#FakeNews : Internet est-il devenu l'ennemi de la démocratie ? | Romain Badouard | TEDxCannes
摘要
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。
心得
- 📊 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。
时间轴
- 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。
思维导图
视频问答
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。
查看更多视频摘要
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS 📑🌍 What are SDGs? 👧👦
Explained | Why Women Are Paid Less | FULL EPISODE | Netflix
Lucas Silveira - CHEVETALKS #103
4 PASSOS PARA VOCÊ VIVER DE AULAS PARTICULARES - Para professor de inglês
iPhone 12 Pro Max vs iPhone 11 Pro Max SPEED TEST!
Reset Diet Wellness Group: LifeWave's New Light Infused Water Machine (KR)
- 00:00:00Translator: Elisabeth Buffard Reviewer: Maricene Crus
- 00:00:14I can imagine that in this room,
- 00:00:16most of you have a Facebook or Twitter account.
- 00:00:21If that's the case, these past few weeks,
- 00:00:24you may have seen this image:
- 00:00:27a firefighter who was assaulted during an intervention
- 00:00:30and lost one eye.
- 00:00:32If you haven't, perhaps you have seen this other image:
- 00:00:37the image of a priest also assaulted at the beginning of the year in Avignon.
- 00:00:42Or maybe you've heard about the 40,000 migrants
- 00:00:45who sleep every night at the hotel at the expense of French taxpayers,
- 00:00:49or maybe you have heard
- 00:00:51about Saudi Arabia's campaign funding for certain candidates
- 00:00:55or the newly granted voting right
- 00:00:59to all French prisoners.
- 00:01:01These news items seem totally unrelated.
- 00:01:06And yet, they share two common points:
- 00:01:10the first is that they are all false;
- 00:01:13the second is that they've all been shared
- 00:01:15tens or even hundreds of thousands of times
- 00:01:18on social networks in the past two months.
- 00:01:23The spreading of rumors,
- 00:01:24false information, fake news,
- 00:01:26conspiracy theories on social networks,
- 00:01:29has grown to such an extent in recent years
- 00:01:32that it has become a real social problem.
- 00:01:35The media have talked a lot about it,
- 00:01:36notably during the UK Brexit referendum campaign
- 00:01:41or the US election campaign last fall,
- 00:01:46and more recently in the context of the French election campaign.
- 00:01:50Yet rumors are not really a new phenomenon.
- 00:01:55They are even regarded as the oldest media in the world.
- 00:01:58You, like me, when we were at school,
- 00:02:02I am sure that we all participated
- 00:02:04in spreading dozens of rumors or urban legends.
- 00:02:10Where is the problem then?
- 00:02:13The problem is that these rumors, this false information,
- 00:02:17have become direct competitors
- 00:02:19of the information produced by traditional media.
- 00:02:24Social networks have taken a very important place
- 00:02:27in the media landscape in recent years,
- 00:02:30to the point of becoming one of the main sources of online information,
- 00:02:34and even becoming the main source of information
- 00:02:37for the youngest of us,
- 00:02:39even surpassing search engines.
- 00:02:42So this evolution at first seems innocuous, but it isn't.
- 00:02:47When using a search engine,
- 00:02:50to find information,
- 00:02:53the information comes to you according to a logic of popularity.
- 00:02:57When you make a query on Google,
- 00:02:59Google will isolate sites that address the topic
- 00:03:03you want to be informed about,
- 00:03:05and its algorithm, PageRank, will look at how the sites are connected.
- 00:03:11It will bring you as the first result
- 00:03:13the site that received the most links from other sites.
- 00:03:20Google actually considers that when you, as an Internet user,
- 00:03:23propose a link from one site to another,
- 00:03:25in a way, you vote for it.
- 00:03:28So Google thinks, "The most important information
- 00:03:32is the one the Internet community considered to be the most relevant."
- 00:03:38On Facebook, the logic is very different:
- 00:03:41it is not a principle of popularity that prevails but one of proximity.
- 00:03:47The most visible information in your Facebook news feed
- 00:03:52is that of your closest friends.
- 00:03:57How does Facebook go about evaluating this proximity?
- 00:04:01Quite simply depending on the intensity of your interactions.
- 00:04:05The more you like, the more you comment,
- 00:04:08the more you share the information posted by one of your contacts
- 00:04:13and the more the edge rank, the Facebook algorithm
- 00:04:16considers that this person is important to you,
- 00:04:20thus that the information they publish must be brought to your attention.
- 00:04:24Again, you will tell me, after all,
- 00:04:26being informed first of the people you are closest to
- 00:04:29rather than those from whom we are most distant, what is the problem?
- 00:04:34The problem is that when Facebook
- 00:04:37becomes our first source of political information,
- 00:04:40the machine seizes up a little.
- 00:04:43You, me, we all have in our Facebook contacts
- 00:04:48people whose beliefs or interests we do not share.
- 00:04:52We all have this somewhat racist old uncle who posts on the network
- 00:04:56the same kind of jokes that wreck family meals,
- 00:04:59or that childhood friend who suddenly discovers they have a political fiber
- 00:05:04and begins to flood the network with information
- 00:05:08from an obscure micro-party.
- 00:05:12I don't know about you, but anyway, I have that kind of friends,
- 00:05:15but when these friends post this type of information,
- 00:05:19I do not like their posts, I do not comment them,
- 00:05:22I do not share them.
- 00:05:24Facebook interprets this lack of interaction
- 00:05:28like this: it thinks that in fact, this person is not important to me
- 00:05:32and that what they say does not matter to me.
- 00:05:35The weeks pass, as and when,
- 00:05:37what these people post will begin to disappear
- 00:05:40from my news feed, to the point of disappearing totally.
- 00:05:45And you see what the problem is:
- 00:05:49the problem is that if we use nothing but Facebook to get informed,
- 00:05:53in the long term, we will be confronted,
- 00:05:56only to information which confirms our opinions.
- 00:06:00This is called
- 00:06:01ideological confinement, ideological bubbles on social networks,
- 00:06:06the idea that when you get your information on social networks,
- 00:06:09you only see information that reinforce our opinions
- 00:06:12while for public debate to function properly in a democracy,
- 00:06:17it is necessary to be confronted to contradictory arguments.
- 00:06:24Yet, ideological bubbles weren't invented by Facebook, far from it.
- 00:06:30In our everyday lives,
- 00:06:31we all live in more or less hermetic ideological bubbles.
- 00:06:36It's a safe bet that your vote is fairly close to your spouse's,
- 00:06:43or you share a number of beliefs with your close friends,
- 00:06:47in the same way, the news media you consume
- 00:06:53say a lot about your political orientations.
- 00:06:57What is the problem then?
- 00:06:59The problem is that with Facebook,
- 00:07:02ideological confinement, ideological bubbles
- 00:07:04have become a real business.
- 00:07:07Why?
- 00:07:08First, because of Facebook's economic model:
- 00:07:12how does Facebook make money?
- 00:07:14Facebook makes money by exposing you, the users,
- 00:07:18to advertising.
- 00:07:19In another era,
- 00:07:21we'd have said that Facebook sells available brain time to advertisers.
- 00:07:25We do not say that anymore.
- 00:07:27Yet the principle is exactly the same.
- 00:07:29The more time you spend on the platform, the more Facebook makes money.
- 00:07:32And how does Facebook make you spend time on the platform?
- 00:07:36Simply by offering you the contents you like,
- 00:07:39which is the one you loved yesterday,
- 00:07:42from your closest contacts,
- 00:07:44whose beliefs and interests you share.
- 00:07:50But this goes even further:
- 00:07:53with Facebook, the production of rumors has entered a new era.
- 00:07:58It has entered a click economy
- 00:08:00which generated a real industrialization of the production of rumors.
- 00:08:05You may have heard about this case,
- 00:08:08during the US election campaign:
- 00:08:12some journalists at Buzzfeed realized
- 00:08:16that a large number of pro Trump fake news
- 00:08:21emanated from sites hosted in Eastern Europe,
- 00:08:26particularly in Macedonia.
- 00:08:28They wondered why hundreds of sites in Macedonia
- 00:08:32started to produce information, fake news, pro Trump, anti Clinton.
- 00:08:38Intuitively, they thought that the candidate's campaign team
- 00:08:42had paid networks in Eastern Europe to produce that false news.
- 00:08:46They traveled to the area and the reality was quite different.
- 00:08:51They actually found out teenagers,
- 00:08:5315, 16 or 17 years of age,
- 00:08:56unrelated to the Republican candidate's campaign team.
- 00:09:02Not only did they have no connection
- 00:09:05to the Republican candidate's campaign team,
- 00:09:08but their motivation was absolutely not political.
- 00:09:10It was much more pragmatic: they wanted to make money.
- 00:09:14These Macedonian teenagers realized that pro Trump information
- 00:09:19was the most shared information on Facebook.
- 00:09:23They thought, maybe we could get some of their income
- 00:09:28by inventing false news about Trump,
- 00:09:30by posting it on Facebook, bringing US Internet users to our sites
- 00:09:33to expose them to advertising and make money.
- 00:09:39Their bet was a successful one since for those who managed best among them,
- 00:09:44in any case those who were the most productive,
- 00:09:46they could generate an income of $ 5,000 per month
- 00:09:50while the average monthly income in Macedonia is less than 400 euros.
- 00:09:55So you can see that the problem of false news on the internet
- 00:09:59is also an economic problem.
- 00:10:01But it is not just an economic problem
- 00:10:04because, after all, to generate so much income
- 00:10:07there has to be people who share this piece of information.
- 00:10:10And there are many such people.
- 00:10:12The real question to ask is why people share false information,
- 00:10:17why do people share rumors?
- 00:10:21You will say, maybe the Internet makes us stupid, gullible
- 00:10:25to the point of sharing anything.
- 00:10:30The reality is a little more complex.
- 00:10:34Psychology studies looking at rumors
- 00:10:36have shown that people who share rumors
- 00:10:40may in fact keep a critical distance from their contents.
- 00:10:44It's not so much that people believe it;
- 00:10:47it is rather that they adhere to the world view that is conveyed by this rumor.
- 00:10:53And what do rumors tell us today, the one I told you about earlier?
- 00:10:58They tell us about the betrayal of elected representatives,
- 00:11:01they tell us about the confiscation of speech by the mass media,
- 00:11:04they tell us of a certain number of anxieties linked to globalization;
- 00:11:08we can see what's behind fake news,
- 00:11:11it is a much deeper problem,
- 00:11:13which is a sense of exclusion
- 00:11:15felt by an increasing share of society,
- 00:11:18exclusion from the common space, the public space, the media space.
- 00:11:22And this sense of exclusion
- 00:11:24is reflected in a growing distrust
- 00:11:28of the political and intellectual elites in our country.
- 00:11:36What the Internet has done since the early 2000s
- 00:11:39is precisely to allow those people excluded from the media space
- 00:11:43to make their voices heard,
- 00:11:45to be able to disseminate their arguments in the public debate.
- 00:11:49So, of course, this irruption does not always occur very politely,
- 00:11:55or very courteously, it is not very pleasant.
- 00:11:58But at least it has the merit of forcing us to face reality.
- 00:12:03And the reality is that today we live in a very pluralistic society.
- 00:12:09And I'm not talking about pluralism of opinions,
- 00:12:12I am talking about a pluralism of values,
- 00:12:15a pluralism of ways of seeing, ways of conceiving life in society.
- 00:12:21So the challenge for the coming years will be to succeed in building
- 00:12:25spaces of common debate that respect this pluralism,
- 00:12:30that is to say respecting the principle of absolute and unconditional equality
- 00:12:36of all citizens to speak and make their voices heard,
- 00:12:40but at the same time, spaces of debate allowing
- 00:12:44people who share completely different values and ways of seeing the world
- 00:12:48to join the discussion.
- 00:12:50So how do we do it?
- 00:12:53Maybe, in the end, we each have our truth.
- 00:12:59Maybe we cannot compare values.
- 00:13:03On the other hand,
- 00:13:05the criteria from which we distinguish true from false,
- 00:13:10fair from unfair, desirable from undesirable,
- 00:13:15can be compared.
- 00:13:17As for the fake news,
- 00:13:18a number of journalists have understood it,
- 00:13:22who have embarked on fact-checking initiatives.
- 00:13:25Their logic is to say:
- 00:13:26we will check the rumors on social networks,
- 00:13:29but we will not judge the information according to what they say,
- 00:13:35we will judge it according to the method
- 00:13:38by which they were produced.
- 00:13:42Do they respect the basic principles of journalism?
- 00:13:46Crossing their sources, argumenting from evidence,
- 00:13:52separating the facts from the comments.
- 00:13:56So for the media, the posture is a bit tricky
- 00:14:00to be both judge and party,
- 00:14:02judging competitors in this information market.
- 00:14:06But this posture is to say,
- 00:14:08"We can compare the producers of information
- 00:14:11depending on the method they follow."
- 00:14:13and it is relevant.
- 00:14:15So no, do not censor fake news,
- 00:14:18because in that case, the solution could be much worse than the problem.
- 00:14:22No, let's learn to live in a loudspeaker society
- 00:14:27where everyone can make their voice heard,
- 00:14:30learn to debate in a pluralistic public space,
- 00:14:33teach children and adolescents to learn and evaluate
- 00:14:40the quality of the information based on the method followed by its producer.
- 00:14:45And then also adopt a combative posture.
- 00:14:49Let's stop leaving the web and social networks
- 00:14:52to the most retrograde voices.
- 00:14:54This has been understood in particular by a number of associations
- 00:14:57or civil society organizations
- 00:15:00which today offer counter-discourse platforms.
- 00:15:05If you are on a social network
- 00:15:07and you come across homophobic, racist, anti-Semitic, misogynist information,
- 00:15:13you can go on these platforms
- 00:15:15to try to find counter-arguments and post them on social networks.
- 00:15:20The challenge is not to convince the one facing you.
- 00:15:23Spoiler: you can't.
- 00:15:26No, the challenge is to occupy the land,
- 00:15:28to show that other voices can be heard.
- 00:15:32What is coming in the next few years, is a true information war,
- 00:15:36and in this information war,
- 00:15:39we all have a role to play.
- 00:15:42Thank you.
- 00:15:43(Applause)
- 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