Mark Zuckerberg, a journalist was asking him a question about the news feed. And the journalist was asking him, "Why is this so important?" 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.
Mark Cukerberg, novinar mu je postavio pitanje u vezi news feed-a (na facebooku). I novinar ga je pitao, "zašto je ovo tako bitno?" A Cukerberg je odgovorio, "Veverica koja umire na vašem travnjaku može biti relevantnija za vas u ovom trenutku nego ljudi koji umiru u Africi." Želeo bih da govorim o tome kako bi izgledao internet zasnovan na toj ideji o relevantnosti.
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. 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. 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. 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.
Tokom mog odrastanja u stvarno ruralnoj sredini u Mejnu, Internet je meni značio nešto sasvim drugačije. Značio je vezu sa svetom. Predstavljao je nešto što bi nas sve povezalo. I bio sam siguran da će to biti sjajno za demokratiju i za društvo. Ali tu postoji taj preokret u načinu na koji informacija putuje online, koji je nevidljiv. I ako ne obratimo pažnju na njega, može postati realan problem. Prvi put sam ovo primetio na mestu na kom provodim dosta vremena -- moja Facebook stranica. Moja politička shvatanja su progresivna -- kakvo iznenađenje -- ali sam se uvek trudio da upoznam konzervativce. Volim da čujem o čemu razmišljaju; Volim da vidim koje linkove postavljaju; Volim da naučim par stvari. Tako da sam bio iznenađen kad sam jednog dana primetio da su konzervativci nestali iz mog Facebook feeda. A ono što se ispostavilo je da je Facebook pratio koje linkove sam kliknuo, i primećivao je da sam, u stvari, više kliktao na linkove mojih liberalnih prijatelja nego na linkove mojih konzervativnih prijatelja. I bez konsultacije sa mnom, izbacio ih je. Oni su nestali.
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. 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. 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.
Ali Facebook nije jedino mesto koje radi ovo nevidljivo, algoritamsko menjanje Weba. I Google to radi. Kad ja tražim neki pojam, i vi tražite neki pojam, čak i sada, u isto vreme, možemo dobiti različite rezultate pretrage. Čak i ako niste ulogovani, jedan inženjer mi je rekao, postoji 57 signala koje Google prati -- sve od toga na kakvom ste kompjuteru do toga koji pretraživač koristite i toga gde se nalazite -- koje koristi da bi vam lično skrojio rezultate pretrage. Razmislite o tome na momenat: više ne postoji standardni Google. Znate, zanimljivo u vezi toga je da je to vrlo teško primetiti. Vi ne možete videti koliko se vaši rezultati pretrage razlikuju od bilo čijih drugih.
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. 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. 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.
Ali pre par nedelja pitao sam grupu prijatelja da guglaju "Egipat" i da mi pošalju snimak ekrana šta su dobili. Evo snimka ekrana mog prijatelja Skota. A evo snimka ekrana mog prijatelja Danijela. Kad ih stavite jedan pored drugog, ne morate čak ni da čitate linkove da biste videli koliko se razlikuju. Ali kad pročitate linkove, stvarno je vrlo upadljivo. Danijel nije dobio ništa u vezi protesta u Egiptu na svojoj prvoj stranici Google rezultata. Skotovi rezultati su bili puni protesta. A to je bila najvažnija vest dana u tom trenutku. Toliko ti rezultati postaju različiti.
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. 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. 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."
To nisu čak ni samo Google i Facebook. To je nešto što se širi mrežom. Postoji mnoštvo kompanija koje rade ovakvu vrstu personalizacije. Yahoo News, najveći news sajt na Internetu, je sada personalizovan -- različiti ljudi dobijaju različite stvari. Huffington Post, Vašington Post, New York Times -- svi flertuju sa personalizacijom na različite načine. I to nas vrlo brzo vodi ka svetu u kome nam Internet prikazuje stvari koje misli da želimo da vidimo, ali ne nužno i stvari koje bi trebalo da vidimo. Kao što je Erik Šmit rekao, "Biće vrlo teško ljudima da gledaju ili konzumiraju nešto što nije na neki način skrojeno baš za njih."
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. 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. 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.
Tako da stvarno smatram da je to problem. I mislim da, ako skupite sve te filtere, uzmete sve te algoritme, dobijete ono što zovem filter mehurić. Vaš filter mehurić je vaš lični jedinstveni univerzum informacija u kome živite online. A šta se nalazi u vašem filter mehiruću zavisi od toga ko ste, i zavisi od toga čime se bavite. Ali stvar je u tome da vi ne odlučujete šta ulazi unutra. I još važnije, ne možete da vidite šta vam je uklonjeno. Tako da je jedan od problema sa filter mehurićem pronađen od strane nekih istraživača iz Netflixa. Posmatrali su Netflix redoslede, i primetili nešto zanimljivo što su mnogi od nas verovatno primetili, a to je da postoje neki filmovi koji na neki način iskoče pravo u naše domove. Uđu u redosled, i odmah iskoče. Tako "Iron Man" odmah iskoči, a "Waiting for Superman" može da čeka prilično dugo vremena.
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. (Laughter) 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. 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.
Ono što su otkrili je da se u Netflix redosledu dešava epska bitka između našeg budućeg sebe kojem težimo i našeg sadašnjeg, impulsivnijeg sebe. Znate, svi bismo želeli da budemo neko ko je gledao "Rašomona", ali trenutno želimo da gledamo "Ejs Venturu" po četvrti put. (Smeh) Tako da nam najbolje uređivanje daje pomalo od oboje. Daje nam pomalo Džastin Bibera i pomalo Avganistana. Daje nam neke biljke informacija, i daje nam neke dezerte informacija. Nedostatak ove vrste algoritamskih filtera, ovih personalizovanih filtera, je u tome što, pošto pretežno prate na šta prvo klikćete, mogu da poremete tu ravnotežu. Umesto balansirane informacijske dijete, možete završiti okruženi informacijskom lošom hranom.
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. 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. 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. 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.
Ovo u stvari ukazuje na to da smo možda promašili celu priču sa Internetom. U društvu širokopojasnog emitovanja -- ovako glasi osnivačka mitologija -- u društvu širokopojasnog emitovanja, postojali su ti vratari, urednici, koji su kontrolisali protok informacija. I onda se pojavio Internet koji ih je oduvao sa puta, i omogućio svima nama da se međusobno povežemo, što je bilo fenomenalno. Ali to u stvari nije ono što se upravo dešava. Ono što sada posmatramo je više prelazak štafete od ljudskih vratara ka algoritamskim. A stvar je u tome da algoritmi još uvek nemaju ugrađenu etiku koju su imali urednici. Ako će algoritmi da nam budu tutori o svetu, ako će da odlučuju šta možemo a šta ne možemo da vidimo, onda moramo da se pobrinemo da nisu naštimovani samo na relevantnost. Moramo da obezbedimo da nam prikazuju i stvari koje su neprijatne ili teške ili bitne -- to je ono što TED radi -- druge tačke gledišta.
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. 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. 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.
Stvar je u tome da smo već bili na ovom mestu kao društvo. 1915. godine, novine se nisu mnogo brinule o svojoj odgovornosti prema građanima. Onda su ljudi primetili da one rade nešto vrlo značajno. Da, u stvari, ne možete imati funkcionalnu demokratiju ako građani nemaju dobar priliv informacija. Da su novine kritične, jer su funkcionisale kao filter, i onda se razvila novinarska etika. Nije bila savršena, ali nam je poslužila kroz prošli vek. I tako smo danas, u neku ruku ponovo u 1915. na mreži. I potrebni su nam novi vratari da utkaju tu vrstu odgovornosti u kod koji ispisuju.
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. 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. 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.
Znam da ima dosta ljudi ovde iz Facebooka ili Googla -- Lari i Sergej -- ljudi koji su pomogli u izgradnji Weba kakav je danas, i ja sam im zahvalan zbog toga. Ali stvarno želimo da obezbedite da ti algoritmi imaju ugrađen u sebi osećaj javnog života, osećaj građanske odgovornosti. Želimo da obezbedite da su dovoljno transparentni da možemo da vidimo koja su pravila koja određuju šta će proći kroz naše filtere. I želimo da nam date neku kontrolu, da možemo da odlučimo šta će proći a šta neće. Jer smatram da nam je stvarno potrebno da Internet bude to što smo svi sanjali da će biti. Potreban nam je da nas sve poveže. Potreban nam je da nas upozna sa novim idejama i novim ljudima i različitim perspektivama. A to neće uraditi ako nas sve ostavi izolovane u pojedinačnim mrežama.
Thank you.
Hvala Vam.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)