CJR精選：臉書國堀起

當巴黎遭受恐怖攻擊後，臉書（Facebook）的平安通報站（Safety Check）功能發揮了效用，這在社交網絡造成了一場爭論：為什麼是因為巴黎才開始，而不是在更早的貝魯特（Beirut，黎巴嫩首都）爆炸攻擊呢？而這讓人注意到，在過去，讓恐怖攻擊下的受害者與摯親聯繫其實是政府的工作，甚至公共衛生或是當地政府工作的職責。但現在呢？

Both the US State Department and authorities in Paris issued numbers for citizens to call for assistance. Paris actually had three: One that rang at the Paris Prefecture of Police, and two separate numbers for relatives of victims abroad and within France. But these hotlines did not come close to the speed and efficiency of Facebook’s Safety Check.

美國政府及巴黎當局都曾提供一些管道讓民眾可以請求協助。在巴黎，一是巴黎警察局的專線，另外兩條專線則專門提供給受害者在國外及法國境內的家屬撥打。但這些專線的速度及效率，都無法與臉書的平安通報站相比。

It wasn’t the first time that Facebook has assumed a kind of official authority. Earlier this year, the social network launched Amber Alerts, a collaboration with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to send targeted messages to the newsfeeds of users in areas where a child has gone missing. “Facebook … in essence in this situation, is the world’s largest neighborhood watch,” Emily Vacher, Facebook’s Security, Trust and Safety manager told ABC News. The use of Safety Check in Paris was only the latest example of Facebook’s ascendance, and a sign that, as the social network continues to take on new roles and responsibilities, it is becoming something of a sovereign state.

臉書取代政府職責已不是新聞了。今年初，臉書和「國家失蹤及被剝削兒童中心」（National Center for Missing and Exploited Children）就曾啟動安珀警報（Amber Alerts），當有孩兒童失蹤時，會透過各種管道向當地的群眾發出告知。「臉書在這種狀況下，是世界最大的守護者」，臉書的安全部門經理Emily Vache對美國廣播公司（ABC）表示。平安通報站在巴黎的起的效用，象徵著社群網絡所扮演的新角色及責任，臉書也因此愈來愈像個「主權國家」。

Over the past few weeks, while helping to organize a conference at Columbia Journalism School about the relationship between journalism and Silicon Valley, I kept wondering about Facebook’s intentions. Is the social network trying to usurp power from traditional publishers? Does it have a longterm strategy to take over the internet, as critics of internet.org have suggested? Or have platforms become publishers in part because they are simply better than news organizations at certain tasks: Disseminating journalism, presenting information clearly and attractively online, and having global reach?

過去幾個星期，我幫忙籌備一個在哥倫比亞新聞學院舉辦的，有關新聞業與矽谷關係的會議時，我不斷地思索著臉書的意圖：這個社交網絡是想要取代傳統新聞出版業新聞出版業的地位嗎？它是否有長期的策略要接管整個網路空間，是否如同 internet.org所說的那樣？它或許會有一部分平台變成新聞出版業，因為它在某些情況下是比新聞媒體更有效率的：傳遞新聞、呈現資訊清楚及有吸引力，以及更能與世界接軌？

The conference, hosted by Columbia’s Tow Center, ultimately seemed less about Silicon Valley and more about the rise of Facebook.  Journalists continue to debate the responsibilities that platforms should have as they become publishers of content. And yet, as its role in the Paris crisis shows, Facebook is already much more than a publisher. Will the argument that Facebook can do it better soon apply to public health, security, counterterrorism, and who knows what else?

在哥倫比亞大學的數位新聞中心（Tow Center）所舉辦的會議中，關注的焦點不在矽谷，反而是在談臉書的崛起。新聞記者持續不斷的爭論，平台身為內容提供者該負起的責任，尤其是巴黎恐攻後，臉書已證明它不僅只是個平台了。接下來我們關心的是：臉書能否將這些功能，應用在公共衛生、維護人身安全或反恐等其他的方面呢？

At the Tow conference, Michael Reckhow, a softspoken 2006 Harvard graduate who is product manager of Facebook’s Instant Articles, cited Facebook’s broad reach and its ability to mediate the process of entering new markets—particularly in India—as incentives for publishers to work with his team. Publishers are customers, he said, and Facebook is developing products for them to use.

在這場會議上，臉書新聞推播（Instant Articles）的產品經理、2006年才自哈佛畢業的Michael Reckhow，向我們說明了臉書的全球普遍性，以及如何利用臉書來打入新興市場（特別是在印度），並使新聞出版業進而與臉書合作過程。Reckhow認為，新聞出版業就像顧客一樣，而且臉書正在研發適合新聞出版業使用的功能。

More than once, he deflected tough questions about how Facebook is vetting content and affecting revenue for publishers with personal stories that sought to convey his love for journalism. For instance, when asked about the potential consequences of Instant Articles for digital news subscriptions, he explained that he is a New York Times subscriber, but failed to address larger questions about how the Facebook service could affect subscriptions as a media business model.

不只一次，Reckhow藉由表達他對新聞業的熱愛，來避談有關臉書審查出版內容，及如何影響新聞出版業收益等棘手問題。例如，當他被問到臉書新聞推播功能，對於數位新聞訂閱的潛在影響時，他僅解釋自己也是紐約時報（New York Times）的訂閱者，但他並沒有回答真正的問題：臉書的新聞推播對於新聞訂閱這套商業模式，可能造成的影響為何？

Throughout the conference, Reckhow, dressed in blue jeans and a khaki button down shirt that emphasized his role as an ambassador from the world of youthful startups, was surrounded by a crowd of journalists. Courting the press without revealing much about the company’s editorial standards is one example of Facebook’s careful PR strategy. The statement released over the weekend about the deployment of Safety Check was another.

會議上，被記者們包圍的Reckhow，穿著藍色牛仔褲及卡其色襯衫，顯現出他所代表的就是世界上的年青世代。討好媒體，但沒有透露太多關於公司的編輯準則，這是一個例子，說明臉書謹慎的公關策略。在上周末發表有關平安通報站的聲明，則是另外一個例子。   

Some editors and producers at the conference seemed genuinely enthralled with Facebook. “I think it’s mutual admiration,” said Raney Aronson, executive producer of Frontline, explaining that many of the people she had met at the company were former journalists. (In collaboration with Frontline, Facebook debuted a 360-degree video streaming capability during the conference.)

會議上的一些編輯和製作人似乎被這樣的臉書給吸引住。「我認為這是互蒙其利的」—Raney Aronson，這位前線節目（Frontline）的資深製作人，表示她公司很多同事是當過記者的（臉書在會議上跟前線一同推出360度旋轉影片的串流功能）。

On the one hand, Facebook seems to be doing all the right things—enabling public media, working collaboratively with publishers, hiring former journalists to help with editorial decisions. But what happens to journalism—particularly the work of independent journalists— when Facebook eclipses the open Web?

就某方面來說，臉書所做的似乎都是對的，包括經營公共媒體、與新聞出版業合作，雇用有記者背景的人來執行編輯決策。但是這對新聞業有什麼影響？尤其是對獨立記者來說—一個本是開放但已逐漸被臉書侵蝕的網路空間。

Will the core ethic of democracy sustain the social network, or will its appeal to majorities be the very thing that threatens journalism? What happens to minority voices in this situation?

民主的倫理核心將會支持社交網絡？或是大多數群眾對它的需求大到足以威脅新聞業？民主社會中少數群眾的聲音又會是如何呈現呢？

“Every year or so, I end up in the midst of many public and private rants about Facebook (and even Instagram) banning of perfectly legal Kurdish content?—?the mayor of Diyarbakir couldn’t keep a Facebook page for a while (city of millions),” Zeynep Tufekci, a sociologist at UNC-Chapel Hill and New York Times columnist wrote in a post on Medium. “For the most part, Facebook is doing better now on this issue, but it took a lot of ranting from a lot of people.”

 
「大約每年，我都會在民眾及私人企業之中，針對臉書和Instagram禁止刊登合法庫德語內容的謾罵中度過，即便是迪亞巴克爾（Diyarbakir，土耳其東南部最大的城市）的市長，也無法片刻保留臉書頁面」，北卡羅來納大學教堂山分校（UNC-Chapel Hill）社會學家Zeynep Tufekci，同時也是紐約時報（New York Times）的專欄作家，在一篇貼文中寫道，「整體來說，臉書在這個議題處理上已經越來越好了，但是它同時還是遭到很多人的謾罵。」

Will Facebook deploy the safety check in Yemen and Pakistan? What about after US drone strikes? What happens when journalism critical of American military operations is deemed extremist or violent and removed from people’s newsfeeds? Will Facebook serve all global citizens equally? And more importantly, who’s making these decisions?

臉書也會在葉門或是巴基斯坦推出平安通報站嗎？尤其是在無人機攻擊事件後？當有關美國軍事行動的新聞評論，被認為是極端主義或暴力時，並刪除人們所提供的新聞時，會發生什麼事？臉書對待全球民眾是公平的嗎？更重要的是，是誰做出這些決定的？

Last week, Facebook released its Global Governance Requests Report, which showed that it had received requests for its data or pleas to restrict content from 92 countries between January and June 2015. The United States led the pack in data requests, with 17,577. Facebook also restricted 15,155 pieces of content in India and 4,496 pieces in Turkey at the request of those governments.

上個星期，臉書公布的「全球政府資料索取要求報告」（Global Governance Requests Report）顯示，2015年的1月至6月間，共有92個國家要求索取臉書資料及限制臉書的內容，美國佔首位，共索取了17,577筆資料。臉書在印度則限制了15,155筆內容、土耳其也有4,496筆—這都是應兩國政府的要求而執行的。

I don’t think it’s accurate to say that Facebook is a operating at the level of a state, at least not yet. But that may not be far off.

「臉書的運作達到國家的程度」這種說法，我認為不正確，至少現在還不是，但或許也不遠了。

“This is a great time to be talking to them because the [platforms] are still young,” Tufekci said at the conference. “Facebook is like the Supreme Court—you can always appeal. In 20 years, I don’t think we will have any influence.”

「這是個很好的對話時機，因為這個平台才剛起步」，Tufekci在會議上說道。「臉書就像最高法院一樣，你可以一直上訴。20年內，我不覺的我們會受到任何的影響。」