#FakeNews : Internet est-il devenu l'ennemi de la démocratie ? | Romain Badouard | TEDxCannes

00:15:57
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77OLw8vOFGg

Resumen

TLDR这段演讲详细分析了假信息和谣言在社交媒体上传播的现状，并探讨了社交媒体与传统媒体之间的竞争关系。演讲者提出，社交媒体如Facebook的信息算法使得信息呈现趋向于用户的个人偏好，导致意识形态封闭，妨碍了公众获得多元化的信息。他指出，假新闻现象不仅是经济问题，还反映了社会对精英的不信任和某些人的社会排斥感。为应对假新闻，演讲者提出了通过事实核查、提升公众的信息素养以及强化反对声音等措施，以在社会中建立一个更加包容与理性的公共讨论空间。

Para llevar

  • 📊 信息泡沫：社交媒体导致意识形态封闭。
  • 💬 辩论空间：需要建立尊重多元价值的公共辩论。
  • 🔍 事实核查：应当对信息的生产方法进行评估。
  • 📚 信息素养：培养公众的信息评估能力至关重要。
  • 🚫 反对声音：我们不能让极端声音占据社交网络。
  • 📰 媒体责任：传统媒体应公平对待信息生产者。
  • 🔗 社会责任：每个人在信息战争中都应发挥作用。
  • 🧠 价值观比较：不同价值观可以进行比较，但信息的真伪需被区分。
  • 🌐 经济动机：假新闻的传播也与经济利益相关。
  • 🤝 共同参与：大家都要参与到反对假新闻的行动中。

Cronología

  • 00:00:00 - 00:05:00

    在此演讲中，讲者探讨了社交网络上虚假信息的传播现象，特别是其对社会的潜在影响。尽管这些谣言的根源并非新生事物，但它们在现代社交媒体中的扩散速度及其对用户信息获取方式的改变，导致了一个新的社会问题，即人们可能只接触到确认自身观点的信息，而忽视了反对声音，这被称为意识形态封闭。

  • 00:05:00 - 00:10:00

    讲者进一步分析了社交媒体平台（如Facebook）如何基于用户的互动来推送信息，从而形成信息的“亲密性”。这种机制促使用户只接触到志同道合者的内容，妨碍了有效的公共辩论，导致公众意见的单一化和极化。

  • 00:10:00 - 00:15:57

    最后，讲者提出了解决这一信息战争的方法，呼吁公众在面对虚假信息时，不应当选择审查或忽视，而是要积极参与辩论。媒体应关注信息的生产方法，教育公众如何辨别信息真伪，并支持提供对立声音的平台，以确保多元化观点的共存。

Mapa mental

Vídeo de preguntas y respuestas

  • 是什么导致社交媒体上的假新闻传播？

    社交媒体算法倾向于提供用户偏好内容，导致信息泡沫和意识形态封闭。

  • 假新闻对社会有什么影响？

    假新闻增加了公众对政治和智力精英的不信任，并反映出部分人的社会排斥感。

  • 如何处理假新闻？

    通过事实核查、培养信息评估能力和积极展示反对意见来应对假新闻。

  • 我们如何在社交媒体上形成多元的观点？

    通过鼓励不同观点的交流，并建立共通的辩论空间来实现。

  • 社交网络上的信息应该如何被评估？

    应根据信息生产者遵循的方法来评估信息的质量。

Ver más resúmenes de vídeos

Obtén acceso instantáneo a resúmenes gratuitos de vídeos de YouTube gracias a la IA.
Subtítulos
en
Desplazamiento automático:
  • 00:00:00
    Translator: Elisabeth Buffard Reviewer: Maricene Crus
  • 00:00:14
    I can imagine that in this room,
  • 00:00:16
    most of you have a Facebook or Twitter account.
  • 00:00:21
    If that's the case, these past few weeks,
  • 00:00:24
    you may have seen this image:
  • 00:00:27
    a firefighter who was assaulted during an intervention
  • 00:00:30
    and lost one eye.
  • 00:00:32
    If you haven't, perhaps you have seen this other image:
  • 00:00:37
    the image of a priest also assaulted at the beginning of the year in Avignon.
  • 00:00:42
    Or maybe you've heard about the 40,000 migrants
  • 00:00:45
    who sleep every night at the hotel at the expense of French taxpayers,
  • 00:00:49
    or maybe you have heard
  • 00:00:51
    about Saudi Arabia's campaign funding for certain candidates
  • 00:00:55
    or the newly granted voting right
  • 00:00:59
    to all French prisoners.
  • 00:01:01
    These news items seem totally unrelated.
  • 00:01:06
    And yet, they share two common points:
  • 00:01:10
    the first is that they are all false;
  • 00:01:13
    the second is that they've all been shared
  • 00:01:15
    tens or even hundreds of thousands of times
  • 00:01:18
    on social networks in the past two months.
  • 00:01:23
    The spreading of rumors,
  • 00:01:24
    false information, fake news,
  • 00:01:26
    conspiracy theories on social networks,
  • 00:01:29
    has grown to such an extent in recent years
  • 00:01:32
    that it has become a real social problem.
  • 00:01:35
    The media have talked a lot about it,
  • 00:01:36
    notably during the UK Brexit referendum campaign
  • 00:01:41
    or the US election campaign last fall,
  • 00:01:46
    and more recently in the context of the French election campaign.
  • 00:01:50
    Yet rumors are not really a new phenomenon.
  • 00:01:55
    They are even regarded as the oldest media in the world.
  • 00:01:58
    You, like me, when we were at school,
  • 00:02:02
    I am sure that we all participated
  • 00:02:04
    in spreading dozens of rumors or urban legends.
  • 00:02:10
    Where is the problem then?
  • 00:02:13
    The problem is that these rumors, this false information,
  • 00:02:17
    have become direct competitors
  • 00:02:19
    of the information produced by traditional media.
  • 00:02:24
    Social networks have taken a very important place
  • 00:02:27
    in the media landscape in recent years,
  • 00:02:30
    to the point of becoming one of the main sources of online information,
  • 00:02:34
    and even becoming the main source of information
  • 00:02:37
    for the youngest of us,
  • 00:02:39
    even surpassing search engines.
  • 00:02:42
    So this evolution at first seems innocuous, but it isn't.
  • 00:02:47
    When using a search engine,
  • 00:02:50
    to find information,
  • 00:02:53
    the information comes to you according to a logic of popularity.
  • 00:02:57
    When you make a query on Google,
  • 00:02:59
    Google will isolate sites that address the topic
  • 00:03:03
    you want to be informed about,
  • 00:03:05
    and its algorithm, PageRank, will look at how the sites are connected.
  • 00:03:11
    It will bring you as the first result
  • 00:03:13
    the site that received the most links from other sites.
  • 00:03:20
    Google actually considers that when you, as an Internet user,
  • 00:03:23
    propose a link from one site to another,
  • 00:03:25
    in a way, you vote for it.
  • 00:03:28
    So Google thinks, "The most important information
  • 00:03:32
    is the one the Internet community considered to be the most relevant."
  • 00:03:38
    On Facebook, the logic is very different:
  • 00:03:41
    it is not a principle of popularity that prevails but one of proximity.
  • 00:03:47
    The most visible information in your Facebook news feed
  • 00:03:52
    is that of your closest friends.
  • 00:03:57
    How does Facebook go about evaluating this proximity?
  • 00:04:01
    Quite simply depending on the intensity of your interactions.
  • 00:04:05
    The more you like, the more you comment,
  • 00:04:08
    the more you share the information posted by one of your contacts
  • 00:04:13
    and the more the edge rank, the Facebook algorithm
  • 00:04:16
    considers that this person is important to you,
  • 00:04:20
    thus that the information they publish must be brought to your attention.
  • 00:04:24
    Again, you will tell me, after all,
  • 00:04:26
    being informed first of the people you are closest to
  • 00:04:29
    rather than those from whom we are most distant, what is the problem?
  • 00:04:34
    The problem is that when Facebook
  • 00:04:37
    becomes our first source of political information,
  • 00:04:40
    the machine seizes up a little.
  • 00:04:43
    You, me, we all have in our Facebook contacts
  • 00:04:48
    people whose beliefs or interests we do not share.
  • 00:04:52
    We all have this somewhat racist old uncle who posts on the network
  • 00:04:56
    the same kind of jokes that wreck family meals,
  • 00:04:59
    or that childhood friend who suddenly discovers they have a political fiber
  • 00:05:04
    and begins to flood the network with information
  • 00:05:08
    from an obscure micro-party.
  • 00:05:12
    I don't know about you, but anyway, I have that kind of friends,
  • 00:05:15
    but when these friends post this type of information,
  • 00:05:19
    I do not like their posts, I do not comment them,
  • 00:05:22
    I do not share them.
  • 00:05:24
    Facebook interprets this lack of interaction
  • 00:05:28
    like this: it thinks that in fact, this person is not important to me
  • 00:05:32
    and that what they say does not matter to me.
  • 00:05:35
    The weeks pass, as and when,
  • 00:05:37
    what these people post will begin to disappear
  • 00:05:40
    from my news feed, to the point of disappearing totally.
  • 00:05:45
    And you see what the problem is:
  • 00:05:49
    the problem is that if we use nothing but Facebook to get informed,
  • 00:05:53
    in the long term, we will be confronted,
  • 00:05:56
    only to information which confirms our opinions.
  • 00:06:00
    This is called
  • 00:06:01
    ideological confinement, ideological bubbles on social networks,
  • 00:06:06
    the idea that when you get your information on social networks,
  • 00:06:09
    you only see information that reinforce our opinions
  • 00:06:12
    while for public debate to function properly in a democracy,
  • 00:06:17
    it is necessary to be confronted to contradictory arguments.
  • 00:06:24
    Yet, ideological bubbles weren't invented by Facebook, far from it.
  • 00:06:30
    In our everyday lives,
  • 00:06:31
    we all live in more or less hermetic ideological bubbles.
  • 00:06:36
    It's a safe bet that your vote is fairly close to your spouse's,
  • 00:06:43
    or you share a number of beliefs with your close friends,
  • 00:06:47
    in the same way, the news media you consume
  • 00:06:53
    say a lot about your political orientations.
  • 00:06:57
    What is the problem then?
  • 00:06:59
    The problem is that with Facebook,
  • 00:07:02
    ideological confinement, ideological bubbles
  • 00:07:04
    have become a real business.
  • 00:07:07
    Why?
  • 00:07:08
    First, because of Facebook's economic model:
  • 00:07:12
    how does Facebook make money?
  • 00:07:14
    Facebook makes money by exposing you, the users,
  • 00:07:18
    to advertising.
  • 00:07:19
    In another era,
  • 00:07:21
    we'd have said that Facebook sells available brain time to advertisers.
  • 00:07:25
    We do not say that anymore.
  • 00:07:27
    Yet the principle is exactly the same.
  • 00:07:29
    The more time you spend on the platform, the more Facebook makes money.
  • 00:07:32
    And how does Facebook make you spend time on the platform?
  • 00:07:36
    Simply by offering you the contents you like,
  • 00:07:39
    which is the one you loved yesterday,
  • 00:07:42
    from your closest contacts,
  • 00:07:44
    whose beliefs and interests you share.
  • 00:07:50
    But this goes even further:
  • 00:07:53
    with Facebook, the production of rumors has entered a new era.
  • 00:07:58
    It has entered a click economy
  • 00:08:00
    which generated a real industrialization of the production of rumors.
  • 00:08:05
    You may have heard about this case,
  • 00:08:08
    during the US election campaign:
  • 00:08:12
    some journalists at Buzzfeed realized
  • 00:08:16
    that a large number of pro Trump fake news
  • 00:08:21
    emanated from sites hosted in Eastern Europe,
  • 00:08:26
    particularly in Macedonia.
  • 00:08:28
    They wondered why hundreds of sites in Macedonia
  • 00:08:32
    started to produce information, fake news, pro Trump, anti Clinton.
  • 00:08:38
    Intuitively, they thought that the candidate's campaign team
  • 00:08:42
    had paid networks in Eastern Europe to produce that false news.
  • 00:08:46
    They traveled to the area and the reality was quite different.
  • 00:08:51
    They actually found out teenagers,
  • 00:08:53
    15, 16 or 17 years of age,
  • 00:08:56
    unrelated to the Republican candidate's campaign team.
  • 00:09:02
    Not only did they have no connection
  • 00:09:05
    to the Republican candidate's campaign team,
  • 00:09:08
    but their motivation was absolutely not political.
  • 00:09:10
    It was much more pragmatic: they wanted to make money.
  • 00:09:14
    These Macedonian teenagers realized that pro Trump information
  • 00:09:19
    was the most shared information on Facebook.
  • 00:09:23
    They thought, maybe we could get some of their income
  • 00:09:28
    by inventing false news about Trump,
  • 00:09:30
    by posting it on Facebook, bringing US Internet users to our sites
  • 00:09:33
    to expose them to advertising and make money.
  • 00:09:39
    Their bet was a successful one since for those who managed best among them,
  • 00:09:44
    in any case those who were the most productive,
  • 00:09:46
    they could generate an income of $ 5,000 per month
  • 00:09:50
    while the average monthly income in Macedonia is less than 400 euros.
  • 00:09:55
    So you can see that the problem of false news on the internet
  • 00:09:59
    is also an economic problem.
  • 00:10:01
    But it is not just an economic problem
  • 00:10:04
    because, after all, to generate so much income
  • 00:10:07
    there has to be people who share this piece of information.
  • 00:10:10
    And there are many such people.
  • 00:10:12
    The real question to ask is why people share false information,
  • 00:10:17
    why do people share rumors?
  • 00:10:21
    You will say, maybe the Internet makes us stupid, gullible
  • 00:10:25
    to the point of sharing anything.
  • 00:10:30
    The reality is a little more complex.
  • 00:10:34
    Psychology studies looking at rumors
  • 00:10:36
    have shown that people who share rumors
  • 00:10:40
    may in fact keep a critical distance from their contents.
  • 00:10:44
    It's not so much that people believe it;
  • 00:10:47
    it is rather that they adhere to the world view that is conveyed by this rumor.
  • 00:10:53
    And what do rumors tell us today, the one I told you about earlier?
  • 00:10:58
    They tell us about the betrayal of elected representatives,
  • 00:11:01
    they tell us about the confiscation of speech by the mass media,
  • 00:11:04
    they tell us of a certain number of anxieties linked to globalization;
  • 00:11:08
    we can see what's behind fake news,
  • 00:11:11
    it is a much deeper problem,
  • 00:11:13
    which is a sense of exclusion
  • 00:11:15
    felt by an increasing share of society,
  • 00:11:18
    exclusion from the common space, the public space, the media space.
  • 00:11:22
    And this sense of exclusion
  • 00:11:24
    is reflected in a growing distrust
  • 00:11:28
    of the political and intellectual elites in our country.
  • 00:11:36
    What the Internet has done since the early 2000s
  • 00:11:39
    is precisely to allow those people excluded from the media space
  • 00:11:43
    to make their voices heard,
  • 00:11:45
    to be able to disseminate their arguments in the public debate.
  • 00:11:49
    So, of course, this irruption does not always occur very politely,
  • 00:11:55
    or very courteously, it is not very pleasant.
  • 00:11:58
    But at least it has the merit of forcing us to face reality.
  • 00:12:03
    And the reality is that today we live in a very pluralistic society.
  • 00:12:09
    And I'm not talking about pluralism of opinions,
  • 00:12:12
    I am talking about a pluralism of values,
  • 00:12:15
    a pluralism of ways of seeing, ways of conceiving life in society.
  • 00:12:21
    So the challenge for the coming years will be to succeed in building
  • 00:12:25
    spaces of common debate that respect this pluralism,
  • 00:12:30
    that is to say respecting the principle of absolute and unconditional equality
  • 00:12:36
    of all citizens to speak and make their voices heard,
  • 00:12:40
    but at the same time, spaces of debate allowing
  • 00:12:44
    people who share completely different values and ways of seeing the world
  • 00:12:48
    to join the discussion.
  • 00:12:50
    So how do we do it?
  • 00:12:53
    Maybe, in the end, we each have our truth.
  • 00:12:59
    Maybe we cannot compare values.
  • 00:13:03
    On the other hand,
  • 00:13:05
    the criteria from which we distinguish true from false,
  • 00:13:10
    fair from unfair, desirable from undesirable,
  • 00:13:15
    can be compared.
  • 00:13:17
    As for the fake news,
  • 00:13:18
    a number of journalists have understood it,
  • 00:13:22
    who have embarked on fact-checking initiatives.
  • 00:13:25
    Their logic is to say:
  • 00:13:26
    we will check the rumors on social networks,
  • 00:13:29
    but we will not judge the information according to what they say,
  • 00:13:35
    we will judge it according to the method
  • 00:13:38
    by which they were produced.
  • 00:13:42
    Do they respect the basic principles of journalism?
  • 00:13:46
    Crossing their sources, argumenting from evidence,
  • 00:13:52
    separating the facts from the comments.
  • 00:13:56
    So for the media, the posture is a bit tricky
  • 00:14:00
    to be both judge and party,
  • 00:14:02
    judging competitors in this information market.
  • 00:14:06
    But this posture is to say,
  • 00:14:08
    "We can compare the producers of information
  • 00:14:11
    depending on the method they follow."
  • 00:14:13
    and it is relevant.
  • 00:14:15
    So no, do not censor fake news,
  • 00:14:18
    because in that case, the solution could be much worse than the problem.
  • 00:14:22
    No, let's learn to live in a loudspeaker society
  • 00:14:27
    where everyone can make their voice heard,
  • 00:14:30
    learn to debate in a pluralistic public space,
  • 00:14:33
    teach children and adolescents to learn and evaluate
  • 00:14:40
    the quality of the information based on the method followed by its producer.
  • 00:14:45
    And then also adopt a combative posture.
  • 00:14:49
    Let's stop leaving the web and social networks
  • 00:14:52
    to the most retrograde voices.
  • 00:14:54
    This has been understood in particular by a number of associations
  • 00:14:57
    or civil society organizations
  • 00:15:00
    which today offer counter-discourse platforms.
  • 00:15:05
    If you are on a social network
  • 00:15:07
    and you come across homophobic, racist, anti-Semitic, misogynist information,
  • 00:15:13
    you can go on these platforms
  • 00:15:15
    to try to find counter-arguments and post them on social networks.
  • 00:15:20
    The challenge is not to convince the one facing you.
  • 00:15:23
    Spoiler: you can't.
  • 00:15:26
    No, the challenge is to occupy the land,
  • 00:15:28
    to show that other voices can be heard.
  • 00:15:32
    What is coming in the next few years, is a true information war,
  • 00:15:36
    and in this information war,
  • 00:15:39
    we all have a role to play.
  • 00:15:42
    Thank you.
  • 00:15:43
    (Applause)
Etiquetas
  • 假新闻
  • 社交媒体
  • 信息传播
  • 意识形态
  • 公共辩论
  • 社会排斥
  • 经济问题
  • 信息质量
  • 媒体竞争
  • 多元观点