臉書與技術烏托邦的價格 | 連線雜誌

In the dawningdays of the millennium, a great harvest was promised. A new class of young revolutionists, who saw the world as not yet living up to its grandeur and thus felt the duty to order it in their vision, vowed a season of abundance and grand prosperity.

新千年曙光初現，前途美妙。新一批年輕的革命者，認為世界難堪其偉大，感覺有義務按照其願景對之加以改造，他們號稱要迎來富饒和偉大繁榮的時代。

Among these strivers wasFacebookCEO Mark Zuckerberg, whose pursuit—equal parts singular, noble, and naive—was torewire communication. Beset by a pioneer spirit, Zuckerberg sculpted ambition into reality, upending the way we document, exchange, and consume information. In doing so, he has in part revolutionized the capacity of human potential. But just as a harvest rewards, so will it forsake. What has since transpired from those early moments of millennial innocence is as tragic as it was inevitable. The cost of utopia, we are now seeing, may be too high.

其中的奮鬥者之一就是臉書首席執行官馬克·扎克伯格，他追求重建交流，這非凡、高尚，卻也幼稚。滿懷開拓者精神，扎克伯格把雄心壯志付諸實踐，顛覆了我們保存、傳送和消費信息的方式。他在部分程度上讓人類潛能發生了革命性變化。但有得必有失。新千年早期的天真想法，最後證明是悲劇性的，也難以避免。烏托邦的代價，我們現在正在親歷，而且可能難以承受。

I won』t recount Facebook』s indiscretions here—many of my WIRED colleges havemapped the chaossincenews first brokethat political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica mined personal data from 87 million users across the social network—but it is helpful to understand the extent of the carnage.

我不想複述臉書的輕率之舉，政治諮詢公司劍橋分析通過社交媒體挖掘了8700萬用戶的個人數據，這一新聞爆出後，我的許多《連線》同事已經詳述了種種糟糕，可理解這場數據大屠殺的深度是有好處的。

That Cambridge Analytica, a data analysis firm that worked on President Trump』s 2016 campaign, likely used that data to target voters and shape history, exposes one of the cracks of the Great Utopian Project: Innovation is only as good as the spirit of the people who brandish it.

為特朗普總統2016年大選工作的數據分析公司劍橋分析可能用那些數據改造選民、塑造歷史，並暴露出這個大型烏托邦工程的罅隙：創新好壞要看創新者。

The problems, though, are bigger than one platform. Connectivity, as it』s been digitally reshaped in the form of email and social media, is now polluted with all manner of contagions. We』ve gained a lot, but what we』ve lost—trust and empathy, possibly the right to an honest democratic process—registers with even greater consequence.

問題不只是一個平台的事。被電子郵件和社交媒體等數字化工具重塑的互聯互通，現在正被各種髒東西所污。我們從中獲益良多，但也失去了信任感和同理心，可能還失去了誠實參與民主程序的權利，帶來的後果甚至更為糟糕。

The online outbreak that followed the Cambridge Analytica breach was marked by an anti-Facebook campaign steered on Twitter, with tech luminaries likeWhatsApp cofounder Brian Actonimploring users to #DeleteFacebook.

劍橋分析濫用數據爆出後，互聯網一片嘩然，值得注意的是推特主導的反臉書運動，WhatsApp共同創始人布萊恩·阿克頓等技術界名人勸說用戶#刪除臉書。

「When you put people』s precious photos and private personal data on the auction block behind their backs every day, you』re not going to be a king for long,」 the actor James Woodstweeted Monday. Ever the dramatist, he punctuated his sentiment with #WeaselZuckerberg.

「你每天偷偷把人們寶貴的照片和私人數據拿出來拍賣，你不會一直稱王稱霸，」演員詹姆斯·伍茲周一發推文說。曾經是劇作家的他用「鼬鼠扎克伯格」來表達自己的情感。

Sometime around 2009, during my first year of graduate school, I decided I』d been spending a dangerous amount of time on Facebook and deleted my account. The sweet, wild suck of social media was becoming too much of a distraction to the attention my course load demanded. In the decade since I』ve roamed the internet』s ignitable terrain; I traded one craving for another.

大概是2009年，我研究生第一年，就決定刪除臉書賬號，因為過去我把大量時間浪費在臉書上了。社交媒體甜蜜且野性的誘惑讓我分心，無法集中注意力完成課業。過去十年，我在互聯網波濤洶湧的領海里衝浪，用一種渴望換來了另一種。

Akin to Facebook, the early days of Twitter and Instagram were defined by moments of community and what felt like idyllic uplift. Dewy-eyed photos and memes and harmless flirtation; a constant pulse of genuine interaction.What we now know is what we』ve always known, that a harvest rots if not properly tended to. In time, users transformed Twitter into a locus of quarrel and toxicity. The site was not without value; it operated as a podium for activism and became perhaps our generation』s most preeminent cultural engine.

與臉書差不多，推特和Instagram在早期，交互性也很強，讓人感覺喝了一碗雞湯。天真無邪的照片和調調，無害的挑逗，不斷跳躍著彼此間的真誠互動。現在看來，和以前的經驗一樣，如果處理不當，大豐收就會腐爛變質。後來，用戶讓推特成為爭論話題的中心，網站總是帶著價值觀，成為激進主義的舞台，可能是我們這一代人最卓越的文化引擎。

But its evils persisted. Hate speech infected timelines, abusive behavior was ignored by site regulators, and outside agents used the appto foster terrorism. Instagram, too, transformed from a Garden of Eden into a home for fake news and Russian trolls with an appetite for anarchy. Through most of these fires, large and small, the tenor among the platforms』 leaders echoed with a startling harmony of indifference.

但邪惡依舊。憎恨性言論污染著時間線，網站監管者無視辱罵行為，外部勢力用軟體煽動恐怖主義。Instagram也從伊甸園轉型為假新聞和俄國煽動言辭的家園，偏愛著混亂。這些大大小小的火星表明，平台領導者的主張與令人驚詫的漠然合拍。

Just how much faith should we put in digital ecosystems that, as we"ve witnessed in the past, will at some point forsake us? As it stands, what we』ve lost continues to amass. Users are rapidlyjettisoning their faith in Facebook, and if it turns out the social network helped to erode democracy in the blazing light of day, what then?

我們該在多大程度上信任將在未來某時拋棄我們的數字生態系統，正如我們過去看到的那樣？照現在看，我們失去的東西還會增加。用戶在臉書上迅速拋棄了信仰，假設社交媒體推動在光天化日下腐蝕民主，接下來還會發生什麼呢？

Consider this too: If our data is all we are—online, at least—such unbridled conection to social media platforms is a kind of tyranny. It』s a relationship where power is distributed menacingly and unequally, where personal information is ammunition. Networks that once granted control now rip people of it.

再想想這一點：如果我們的數據全然就是互聯網上的東西，這種與社交媒體平台毫無保留的接觸就是一種暴政。在這種關係中，權力險惡且不平等地被分配，個人信息成了彈藥。那些曾經賦予人們控制權的網路現在剝奪了人們的控制權。

This week, Zuckerberg is testifying before Congress. It』s his first appearance on Capitol Hill, and he』ll be using at least part of it to tell lawmakers Facebook has already taken steps to correct its afflictions. Sitting before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on Tuesday, he told legislators that the company has started fact-checking photos and videos as a part of a larger plan to prevent abuse and propaganda.He shared how engineersare working to scrub pages from the Russia-based Internet Research Agencyfrom Facebook and Instagram. He spoke about security and audits, about "giving people control," about "enabling innovation." He showed contrition and looked genuinely uneasy in the spotlight.

上周，扎克伯格在國會作證。這是他第一次在國會山露面，他至少會藉機對立法者說，臉書已經採取措施糾正造成的損害。周二坐在眾議院能源和商業委員會，他對議員說，公司開始核對照片和視頻，這是避免濫用和宣傳計劃的一部分工作。他分享了工程師如何才把俄國互聯網研究機構從臉書和Instagram上刪除。他談到安全和審查，「給人們控制權」和「確保創新」。他深感懊悔，在聚光當下也顯得很不自在。

"Facebook is an idealistic and optimistic company. For most of our existence, we focused on all the good that connecting people can bring," Zuckerberg said in hisopening remarks. "But it』s clear now that we didn』t do enough to prevent these tools from being used for harm as well.That goes for fake news, foreign interference in elections, and hate speech, as well as developers and data privacy. We didn』t take a broad enough view of our responsibility, and that was a big mistake."

「臉書是秉承理想主義和樂觀主義的公司，我們成立公司，本質上專註於將人們連接起來能夠帶來的全部好處，」扎克伯格在開場白中說。「但如今顯然，我們在防止這些工具作惡方面做得還不夠。其中包括假新聞，外國勢力干預選舉，憎恨性言論和開發者及數據隱私。我們沒有在更高水平上思考我們的責任，這是個很大的錯誤。」

That is all good and well, but it won』t be enough. As Apple CEO Tim Cooksaid, we can no longer trust Zuckerberg to fix these problems alone. There』s that word again—trust. It』s such a fragile and slippery thing. So easily broken.

說得不錯，但還不夠。正如蘋果首席執行官蒂姆·庫克所言，我們不再相信扎克伯格自己能解決這些問題了。還是那兩個字，信任。這是如此脆弱和易逝的東西，很容易破碎。

Because even if Facebook figures out a way to heal and grow back, to erect better safeguards, to essentially replenish the harvest, how can we trust that the land shouldn』t just be left fallow? How can we trust that our personal data won』t again be used as a bullet against us?

因為即便臉書找到辦法修補恢復，提供更好的保護，重獲了豐收，我們怎麼能相信土地不會僅僅被撂荒呢？我們如何相信我們的個人數據不會再次被用於射向我們自己的子彈呢？

Despite taking hold in our lives with damaging regularity, the architecture of loss is never quite the same. It』s why what happens now, how Zuckerberg responds, and how we respond to him, will be the true test of human ingenuity—a reminder that though innovation remains prey to the perversions of human immorality, it does not have to succumb to it.

就算用受損的規則保住了生活，破損的建築再也無法恢復如初。這也是為何現在發生的事，扎克伯格的應對方式以及我們如何看待他，構成對人類創造力的真正考驗，提醒人們不要忘記，儘管創新依然受害於人類無德的種種墮落做法，它並非必須屈服於後者。