My job at Twitter is to ensure user trust, protect user rights and keep users safe, both from each other and, at times, from themselves. Let's talk about what scale looks like at Twitter. Back in January 2009, we saw more than two million new tweets each day on the platform. January 2014, more than 500 million. We were seeing two million tweets in less than six minutes. That's a 24,900-percent increase.
Moj posao na Tviteru je da obezbedim poverenje korisnika, da zaštitim prava korisnika i da štitim korisnike kako jedne od drugih tako, ponekad i od sebe samih. Pogledajmo koje su razmere Tvitera. U januaru 2009. beležili smo svakodnevno više od dva miliona novih tvitova na platformi. Januara 2014, više od 500 miliona. Beležili smo dva miliona tvitova za manje od šest minuta. To je porast za 24.900 procenata.
Now, the vast majority of activity on Twitter puts no one in harm's way. There's no risk involved. My job is to root out and prevent activity that might. Sounds straightforward, right? You might even think it'd be easy, given that I just said the vast majority of activity on Twitter puts no one in harm's way. Why spend so much time searching for potential calamities in innocuous activities? Given the scale that Twitter is at, a one-in-a-million chance happens 500 times a day. It's the same for other companies dealing at this sort of scale. For us, edge cases, those rare situations that are unlikely to occur, are more like norms. Say 99.999 percent of tweets pose no risk to anyone. There's no threat involved. Maybe people are documenting travel landmarks like Australia's Heart Reef, or tweeting about a concert they're attending, or sharing pictures of cute baby animals. After you take out that 99.999 percent, that tiny percentage of tweets remaining works out to roughly 150,000 per month. The sheer scale of what we're dealing with makes for a challenge.
Ogromna većina aktivnosti na Tviteru ne ugrožava nikoga. Nema nikakvog rizika. Moj posao je da iskorenim i sprečim rizične aktivnosti. Zvuči jednostavno, zar ne? Pomislili biste čak i da je lako, ako, kao što sam rekla, ogromna većina aktivnosti na Tviteru ne ugrožava nikoga. Zašto trošiti toliko vremena tragajući za mogućim nedaćama u bezazlenim aktivnostima? Uzimajući u obzir trenutne razmere Tvitera, prilika "jedna u milion" se dešava 500 puta u toku dana. Isto je i s drugim kompanijama koje posluju u ovom obimu. Za nas su granične situacije, one retke situacije što se skoro nikad ne dešavaju nešto poput zakonitosti. Recimo da 99.999 procenata tvitova ne predstavljaju rizik ni za koga. Nema opasnosti. Možda ljudi dokumentuju znamenitosti s putovanja, poput australijskog grebena Hart, ili tvituju o koncertu na kome su, ili dele slike slatkih mladunčadi. Nakon što eliminišete taj procenat od 99.999, taj sićušni procenat preostalih tvitova ispada, otprilike, 150.000 mesečno. Sama razmera našeg posla predstavlja izazov.
You know what else makes my role particularly challenging? People do weird things. (Laughter) And I have to figure out what they're doing, why, and whether or not there's risk involved, often without much in terms of context or background. I'm going to show you some examples that I've run into during my time at Twitter -- these are all real examples — of situations that at first seemed cut and dried, but the truth of the matter was something altogether different. The details have been changed to protect the innocent and sometimes the guilty. We'll start off easy.
Znate šta još čini moj posao naročito izazovnim? Ljudi rade čudne stvari. (Smeh) A ja moram da prozrem šta to oni rade, zašto i ima li ili nema rizika, često bez ikakvog uvida u kontekst ili okolnosti. Pokazaću vam neke primere na koje sam naišla radeći u Tviteru - ovo su sve stvarni primeri - situacija koje su se u početku činile jasnim poput dana ali istina je u suštini bila potpuno drugačija. Detalji su izmenjeni kako bi se zaštitili nevini, a ponekad i krivci. Počećemo s lakim.
["Yo bitch"]
["'De si kučko"]
If you saw a Tweet that only said this, you might think to yourself, "That looks like abuse." After all, why would you want to receive the message, "Yo, bitch." Now, I try to stay relatively hip to the latest trends and memes, so I knew that "yo, bitch" was also often a common greeting between friends, as well as being a popular "Breaking Bad" reference. I will admit that I did not expect to encounter a fourth use case. It turns out it is also used on Twitter when people are role-playing as dogs. (Laughter) And in fact, in that case, it's not only not abusive, it's technically just an accurate greeting. (Laughter)
Kad ugledate tvit koji saopštava samo ovo možete da pomislite: "Ovo izgleda uvredljivo." Konačno, zašto biste želeli da primite poruku: " 'De si, kučko." Trudim se da budem u toku sa poslednjim trendovima i mimovima, pa sam znala da je " 'De si, kučko" takođe čest pozdrav među prijateljima, ali i popularna replika iz serije "Breaking Bad". Priznaću da nisam očekivala da ću se susresti sa četvrtom mogućnošću upotrebe. Ispostavilo se da se izraz takođe koristi na Tviteru kada se ljudi pretvaraju da su psi. (Smeh) I zapravo, u tom slučaju, ne samo da nije uvredljivo već je tehnički ispravan pozdrav. (Smeh)
So okay, determining whether or not something is abusive without context, definitely hard.
U redu, odrediti da li je ili nije nešto uvredljivo bez konteksta definitivno je teško.
Let's look at spam. Here's an example of an account engaged in classic spammer behavior, sending the exact same message to thousands of people. While this is a mockup I put together using my account, we see accounts doing this all the time. Seems pretty straightforward. We should just automatically suspend accounts engaging in this kind of behavior. Turns out there's some exceptions to that rule. Turns out that that message could also be a notification you signed up for that the International Space Station is passing overhead because you wanted to go outside and see if you could see it. You're not going to get that chance if we mistakenly suspend the account thinking it's spam.
Pogledajmo spam. Ovo je primer naloga koji se ponaša poput klasičnog spamera, šalje identičnu poruku hiljadama ljudi. Dok je ovo model koji sam napravila koristeći svoj nalog, viđamo naloge koji ovo konstantno rade. Čini se prilično očiglednim. Trebalo bi da odmah suspendujemo naloge koji se ponašaju na ovaj način. Ispostavilo se da postoje izuzeci ovom pravilu. Ispada da ova poruka može, takođe, da bude podsetnik za prolazak Internacionalne kosmičke stanice iznad vas, koji ste zahtevali jer ste želeli da izađete napolje i proverite da li je možete videti. Nećete imati priliku za to ako greškom suspendujemo taj nalog misleći da je spam.
Okay. Let's make the stakes higher. Back to my account, again exhibiting classic behavior. This time it's sending the same message and link. This is often indicative of something called phishing, somebody trying to steal another person's account information by directing them to another website. That's pretty clearly not a good thing. We want to, and do, suspend accounts engaging in that kind of behavior. So why are the stakes higher for this? Well, this could also be a bystander at a rally who managed to record a video of a police officer beating a non-violent protester who's trying to let the world know what's happening. We don't want to gamble on potentially silencing that crucial speech by classifying it as spam and suspending it. That means we evaluate hundreds of parameters when looking at account behaviors, and even then, we can still get it wrong and have to reevaluate.
Okej. Podignimo uloge. Nazad na moj nalog, ponovo imamo klasični vid ponašanja. Ovog puta korisnik šalje istu poruku i link. Ovo je često indikator takozvanog "pecanja" (phishing), neko pokušava da ukrade informacije s nečijeg naloga tako što ga usmerava na drugi vebsajt. Prilično je jasno da to nije dobro. Mi želimo, i hoćemo da suspendujemo naloge koji se ponašaju na ovaj način. Zašto je onda ulog veći u ovom slučaju? Jer bi ovo mogao da bude i posmatrač na mitingu koji je uspeo da napravi snimak u kome policijski zvaničnik tuče nenasilnog protestanta i sada pokušava da objavi svetu šta se dešava. Ne želimo da se kockamo s mogućnošću gušenja tog ključnog govora tako što ćemo ga odrediti kao spam i suspendovati. Ovo znači da moramo da procenimo na stotine parametara kada posmatramo ponašanje naloga, a čak i tada možemo da pogrešimo i moramo sve da prevrednujemo.
Now, given the sorts of challenges I'm up against, it's crucial that I not only predict but also design protections for the unexpected. And that's not just an issue for me, or for Twitter, it's an issue for you. It's an issue for anybody who's building or creating something that you think is going to be amazing and will let people do awesome things. So what do I do? I pause and I think, how could all of this go horribly wrong? I visualize catastrophe. And that's hard. There's a sort of inherent cognitive dissonance in doing that, like when you're writing your wedding vows at the same time as your prenuptial agreement. (Laughter) But you still have to do it, particularly if you're marrying 500 million tweets per day. What do I mean by "visualize catastrophe?" I try to think of how something as benign and innocuous as a picture of a cat could lead to death, and what to do to prevent that. Which happens to be my next example. This is my cat, Eli. We wanted to give users the ability to add photos to their tweets. A picture is worth a thousand words. You only get 140 characters. You add a photo to your tweet, look at how much more content you've got now. There's all sorts of great things you can do by adding a photo to a tweet. My job isn't to think of those. It's to think of what could go wrong.
Uzimajući u obzir izazove s kojima se suočavam, od presudne je važnosti da pored predviđanja takođe dizajniram i zaštitu od neočekivanog. A to nije od presudne važnosti samo za mene, ili za Tviter, to je važno i za vas. To je od značaja za svakoga ko gradi ili stvara nešto što smatra da će da bude izuzetno i pomoću čega će ljudi činiti izuzetne svari. Dakle, šta ja radim? Zaustavim se i mislim, kako bi sve ovo moglo poći po zlu? Zamišljam katastrofu. A to je teško. Postoji nekakav urođeni kognitivni nesklad u tom činu, kao kad pišete bračne zavete istovremeno sa predbračnim ugovorom. (Smeh) No ipak to morate učiniti, naročito ako se venčavate sa 500 miliona tvitova dnevno. Šta podrazumevam pod "zamišljanjem katastrofe"? Pokušavam da zamislim kako nešto bezazleno poput slike mačke može da dovede do smrti i kako to da sprečim. To bi bio moj sledeći primer. Ovo je moja mačka, Ilaj. Želeli smo da damo mogućnost korisnicima da dodaju slike svojim tvitovima. Slika vredi hiljadu reči. Imate samo 140 karaktera. Dodate sliku uz tvit, i gle koliko dodatnog sadržaja sad imate. Postoji mnogo izuzetnih stvari koje možete postići dodavanjem slike tvitu. Moj posao nije da mislim o tome, već da mislim šta bi moglo da krene naopako.
How could this picture lead to my death? Well, here's one possibility. There's more in that picture than just a cat. There's geodata. When you take a picture with your smartphone or digital camera, there's a lot of additional information saved along in that image. In fact, this image also contains the equivalent of this, more specifically, this. Sure, it's not likely that someone's going to try to track me down and do me harm based upon image data associated with a picture I took of my cat, but I start by assuming the worst will happen. That's why, when we launched photos on Twitter, we made the decision to strip that geodata out. (Applause) If I start by assuming the worst and work backwards, I can make sure that the protections we build work for both expected and unexpected use cases.
Kako ova slika može da uzrokuje moju smrt? Pa, evo jedne od mogućnosti. Nije samo mačka na ovoj slici. Tu su i geopodaci. Kada fotografišete svojim telefonom ili digitalnim aparatom, mnogo je dodatnih informacija sačuvano sa slikom. Zapravo, ova slika takođe sadrži ekvivalent ovoga, preciznije ovoga. Naravno, teško da će neko pokušati da me nađe i povredi na osnovu podataka uzetih uz pomoć slike moje mačke, ali ja polazim od pretpostavke da će se najgore desiti. Zato, kada smo pokrenuli opciju dodavanja slika, odlučili smo da uklonimo geopodatke. (Aplauz) Ukoliko počnem s pretpostavkom o najgorem ishodu i radim unazad, mogu da budem sigurna da će izgrađena zaštita funkcionisati, kako u predviđenim, tako i u nepredviđenim slučajevima.
Given that I spend my days and nights imagining the worst that could happen, it wouldn't be surprising if my worldview was gloomy. (Laughter) It's not. The vast majority of interactions I see -- and I see a lot, believe me -- are positive, people reaching out to help or to connect or share information with each other. It's just that for those of us dealing with scale, for those of us tasked with keeping people safe, we have to assume the worst will happen, because for us, a one-in-a-million chance is pretty good odds.
S obzirom na to da provodim dane i noći zamišljajući najgore ishode ne bi bilo iznenađujuće ako bi moj pogled na svet bio mračan. (Smeh) Nije. Ogromna većina interakcije koju vidim - a vidim je mnogo, verujte mi - je pozitivna. Ljudi se javljaju da pomognu ili da se povežu ili da podele informacije jedni s drugima. Samo mi, koji se bavimo ovolikim ciframa, samo mi, čiji je zadatak da ljude činimo bezbednim, mi moramo da pretpostavljamo najgore, jer je za nas šansa "jedna u milion" poprilična izvesnost.
Thank you.
Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)