Facebook是如何打压民主的

There is a saying that came out of the 1960s: “The personal is political.”

上世纪60年代出现的一个说法叫：“个人的即是政治的。”

It’s still true, but in ways that might make you worry about the future of democracy.

这句话现在依然成立，但个中缘由却可能会让你担忧民主的未来。

John Herrman reports in The New York Times Magazine on publications that essentially live on Facebook, with a mission to provoke as much as to inform.

约翰·赫尔曼(John Herrman)发表在《纽约时报杂志》(The New York Times Magazine)上的报道，介绍了一些本质上以Facebook为生的出版物，在它们的使命里，挑起事端的重要性不亚于告知信息。

People click on headlines in their Facebook feeds like “No Media Is Telling You About the Muslim Who Attacked Donald Trump, So We Will …,” or “Did Hillary Clinton Just Admit on LIVE TV That Her Iraq War Vote Was a Bribe?” From there, they are taken to pages encrusted with sketchy ads.

在自己的Facebook时间线上，人们会点击《媒体不会告诉你有关袭击唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)的穆斯林的真相，因此我们将……》，或是《希拉里·克林顿(Hillary Clinton)刚刚在电视直播中承认了她投票支持伊拉克战争是行贿?》这样的标题。之后，他们会被带去满是劣质广告的页面。

John quotes site operators who make $20,000 a month or more on their sites, often saving on the costs of actually reporting and writing by reposting crazy stuff they find on the internet, then giving it a racy headline.

约翰以一些网站运营商为例。通过把在网上找到的疯狂言论重发一遍，再起个耸动的标题，它们往往能降低实际报道和写稿的成本，以此月入至少2万美元(约合13万元人民币)。

Facebook isn’t getting much revenue directly from this kind of publishing, but its interests converge mightily with these publishers when it comes to sharing.

Facebook并未直接从这种发帖中获取多少收入，但在说到分享时，它和这些发布者的利益非常一致。

Publishers like sharing because it puts a story in front of a lot more people who are likely to click on the story link. After all, one’s friends tend to share one’s political biases. Facebook likes sharing because it builds loyalty to Facebook.

发布者喜欢分享功能是因为它把文章放在了更多可能会点击报道链接的人面前。毕竟，朋友之间政治倾向往往相同。Facebook喜欢分享则是因为它会构建对自己的忠诚。

Sharing, to Facebook, is a way that you build your personal brand, a statement of ego that is likely to keep you on the site longer. That is why Facebook’s computers watch what you do on the site. It wants to know what kind of stories to put in front of you, so you will read and share them.

对Facebook来说，分享是用户构建个人品牌的一种途径，是一份自我声明，很可能会延长你在Facebook上停留的时间。这正是Facebook的电脑会观察你在该网站上的一举一动的原因。它想知道把什么样的故事放在你面前，你就会阅读并分享它们。

On one hand, this is a nice service: You get the kind of news you seem to enjoy reading, which speaks to your worldview. On the other hand, this impedes encountering views unlike yours.

一方面，这是一种贴心的服务：你会看到自己似乎会喜欢看的那一类新闻，它们代表着你的世界观。另一方面，这会妨碍你遇到和自己不一样的观点。

Approaching difference with empathy is at the heart of democracy, so the more our own views are endorsed by algorithms, the worse off democracy is. Look no further than the incomprehension and contempt with which many on both sides view each other in the current election season.

对不同之处报以同理心是民主的本质，因此，算法越是支持我们的观点，民主的境况就越是糟糕。无需往远了说，看看当前这个选举季中双方均有很多人对彼此不理解和藐视就知道了。

Of course, this existed long before Facebook. Talk radio and cable news enabled a range of viewpoints, and the biggest networks run programs that endorse a worldview of the right or the left. Direct marketing isolates us too, with lifestyle promises targeted to the people in our ZIP code.

当然，在Facebook出现之前，这种现象早已存在。谈话广播节目和有线电视新闻让一系列观点得以呈现，最大的广播网播出的节目支持的不是右派的世界观，就是左派的。直接营销也把我们孤立了起来，生活方式上的承诺只针对使用同一个邮政编码的人。

Online life took this to a whole new level, with Google-type ad targeting that is as personal as an individual’s search and shopping choices.

通过谷歌(Google)那种私人化程度直抵个人的搜索和购物选择的广告定位，网络生活把这种现象带向了一个全新的水平。

The latest advances in machine learning and artificial intelligence may compound the problem. These are statistical systems with narrow aims: If it turns out you like something, you’ll get more of it, which you may like and share, ensuring you’ll get more of it.

机器学习和人工智能领域的最新进展可能会加剧这个问题。它们是目标有限的统计学系统：如果事实证明你喜欢某种东西，你就会看到更多这类东西，你可能会喜欢并分享它们，而这又确保你会看到更多这类东西。

Somebody could build a recommendation engine intended to foster a sympathetic view of others’ lives and values. But don’t count on it. That makes people nervous, and less likely to buy products or share links on Facebook.

也许有人会打造一个推荐引擎，用来培养对他人生活和价值观的同情心。但不要指望它。那样会让人感到紧张，并降低购买产品或在Facebook上分享链接的可能性。