关注回复关键字“福利”，免费送你优质英文有声读物！
英语专业八级考试(TEM-8)的选材主要来自英美报刊杂志、广播电台或网站。其中一个包括：TED演讲，2018和2016年专八听力讲座(Mini-lecture)就来自TED演讲。建议大家平时多看多听TED演讲。
演讲者：Eli Pariser
演讲题目：Beware online "filter bubbles"
Mark Zuckerberg, a journalist was asking him a question about the news feed. And the journalist was asking him, "Why is this so important?"
马克·扎克伯格曾被一位记者问及动态消息的问题。这位记者问他，“为什么滚动新闻如此重要？”
And Zuckerberg said, "A squirrel dying in your front yard may be more relevant to your interests right now than people dying in Africa." And I want to talk about what a Web based on that idea of relevance might look like.
扎克伯格说，“此时，你前院奄奄一息的松鼠可能与你的兴趣更加“相关”，比起非洲那些挣扎在死亡线上的人们。”我想谈谈建立在这个“相关”的思路上的一个网络会是什么样子。
So when I was growing up in a really rural area in Maine, the Internet meant something very different to me. It meant a connection to the world. It meant something that would connect us all together. And I was sure that it was going to be great for democracy and for our society.
当我生活在缅因州、一个非常典型农村地区的时候，互联网对我而言，有着完全不同的意义。它意味着与整个世界的联系，它意味着与将所有人联系起来。那时，我确信它对民主、对我们的社会而言，都是件了不起的事。
But there's this shift in how information is flowing online, and it's invisible. And if we don't pay attention to it, it could be a real problem. So I first noticed this in a place I spend a lot of time -- my Facebook page. I'm progressive, politically -- big surprise -- but I've always gone out of my way to meet conservatives.
但是，网上的信息流动发生了改变，并且这种改变是隐形的。假如我们对此毫不留意，它会成为一个真正的问题。所以，我最早是在我花了很多时间的地方注意到了这个问题——我的脸书页面。政治上，我是改革派--很意外吧--但我常常会特意去一些保守派的页面去看看。
I like hearing what they're thinking about; I like seeing what they link to; I like learning a thing or two. And so I was surprised when I noticed one day that the conservatives had disappeared from my Facebook feed.
我喜欢听他们的想法；我喜欢看他们有哪些链接；我喜欢从中学到一两件新鲜事。但有一天，我注意到，我脸谱新闻组里的保守派全都消失了，这让我很吃惊。
And what it turned out was going on was that Facebook was looking at which links I clicked on, and it was noticing that, actually, I was clicking more on my liberal friends' links than on my conservative friends' links. And without consulting me about it, it had edited them out. They disappeared.
结果是脸谱会看我点击的链接，实际上，它注意到相比我保守党派的朋友们，我点击了更多的自由派朋友们的链接。在没有告知我的情况下，脸谱就把保守派信息编辑并删除了。保守派的朋友们在我的页面上消失了。
So Facebook isn't the only place that's doing this kind of invisible, algorithmic editing of the Web. Google's doing it too. If I search for something, and you search for something, even right now at the very same time, we may get very different search results.
脸书不是唯一进行这样隐形的、算法的编辑网络的地方。谷歌也是如此。假如我搜索某种信息，你也搜索这种信息，甚至是现在，在同一时间，我们得到的搜索结果可能大不相同。
Even if you're logged out, one engineer told me, there are 57 signals that Google looks at -- everything from what kind of computer you're on to what kind of browser you're using to where you're located -- that it uses to personally tailor your query results.
一位工程师告诉我，即使你退出帐号，还会有57种信号可供谷歌参考-- 几乎所有的信息：从你使用的电脑型号到你用的浏览器到你所在的位置--谷歌利用这些为你定制出个性化的查询结果。
Think about it for a second: there is no standard Google anymore. And you know, the funny thing about this is that it's hard to see. You can't see how different your search results are from anyone else's.
稍微想想看：从此不再会有标准版谷歌。你知道，有趣一点的是，对此，人们很难察觉得到。你不会看到你的搜索结果与别人的搜索结果有什么不同。
But a couple of weeks ago, I asked a bunch of friends to Google "Egypt" and to send me screen shots of what they got. So here's my friend Scott's screen shot. And here's my friend Daniel's screen shot.
但几周前，我请一群朋友用谷歌搜索“埃及”，然后将他们搜索结果的屏幕截图发给我。这是我朋友斯科特的截屏。这个是我朋友丹尼尔的。
When you put them side-by-side, you don't even have to read the links to see how different these two pages are. But when you do read the links, it's really quite remarkable. Daniel didn't get anything about the protests in Egypt at all in his first page of Google results.
当你把它们并排放在一起，你甚至不必查看链接，就能看出这2个搜索页面有多大差别。但当你查看这些链接后面的内容时，差别真的相当相当大！在谷歌搜索结果的第一页，丹尼尔根本就没有任何有关埃及抗议报道的新闻。
Scott's results were full of them. And this was the big story of the day at that time. That's how different these results are becoming.
斯科特的搜索结果却全是这类新闻。在当时，这可是当天的头条新闻。搜索结果就是会如此的不同。
So it's not just Google and Facebook either. This is something that's sweeping the Web. There are a whole host of companies that are doing this kind of personalization. Yahoo News, the biggest news site on the Internet, is now personalized -- different people get different things.
这不仅指谷歌，也不仅指脸谱。这种现象正在席卷整个网络。有一大批的公司正在做这样的个性化定制服务。雅虎新闻，网络上最大的新闻网站，现在也个性化服务了--不同的人们得到不同的信息。
Huffington Post, the Washington Post, the New York Times -- all flirting with personalization in various ways. And this moves us very quickly toward a world in which the Internet is showing us what it thinks we want to see, but not necessarily what we need to see.
赫芬顿邮报，华盛顿邮报，纽约时报-- 它们都以不同的方式与个性化定制搭上边。这会将我们很快地推向这样一个世界——网络给我们显示它认为我们想要看到的信息，而未必是我们需要的信息。
As Eric Schmidt said, "It will be very hard for people to watch or consume something that has not in some sense been tailored for them."
正如埃里克·施密特所言，“要人们观看或消费一些在某种意义上并非为他们个性定制的东西，是很难的。”
So I do think this is a problem. And I think, if you take all of these filters together, you take all these algorithms, you get what I call a filter bubble. And your filter bubble is your own personal, unique universe of information that you live in online.
所以，我认为这确实是个问题。我认为，如果你把所有这些过滤器放在一起，还有所有这些算法，你会得到一个我所谓的“过滤气泡”。你的“过滤泡沫”是你自己个人的独一无二的信息世界——也就是你所生活其中的网络世界。
And what's in your filter bubble depends on who you are, and it depends on what you do. But the thing is that you don't decide what gets in. And more importantly, you don't actually see what gets edited out. So one of the problems with the filter bubble was discovered by some researchers at Netflix.
你的“过滤气泡”中包含了什么取决于你是谁，也取决于你做的事情。但问题是你不能决定什么信息可以通过“过滤气泡”。更重要的是，实际上，你也看不到那些被删除的信息。所以奈飞DVD在线租赁公司（Netflix）的一些研发人员发现了“过滤气泡”的一个问题。
And they were looking at the Netflix queues, and they noticed something kind of funny that a lot of us probably have noticed, which is there are some movies that just sort of zip right up and out to our houses. They enter the queue, they just zip right out. So "Iron Man" zips right out, and "Waiting for Superman" can wait for a really long time.
他们在查看奈飞数据队列时，注意到一些有意思的事；可能我们很多人也已经注意到了，那就是，有些电影脱颖而出，直接进入到千家万户。它们进入数据队列，然后直接脱颖而出。因此，“钢铁侠”脱颖而出，而“等待超人”要等待很长一段时间。
What they discovered was that in our Netflix queues there's this epic struggle going on between our future aspirational selves and our more impulsive present selves. You know we all want to be someone who has watched "Rashomon," but right now we want to watch "Ace Ventura" for the fourth time.
他们发现，在奈飞数据队列中, 在未来满心抱负的我们与今天更为冲动的我们之间始终存在着史诗般的斗争。大家知道，我们都想成为看过“罗生门”的那个人，但现在我们想第四次看“神探飞机头”。
So the best editing gives us a bit of both. It gives us a little bit of Justin Bieber and a little bit of Afghanistan. It gives us some information vegetables; it gives us some information dessert.
而最好的编辑能兼顾这两方面的信息。它会为我们提供一点儿有关贾斯汀·比伯的信息，也会提供一点儿有关阿富汗的信息。它会为我们提供一些信息“蔬菜”，同时也为我们提供一些信息“甜点”。
And the challenge with these kinds of algorithmic filters, these personalized filters, is that, because they're mainly looking at what you click on first, it can throw off that balance. And instead of a balanced information diet, you can end up surrounded by information junk food.
这些算法过滤器和这些个性化定制过滤器的挑战，在于，因为它们主要参考你最先点击的东西，所以，它可能最后无法实现那种（信息间的）平衡。非但不是平衡的信息“食谱”，大家最终得到的可能全是信息“垃圾食品”.
What this suggests is actually that we may have the story about the Internet wrong. In a broadcast society -- this is how the founding mythology goes -- in a broadcast society, there were these gatekeepers, the editors, and they controlled the flows of information.
这表明，实际上，我们在讲的可能是一个网络欺骗的故事。在广播社会里——最初的虚构事实就是这样进行的-- 在广播社会里，有这些审核者，编辑，他们控制着信息流通。
And along came the Internet and it swept them out of the way, and it allowed all of us to connect together, and it was awesome. But that's not actually what's happening right now. What we're seeing is more of a passing of the torch from human gatekeepers to algorithmic ones.
随后出现了互联网，它取而代之了过去所有的信息流通方式，它让我们所有人都联系在一起，这曾经妙不可言。但今天，实际上，情况已经发生了变化。现在的情况，更像是(信息甄选的)“火炬”从人工审核者传递给了计算机算法“审核者”。
And the thing is that the algorithms don't yet have the kind of embedded ethics that the editors did. So if algorithms are going to curate the world for us, if they're going to decide what we get to see and what we don't get to see, then we need to make sure that they're not just keyed to relevance.
但问题是，这些计算机算法自身并没有编辑们所具备的职业道德。所以，假若让算法为我们去创建一个世界，假若它们来决定我们能看到什么、不能看到什么，那么，我们必须要确保它们不仅仅只是围绕“相关性”而已。
We need to make sure that they also show us things that are uncomfortable or challenging or important -- this is what TED does -- other points of view.
我们得确保它们也会给我们展示那些不合意的、具有挑战性的或重要的信息——这也是TED的所追求的——其他的观点。
And the thing is, we've actually been here before as a society. In 1915, it's not like newspapers were sweating a lot about their civic responsibilities. Then people noticed that they were doing something really important.
问题是，作为社会，我们实际上以前有过如此的经历。在1915年，报纸并没有报道很多有关有关公民责任的信息。那是，人们意识到，报纸正在做的事情非常的重要。
That, in fact, you couldn't have a functioning democracy if citizens didn't get a good flow of information, that the newspapers were critical because they were acting as the filter, and then journalistic ethics developed.
事实上，假如得不到充分的信息公民不可能实现有效的民主。报纸很关键，因为它们起的是信息过滤器的作用，随后，新闻职业道德应运而生。
It wasn't perfect, but it got us through the last century. And so now, we're kind of back in 1915 on the Web. And we need the new gatekeepers to encode that kind of responsibility into the code that they're writing.
那时，它并不完美，但是，它带我们走过了上个世纪。所以，现在，我们在网络上好像又回到了1915年。我们需要新的信息审核者将这种道德责任输入到他们所写的算法代码中。
I know that there are a lot of people here from Facebook and from Google -- Larry and Sergey -- people who have helped build the Web as it is, and I'm grateful for that. But we really need you to make sure that these algorithms have encoded in them a sense of the public life, a sense of civic responsibility.
我知道，这里有很多来自脸谱和谷歌的朋友——拉里和谢尔盖——有很多帮助建起现有互联网的朋友，对此，我是表示感谢的。但我们真的需要你们来确保互联网中的这些算法中考虑了公共生活和公民责任感。
We need you to make sure that they're transparent enough that we can see what the rules are that determine what gets through our filters. And we need you to give us some control so that we can decide what gets through and what doesn't.
我们需要你们来确保这些算法有一定的透明，使人们能了解些那些决定什么能够通过我们的过滤器的运行规则。我们需要你们给我们一些管理权限，这样，我们就能决定什么信息可以通过，什么不能通过。
Because I think we really need the Internet to be that thing that we all dreamed of it being. We need it to connect us all together. We need it to introduce us to new ideas and new people and different perspectives. And it's not going to do that if it leaves us all isolated in a Web of one.
因为我认为我们真的需要互联网成为我们所梦想的那样。我们需要它使我们都联系在一起。我们需要它向我们介绍新想法、新面孔及不同的视角。它不可能实现这些，假如它把我们都孤立在个性化的网络中。
Thank you.
谢谢。
Remark：一切权益归TED所有，更多TED相关信息可至官网www.ted.com查询！
声明：除特别注明原创授权转载文章外，其他文章均为转载，版权归原作者或平台所有。如有侵权，请后台联系，告知删除，谢谢
TED学院合集
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
特别声明：以上内容(如有图片或视频亦包括在内)为自媒体平台“网易号”用户上传并发布，本平台仅提供信息存储服务。
Notice: The content above (including the pictures and videos if any) is uploaded and posted by a user of NetEase Hao, which is a social media platform and only provides information storage services.
