TED演講：讓我們設計出真正推動社會進步的社交媒體

演講者：韋爾·古奈姆

（註：以下中文講稿系本人在參考TED網站的中文版本之下，根據本人個人理解翻譯的，水平有限，歡迎指正。文後有該演講視頻的鏈接以及英文講稿。）

我曾說過，「如果你想要解放社會，你只需要有互聯網。」但我錯了。

我說這番話的時候是2011年，那時我匿名創建了一個臉書主頁，這個主頁引發了埃及革命。「阿拉伯之春」顯示了社交媒體的巨大潛能，但同時也暴露了其最大缺點。這個我們讓我們集結在一起推翻獨裁者的工具最終也將我們撕裂。我想和大家分享我使用社交媒體來推動社會劇變的經歷，同時談談我個人曾面對的一些難題，以及面對這些難題我們能夠做些什麼。

在21世紀的初期，阿拉伯人開始蜂擁於網上。渴望知識、渴望機遇 、渴望與世界上的其他人建立聯繫，我們逃離了令人沮喪的政治現實，活在用以替代現實的虛擬的人生中。和他們中的很多人一樣，之前我完全不關心政治。但自從2009年我登入社交媒體，我開始看到越來越多的埃及人呼籲這個國家政治變革。我感到自己並不是唯一的一個。

2010年6月，網路永久改變了我的人生。在瀏覽臉書網站時，我看到一張照片，一張可怕的照片，是一個年輕埃及男子的屍體，留有被折磨過的痕迹。他的名字叫卡勒德·賽義德，是一名29歲的亞歷山大城居民，被警察殺害了。在他的照片中我看到了自己。我想，「我也可能是卡勒德。」

那晚我無法入睡，我決定要做些事。我匿名創建了名叫「我們都是卡勒德·賽義德」的臉書頁面。3天內，頁面追隨者超過了10萬人，他們都是有著同樣擔憂的埃及人。 正在發生的這些事必須停止。

我招募了我的管理夥伴，阿卜杜勒·拉赫曼·曼索爾。我們長時間一起工作。我們把人們的想法集中起來，讓他們聚集進來。我們組織集體行動，分享當局不願讓埃及人知道的事。這個頁面成為阿拉伯世界最受歡迎的頁面。頁面的粉絲比當時已有的媒體機構甚至當紅名人還要多。

2011年1月14日，在對其政權日益高漲的抗議聲中，本·阿里逃離了突尼西亞。我看到了希望的火花。社交媒體上的埃及人想，「突尼西亞人做到了，我們為什麼不能？」我在臉書上發布了一個名為「反對腐敗、不公正和獨裁的革命。」的活動。我向當時那個頁面的30萬粉絲提出一個問題：「今天是1月14日。1月25日是警察日，是一個全國性的節日。如果我們中10萬人走上開羅街頭，沒人能阻止我們。 我們能不能做到？」

幾天之內，這個邀請就送達到一百萬人以上，並且 超過10萬人確認他們會參加。社交媒體對這場運動起到了關鍵的作用，它幫助了一個去中心化的社會運動崛起，它讓人們意識到他們並不孤單，並且它讓政府的阻止變為不可能。 在當時，政府甚至不知道那是什麼。 1月25日當天，埃及人湧上開羅和其它城市的街頭，呼籲變革，衝破恐懼，宣告新時代的到來。

隨後，後果出現了。在政府切斷互聯網和電信的幾個小時以前，深夜時分，我在開羅一條黑暗的街道上行走。我剛發了一條推特，「為埃及祈禱。政府肯定計劃明天採取大規模屠殺。」我的頭被重重擊打了。我失去平衡跌倒在地上，發現四個全副武裝的男子圍繞著我。一個捂住我的嘴巴，其餘的讓我失去行動能力。我知道自己被國安局綁架了。

我發現自己在監獄裡，帶著手銬，被蒙住眼睛。我很害怕。我的家人也很害怕，他們開始在醫院、警察局、甚至是停屍房尋找我。

在我消失後，那些知道我是頁面管理員的同事告訴媒體我與那個頁面的關聯，以及我很有可能被國安局拘捕了。我在Google的同事開始了搜索運動，想要尋找我的下落，很多抗議者在廣場呼籲要求釋放我。

在完全黑暗的11天後，我自由了。又過了3天， 穆巴拉克被迫下台。 那是我人生中最受鼓舞也最充滿能量的時刻。那也是個充滿偉大希望的時刻。在革命的18天里，埃及人活在烏托邦中。他們都共同相信，穆巴拉克之後的埃及將是和平包容的國度，大家可以求同存異地生活在一起。

但不幸的是，後革命時代所發生的事給了我們當頭一棒。幸福感逐漸消失， 我們並未能成功達成共識， 政治鬥爭演變成了強烈的兩極化。社交媒體只會助長傳播錯誤的信息、謠言、黨同伐異和仇恨的言論，並把它們加以放大。政治環境完全被毒害了。我的網路世界變成了戰場，充斥著輪番大聲高唱的謊言和仇恨言論。我開始擔心我家人的安危。 但顯然，這並不只是針對我。兩極分化在軍隊支持者和伊斯蘭教主義者這兩個主要勢力對抗下到達了巔峰。那些和我一樣處於中間的人們，開始感到無助。兩個集團都希望你站在他們一邊；你要麼是夥伴，要麼是敵人。在2013年7月3日，在持續三天的公眾抗議呼籲他下台之後，軍隊驅趕了埃及歷史上第一個民主選舉產生的總統。

那天我做出了一個艱難地決定。我決定沉默，完全沉默。那是一個挫敗的時刻。我沉默了兩年多，我花時間反思過去發生的一切，想要理解為什麼那一切會發生。

我逐漸清楚地認識到，兩極化最初發端於我們的人性，社交媒體對其加以塑造，並且放大了它的影響。比如你想要說些並不是基於事實的話，以挑起鬥爭或是無視某個你不喜歡的人，這些都是人類天生的衝動，但藉助科技之便，讓這些衝動發酵只需要一個點擊而已。

在我看來，今天的社交媒體面對五個嚴峻的挑戰。

首先，我們不知道如何應對眾多的謠言。現在，那些加固了人們偏見的謠言，在千百萬人中傳播擴散並被深信不疑。

第二，我們創建了自己的迴音室。我們往往只和那些與我們觀點相同的人溝通，並且因社交媒體所賜，我們能夠靜音、取關和屏蔽其他任何人。

第三，線上討論很快演變成憤怒的暴民行為。我們所有人可能都了解這一點。似乎我們都忘記了屏幕中面對的是真實的人，而不是虛擬的對象。

第四，改變我們自己的觀點變得非常困難。因為社交媒體快速和簡短的特徵，我們很快跳到結論，在140個字元中書寫有關複雜全球大事的尖銳的觀點。而一旦我們這樣做了，這些觀點就永遠存在於互聯網上，並且即便是在新證據出現的情況下，我們也缺乏改變這些觀點的動力。

第五——在我看來這是最重要的——今天，我們的社交媒體體驗被設計為利於傳播而不是互動，利於宣告而不是討論，利於淺薄的批評而不是有深度的對話。就好像我們認為自己是來對著他人說教而不是與他人交談。

我目睹了這些嚴峻問題是如何影響了埃及社會的兩極分化。但是，這絕不僅僅只和埃及有關。

兩極分化在全球範圍內加劇。我們需要努力設法如何使科技成為解決辦法的一部分，而不是造成麻煩的一部分。

關於如何與線上騷擾和重複張貼問題作鬥爭，如今有很多爭論，這當然很重要，沒人會反對。但我們也需要思考的是，怎樣去設計社交媒體的體驗，使其能促進禮貌和鼓勵深思熟慮。我知道，如果我寫一個更聳人聽聞的、更一邊倒的，甚至是憤怒和激進的帖子，我的帖子就會有更多的人看，我也會得到更多人的注意。

但如果我們更加註重帖子的質量呢？到底哪個更重要：是閱讀你帖子的總人數，還是你的帖子究竟對哪些人產生了影響？

我們可不可以提供更多的激勵手段，以促使人們去參與對話，而不是僅僅一味宣傳自己的觀點？ 我們能不能鼓勵人們去閱讀和回復那些他們不同意的看法，同時，讓勇於改變自己觀點的作法為社會所普遍接受，甚至為這樣的行為打賞？我們可不可以有一個網路環境，可以顯示有多少人正在改變他們的想法，並且使這樣的網路體驗成為社交媒體的一部分？如果我能隨時掌握有多少人（因為閱讀我的帖子而）改變了想法，我可能會寫得更深思熟慮，試圖更有說服力，而不是僅僅為博人眼球，僅僅為在那些和我觀點相同的人那裡獲得「贊」，因為我這樣作只是在加深他們的偏見。

我們也需要考慮建立有效的眾包機制，來查實那些廣為傳播的網路信息，並獎勵那些參與眾包的人。事實上，我們需要重新考慮今天的社交媒體生態系統， 重新設計人們使用它的體驗，以獎勵慎思、禮貌和互相理解。

作為互聯網的信徒，我和一些朋友合作開啟了一個新項目，嘗試尋找答案並探索各種可能性。我們的第一個產品是新的談話性媒體平台。 我們舉辦交談活動以促進相互理解，並希望通過交談使人們的看法有良性改變。 我們沒有預先設定的答案，但我們開始嘗試對一些非常有爭議的問題開展討論活動 ，比如種族問題、控槍問題、難民問題、伊斯蘭與恐怖主義之間的關係，這些都是我們進行的重要的對話。

今天，世界上至少有三分之一的人能夠連接互聯網。 但是這個互聯網在某種程度上被人性中不那麼高尚的一面所控制了。

五年前我曾經說， 「如果你想要解放社會， 你只需要互聯網。」 今天我相信，如果我們想要解放社會， 我們首先要解放互聯網。

非常感謝。

（視頻鏈接https://www.ted.com/talks/wael_ghonim_let_s_design_social_media_that_drives_real_change/transcript）

Lets design social media that drives real change

I once said, "If you want to liberate a society, all you need is the Internet." I was wrong.

I said those words back in 2011, when a Facebook page I anonymously created helped spark the Egyptian revolution. The Arab Spring revealed social medias greatest potential, but it also exposed its greatest shortcomings. The same tool that united us to topple dictators eventually tore us apart. I would like to share my own experience in using social media for activism, and talk about some of the challenges I have personally faced and what we could do about them.

In the early 2000s, Arabs were flooding the web. Thirsty for knowledge, for opportunities, for connecting with the rest of the people around the globe, we escaped our frustrating political realities and lived a virtual, alternative life. Just like many of them, I was completely apolitical until 2009. At the time, when I logged into social media, I started seeing more and more Egyptians aspiring for political change in the country. It felt like I was not alone.

In June 2010, Internet changed my life forever. While browsing Facebook, I saw a photo, a terrifying photo, of a tortured, dead body of a young Egyptian guy. His name was Khaled Said. Khaled was a 29-year-old Alexandrian who was killed by police. I saw myself in his picture. I thought, "I could be Khaled."

I could not sleep that night, and I decided to do something. I anonymously created a Facebook page and called it "We are all Khaled Said." In just three days, the page had over 100,000 people, fellow Egyptians who shared the same concern. Whatever was happening had to stop.

I recruited my co-admin, Abdel Rahman Mansour. We worked together for. hours and hours. We were crowdsourcing ideas from the people. We were engaging them. We were calling collectively for actions, and sharing news that the regime did not want Egyptians to know. The page became the most followed page in the Arab world. It had more fans than established media organizations and even top celebrities.

On January 14, 2011, Ben Ali fled out of Tunisia after mounting protests against his regime. I saw a spark of hope. Egyptians on social media were wondering, "If Tunisia did it, why cant we?" I posted an event on Facebook and called it "A Revolution against Corruption, Injustice and Dictatorship." I posed a question to the 300,000 users of the page at the time: "Today is the 14th of January. The 25th of January is Police Day. Its a national holiday. If 100,000 of us take to the streets of Cairo, no one is going to stop us. I wonder if we could do it."

In just a few days, the invitation reached over a million people, and over 100,000 people confirmed attendance. Social media was crucial for this campaign. It helped a decentralized movement arise. It made people realize that they were not alone. And it made it impossible for the regime to stop it. At the time, they didnt even understand it. And on January 25th, Egyptians flooded the streets of Cairo and other cities, calling for change, breaking the barrier of fear and announcing a new era.

Then came the consequences. A few hours before the regime cut off the Internet and telecommunications, I was walking in a dark street in Cairo, around midnight. I had just tweeted, "Pray for Egypt. The government must be planning a massacre tomorrow." I was hit hard on my head. I lost my balance and fell down, to find four armed men surrounding me. One covered my mouth and the others paralyzed me. I knew I was being kidnapped by state security.

I found myself in a cell, handcuffed, blindfolded. I was terrified. So was my family, who started looking for me in hospitals, police stations and even morgues.

After my disappearance, a few of my fellow colleagues who knew I was the admin of the page told the media about my connection with that page, and that I was likely arrested by state security. My colleagues at Google started a search campaign trying to find me, and the fellow protesters in the square demanded my release.

After 11 days of complete darkness, I was set free. And three days later, Mubarak was forced to step down. It was the most inspiring and empowering moment of my life. It was a time of great hope. Egyptians lived a utopia for 18 days during the revolution. They all shared the belief that we could actually live together despite our differences, that Egypt after Mubarak would be for all.

But unfortunately, the post-revolution events were like a punch in the gut. The euphoria faded, we failed to build consensus, and the political struggle led to intense polarization. Social media only amplified that state, by facilitating the spread of misinformation, rumors, echo chambers and hate speech. The environment was purely toxic. My online world became a battleground filled with trolls, lies, hate speech. I started to worry about the safety of my family. But of course, this wasnt just about me. The polarization reached its peak between the two main powers -- the army supporters and the Islamists. People in the center, like me, started feeling helpless. Both groups wanted you to side with them; you were either with them or against them. And on the 3rd of July 2013, the army ousted Egypts first democratically elected president, after three days of popular protest that demanded his resignation.

That day I made a very hard decision. I decided to go silent, completely silent. It was a moment of defeat. I stayed silent for more than two years, and I used the time to reflect on everything that happened, trying to understand why did it happen.

It became clear to me that while its true that polarization is primarily driven by our human behavior, social media shapes this behavior and magnifies its impact. Say you want to say something that is not based on a fact, pick a fight or ignore someone that you dont like. These are all natural human impulses, but because of technology, acting on these impulses is only one click away.

In my view, there are five critical challenges facing todays social media.

First, we dont know how to deal with rumors. Rumors that confirm peoples biases are now believed and spread among millions of people.

Second, we create our own echo chambers. We tend to only communicate with people that we agree with, and thanks to social media, we can mute, un-follow and block everybody else.

Third, online discussions quickly descend into angry mobs. All of us probably know that. Its as if we forget that the people behind screens are actually real people and not just avatars.

And fourth, it became really hard to change our opinions. Because of the speed and brevity of social media, we are forced to jump to conclusions and write sharp opinions in 140 characters about complex world affairs. And once we do that, it lives forever on the Internet, and we are less motivated to change these views, even when new evidence arises.

Fifth -- and in my point of view, this is the most critical -- today, our social media experiences are designed in a way that favors broadcasting over engagements, posts over discussions, shallow comments over deep conversations. Its as if we agreed that we are here to talk at each other instead of talking with each other.

I witnessed how these critical challenges contributed to an already polarized Egyptian society, but this is not just about Egypt.

Polarization is on the rise in the whole world. We need to work hard on figuring out how technology could be part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.

Theres a lot of debate today on how to combat online harassment and fight trolls. This is so important. No one could argue against that. But we need to also think about how to design social media experiences that promote civility and reward thoughtfulness. I know for a fact if I write a post that is more sensational, more one-sided, sometimes angry and aggressive, I get to have more people see that post. I will get more attention.

But what if we put more focus on quality? What is more important: the total number of readers of a post you write, or who are the people who have impact that read what you write?

Couldnt we just give people more incentives to engage in conversations, rather than just broadcasting opinions all the time? Or reward people for reading and responding to views that they disagree with? And also, make it socially acceptable that we change our minds, or probably even reward that? What if we have a matrix that says how many people changed their minds, and that becomes part of our social media experience? If I could track how many people are changing their minds, Id probably write more thoughtfully, trying to do that, rather than appealing to the people who already agree with me and "liking" because I just confirmed their biases.

We also need to think about effective crowdsourcing mechanisms, to fact-check widely spread online information, and reward people who take part in that. In essence, we need to rethink todays social media ecosystem and redesign its experiences to reward thoughtfulness, civility and mutual understanding.

As a believer in the Internet, I teamed up with a few friends, started a new project, trying to find answers and explore possibilities. Our first product is a new media platform for conversations. Were hosting conversations that promote mutual understanding and hopefully change minds. We dont claim to have the answers, but we started experimenting with different discussions about very divisive issues, such as race, gun control, the refugee debate, relationship between Islam and terrorism. These are conversations that matter.

Today, at least one out of three people on the planet have access to the Internet. But part of this Internet is being held captive by the less noble aspects of our human behavior.

Five years ago, I said, "If you want to liberate society, all you need is the Internet."

Today, I believe if we want to liberate society, we first need to liberate the Internet.

Thank you very much.

推薦閱讀：