引擎？

One, "Because it works,"

很奇妙， 答案永遠是這三種。

which is a great answer; that's why I Google, too.

一、因為有用。

Two, somebody will say,

的確是不錯的答案， 我也是因此而使用Google的。

"I really don't know of any alternatives."

二、有些人會說，

It's not an equally great answer and my reply to that is usually,

「我真的不知道還有什麼選擇」

"Try to Google the word 'search engine,'

這不是很好的答案， 我通常這樣回應，

you may find a couple of interesting alternatives."

「試試看用Google搜索 『搜索引擎』

And last but not least, thirdly,

你將會找到其他 更有趣的選擇。」

inevitably, one student will raise her or his hand and say,

最後但一樣重要的是，三、

"With Google, I'm certain to always get the best, unbiased search result."

一定會有學生會舉手說，

Certain to always get the best, unbiased search result.

「透過Google，我很肯定能找到 最好、最沒有偏差的結果」

Now, as a man of the humanities,

肯定能夠找到最好、 最沒有偏差的結果。

albeit a digital humanities man,

學人文學的我，

that just makes my skin curl,

雖然是數位人文學，

even if I, too, realize that that trust, that idea of the unbiased search result

聽到這句話真是令人發毛，

is a cornerstone in our collective love for and appreciation of Google.

即便我也發覺到這種信任、 這種無偏差搜尋結果的想法

I will show you why that, philosophically, is almost an impossibility.

是我們對於Google共同的喜愛 和感激的基礎。

But let me first elaborate, just a little bit, on a basic principle

我等等會透過哲學思維 證明給你看這句話根本不可能成立。

behind each search query that we sometimes seem to forget.

但我要事先 稍微闡述每個搜尋查詢背後的

So whenever you set out to Google something,

基本運作， 這些是我們常常忽略的。

start by asking yourself this: "Am I looking for an isolated fact?"

每次當你開始用Google查詢，

What is the capital of France?

先問問自己： 「我在尋找單一的事實嗎？」

What are the building blocks of a water molecule?

法國的首都在哪裡？

Great -- Google away.

構成水分子的 基本結構是什麼？

There's not a group of scientists who are this close to proving

很好--用Google搜尋吧！

that it's actually London and H30.

不會有一群科學家 有那麼一點點可能證明

You don't see a big conspiracy among those things.

答案是倫敦和H3O的。

We agree, on a global scale,

這當中沒有什麼陰謀。

what the answers are to these isolated facts.

我們大家都同意

But if you complicate your question just a little bit and ask something like,

這些事實的真偽是什麼。

"Why is there an Israeli-Palestine conflict?"

但如果你問的問題 稍微複雜一點，像是

You're not exactly looking for a singular fact anymore,

「為什麼以色列 和巴勒斯坦會有衝突？」

you're looking for knowledge,

你要的不只是單一的事實了，

which is something way more complicated and delicate.

你要的是知識，

And to get to knowledge,

是更加複雜也更加細微的東西。

you have to bring 10 or 20 or 100 facts to the table

而為了獲得知識，

and acknowledge them and say, "Yes, these are all true."

你得列出10個、20個 甚至100個事實

But because of who I am,

然後承認它們，並且說： 「是的，這些都是事實。」

young or old, black or white, gay or straight,

但會因為我是誰，

I will value them differently.

是年輕人或老人、黑人或白人、 同性戀或異性戀，

And I will say, "Yes, this is true,

而對它們產生不同評價。

but this is more important to me than that."

然後我會說：「對，這是事實，

And this is where it becomes interesting,

但我覺得這個比那個重要。」

because this is where we become human.

事情就從這一刻變得精彩，

This is when we start to argue, to form society.

因為這就是我們為何身而為人，

And to really get somewhere, we need to filter all our facts here,

我們會因此開始辯論， 而形成一個社會。

through friends and neighbors and parents and children

要能真正有所進展， 我們首先要篩選手上的資訊，

and coworkers and newspapers and magazines,

透過朋友、鄰居、父母、孩子、

to finally be grounded in real knowledge,

同事和報章雜誌，

which is something that a search engine is a poor help to achieve.

來取得最終真正的知識，

So, I promised you an example just to show you why it's so hard

這種事搜尋引擎很難辦得到。

to get to the point of true, clean, objective knowledge --

我剛剛答應你們我會舉例說明為什麼

as food for thought.

要獲得真實、純淨、 客觀的知識那麼困難--

I will conduct a couple of simple queries, search queries.

好讓你深思一下。

We'll start with "Michelle Obama,"

我來現場搜尋一些簡單的東西。

the First Lady of the United States.

我們就從「蜜雪兒·歐巴馬」

And we'll click for pictures.

美國的第一夫人開始吧。

It works really well, as you can see.

我們搜尋圖片。

It's a perfect search result, more or less.

正如你所見，效果還不錯。

It's just her in the picture, not even the President.

結果或多或少還算不錯啦。

How does this work?

圖片裡都只有她， 連總統都沒有。

Quite simple.

背後的運作是如何的呢？

Google uses a lot of smartness to achieve this, but quite simply,

很簡單。

they look at two things more than anything.

Google利用不少智慧型功能來 達成這些目的，但簡單來說

First, what does it say in the caption under the picture on each website?

他們主要看兩樣東西。

Does it say "Michelle Obama" under the picture?

首先，每一個網頁上 圖片的標題是什麼？

Pretty good indication it's actually her on there.

圖片底下的標題是否是 「Michelle Obama」？

Second, Google looks at the picture file,

有的話代表圖中人物應該就是她。

the name of the file as such uploaded to the website.

第二、Google看圖片檔名，

Again, is it called "MichelleObama.jpeg"?

上傳到網路上的檔名。

Pretty good indication it's not Clint Eastwood in the picture.

我們來看看， 檔名是否是MichelleObama.jpeg？

So, you've got those two and you get a search result like this -- almost.

很明顯圖片中不是 克林·伊斯威特(Clint Eastwoood)。

Now, in 2009, Michelle Obama was the victim of a racist campaign,

上面那兩項條件會讓你 搜尋到這樣的結果--幾乎啦。

where people set out to insult her through her search results.

在2009年的時候，蜜雪兒·歐巴馬 變成一個種族歧視運動的受害者，

There was a picture distributed widely over the Internet

一些人透過搜尋結果來侮辱她。

where her face was distorted to look like a monkey.

有一張在網路上廣為流傳的照片，

And that picture was published all over.

照片中她的臉被扭曲成像猴子一樣。

And people published it very, very purposefully,

而那張照片到處可見。

to get it up there in the search results.

而且這些人真的是故意在上傳，

They made sure to write "Michelle Obama" in the caption

為的就是讓它成為搜尋結果。

and they made sure to upload the picture as "MichelleObama.jpeg," or the like.

他們確保有把 「Michelle Obama」寫入標題裡，

You get why -- to manipulate the search result.

也確保被上傳的圖片的檔名是 「MichelleObama.jpeg」，或類似的。

And it worked, too.

你應該知道為什麼-- 為了操縱搜尋結果。

So when you picture-Googled for "Michelle Obama" in 2009,

結果真的成功了。

that distorted monkey picture showed up among the first results.

當你在2009年用Google 搜尋「Michelle Obama」的圖片，

Now, the results are self-cleansing,

那張被改成像猴子的圖片 就會出現在結果的前端。

and that's sort of the beauty of it,

這些搜尋結果會自動清除，

because Google measures relevance every hour, every day.

這也算是Google的美啦，

However, Google didn't settle for that this time,

因為Google每小時、每天 都在測量結果的相關性。

they just thought, "That's racist and it's a bad search result

然而，Google這次並沒有 讓這件事順其自然，

and we're going to go back and clean that up manually.

他們想說：「這有種族歧視， 是不好的搜尋結果，

We are going to write some code and fix it,"

我們要手動清除掉這些，

which they did.

我們需要寫一些程式把它給弄好。」

And I don't think anyone in this room thinks that was a bad idea.

而他們真的做到了。

Me neither.

我不認為這裡有人會 覺得這是個餿主意吧。

But then, a couple of years go by,

對啊，我也不這麼認為。

and the world's most-Googled Anders,

但是，一直到幾年之後，

Anders Behring Breivik,

世上最多人Google搜尋的昂德史

did what he did.

昂德史·北令·布雷維克，

This is July 22 in 2011,

做了一件事。

and a terrible day in Norwegian history.

那時是2011年7月22日，

This man, a terrorist, blew up a couple of government buildings

在挪威歷史上 是慘不忍睹的一天。

walking distance from where we are right now in Oslo, Norway

這個人，一個恐怖分子， 炸毀了好幾棟

and then he traveled to the island of Utøya

離這裡（奧斯陸）不遠的政府機關，

and shot and killed a group of kids.

然後再到烏托亞島上

Almost 80 people died that day.

射殺了一群孩子。

And a lot of people would describe this act of terror as two steps,

那天，死了將近80人。

that he did two things: he blew up the buildings and he shot those kids.

很多人認為這個惡行是兩部曲，

It's not true.

認為他做了兩件事：炸毀建築物 以及射殺那群孩子。

It was three steps.

不對。

He blew up those buildings, he shot those kids,

這件事其實是三部曲。

and he sat down and waited for the world to Google him.

他炸毀建築物， 射殺那群孩子，

And he prepared all three steps equally well.

然後坐下來等待 天下人Google搜尋他。

And if there was somebody who immediately understood this,

而且他為這三部曲做足了準備。

it was a Swedish web developer,

如果說有誰馬上明白他的真正用意，

a search engine optimization expert in Stockholm, named Nikke Lindqvist.

那就是一位瑞典網路設計者，

He's also a very political guy

住在斯德哥爾摩的搜尋引擎最佳化專家， 叫尼克·林德威斯特

and he was right out there in social media, on his blog and Facebook.

他也是個很有政治主見的人，

And he told everybody,

他剛好就在社群網路上， 瀏覽他的部落格和臉書。

"If there's something that this guy wants right now,

他告訴大家，

it's to control the image of himself.

「這個人現在最想要的是

Let's see if we can distort that.

能夠主宰他自己的形象。

Let's see if we, in the civilized world, can protest against what he did

讓我們試著扭曲他的形象。

through insulting him in his search results."

讓我們嘗試在文明世界裡，

And how?

透過他的搜尋結果侮辱他， 來抗議他的惡行。』

He told all of his readers the following,

要怎麼做呢？

"Go out there on the Internet,

他讓所有的讀者這樣做，

find pictures of dog poop on sidewalks --

「連上網絡

find pictures of dog poop on sidewalks --

搜尋一下狗狗在路邊大便的圖片--

publish them in your feeds, on your websites, on your blogs.

搜尋一下狗狗在路邊大便的圖片--

Make sure to write the terrorist's name in the caption,

上傳到你們的發文、網頁、部落格。

make sure to name the picture file "Breivik.jpeg."

記得一定要把這位恐怖分子 的名字寫到標題中，

Let's teach Google that that's the face of the terrorist."

確保圖片檔名是『Breivik.jpeg』

And it worked.

一起來告訴Google 這就是那位恐怖分子的臉孔。」

Two years after that campaign against Michelle Obama,

後來真的成功了。

this manipulation campaign against Anders Behring Breivik worked.

繼蜜雪兒·歐巴馬那件事的兩年之後，

If you picture-Googled for him weeks after the July 22 events from Sweden,

這次針對昂德史·北令·布雷維克 所發起的操縱運動成功了。

you'd see that picture of dog poop high up in the search results,

你如果在7月22日後的幾個禮拜， 你在瑞典Google圖片搜尋他的話，

as a little protest.

你會看到先出現的都是 狗狗在路邊大便的圖片，

Strangely enough, Google didn't intervene this time.

算是對他小小的討伐。

They did not step in and manually clean those search results up.

奇怪的是，Google 這次竟撒手閉眼。

So the million-dollar question,

他們沒有介入， 手動把這些搜尋結果清除掉。

is there anything different between these two happenings here?

那我要問你們一個迫切而困難的問題，

Is there anything different between what happened to Michelle Obama

這兩件事有什麼差別嗎？

and what happened to Anders Behring Breivik?

究竟發生在蜜雪兒·歐巴馬身上的事件

Of course not.

跟昂德史·北令·布雷維克的有何差別？

It's the exact same thing,

當然沒有。

yet Google intervened in one case and not in the other.

這兩件事根本是一樣的，

Why?

但Google並沒有一視同仁。

Because Michelle Obama is an honorable person, that's why,

為什麼？

and Anders Behring Breivik is a despicable person.

因為蜜雪兒·歐巴馬德高望重，

See what happens there?

而昂德史·北令·布雷維克十惡不赦。

An evaluation of a person takes place

你看到了嗎？

and there's only one power-player in the world

有人被斷定其好壞，

with the authority to say who's who.

而世上只有一個大玩家

"We like you, we dislike you.

被賦予權利去判定對錯。

We believe in you, we don't believe in you.

「我們喜歡你，我們不喜歡你。

You're right, you're wrong. You're true, you're false.

我們相信你， 我們不相信你。

You're Obama, and you're Breivik."

你對，你錯。 你說真話，你說謊。

That's power if I ever saw it.

你是歐巴馬，你是布雷維克。」

So I'm asking you to remember that behind every algorithm

這就是權勢。

is always a person,

所以我在此提醒你在任何運算中

a person with a set of personal beliefs

都有一個人在背後，

that no code can ever completely eradicate.

一個擁有自己根深蒂固、 難以動搖的信仰的人。

And my message goes out not only to Google,

而我的不只是要對Google說，

but to all believers in the faith of code around the world.

我也想對世上所有 擁有相信某種教條的人說。

You need to identify your own personal bias.

你必須要釐清 自己的個人偏差。

You need to understand that you are human

你必須明瞭你身而為人

and take responsibility accordingly.

然後擔當起相對的責任。

And I say this because I believe we've reached a point in time

我這麼說是因為相信 我們已經到了一個

when it's absolutely imperative

必須無可避免地

that we tie those bonds together again, tighter:

重新把這些距離拉得更近的時機：

the humanities and the technology.

人文跟科技之間的距離。

Tighter than ever.

比以前更近。

And, if nothing else, to remind us that that wonderfully seductive idea

我也相信那誘人的觀念，

of the unbiased, clean search result

認為搜尋結果是無偏差、純淨的，

is, and is likely to remain, a myth.

只是個天方夜譚， 永遠是個天方夜譚。

Thank you for your time.

謝謝你撥冗聆聽。

(Applause)

（掌聲）