I was talking to a guy at a party in California about tech platforms and the problems they're creating in society.
在加利佛尼亚的一个派对上，我和一个伙计在谈论科技平台以及它们在当今社会带来的问题。
And he said, "Man, if the CEOs just did more drugs and went to Burning Man, we wouldn't be in this mess."
他说：“兄弟，如果CEO们都多磕点药，然后去火人节转转，我们就不会陷入这类麻烦了。”
I said, "I'm not sure I agree with you." For one thing, most of the CEOs have already been to Burning Man.
我回道，“我不确定我是不是赞同你。”除了大部分CEO确实都曾去过火人节。
But also, I'm just not sure that watching a bunch of half-naked people run around
但同时，我不确定看着一群半裸的人四处乱跑，
and burn things is really the inspiration they need right now.
焚烧东西真的可以给他们带来现在所需的灵感。
But I do agree that things are a mess. And so, we're going to come back to this guy, but let's talk about the mess.
但是我确实赞同现在事情都是一团糟。我们等会儿再回到这伙计身上，我们先谈谈这团混乱。
Our climate's getting hotter and hotter.
我们的气候正日渐变暖。
It's getting harder and harder to tell truth from fiction. And we've got this global migratory crisis.
真实和谎言变得越来越难以辨别。同时，我们还面对全球性的移民危机。
And just at the moment when we really need new tools and new ways of coming together as a society,
就在我们正迫切需要新的工具以及团结新社会的方式时，
it feels like social media is kind of tearing at our civic fabric and setting us against each other.
社交媒体的闯入有点像是在撕裂我们的城市结构，让我们互相攻击。
We've got viral misinformation on WhatsApp, bullying on Instagram and Russian hackers on Facebook.
在WhatsApp上我们看到病毒似扩散的假消息，Instagram上的网络欺凌，还有脸书上的俄罗斯黑客。
And I think this conversation that we're having right now about the harms that these platforms are creating is so important.
而且我认为我们现在在进行的这场对话，关于社交平台所带来的伤害是非常必要的。
But I also worry that we could be letting a kind of good existential crisis in Silicon Valley go to waste
但我也担心我们会使硅谷的善存危机荒废掉，
if the bar for success is just that it's a little harder for Macedonian teenagers to publish false news.
如果成功的标准仅是让马其顿青少年们更难发布假新闻。
The big question, I think, is not just what do we want platforms to stop doing,
但我认为真正的问题不只是我们想要社交平台停止做的事，
but now that they've effectively taken control of our online public square, what do we need from them for the greater good?
而是现在他们正有效地掌控着我们的在线公共空间，我们需要他们做什么才能获得更大的公众利益？
To me, this is one of the most important questions of our time.
对于我而言，这是我们时代最重要的问题之一。
What obligations do tech platforms have to us in exchange for the power we let them hold over our discourse?
这些科技平台对于我们有什么样的义务，作为交换，我们赋予了它们掌控我们讨论的力量？
I think this question is so important, because even if today's platforms go away,
我认为这个问题至关重要，因为即使今天的一些社交平台不在了，
we need to answer this question in order to be able to ensure that the new platforms that come back are any better.
我们仍然需要这个问题的答案，以确保回归的新的平台比原来的更好。
So for the last year, I've been working with Dr. Talia Stroud at the University of Texas, Austin.
在去年，我一直在同德克萨斯大学分校的塔利亚·斯特劳德博士共事。
We've talked to sociologists and political scientists and philosophers to try to answer this question.
我们与很多社会学家、政治科学家和哲学家探讨过，就为了获得这个问题的答案。
And at first we asked, "If you were Twitter or Facebook and trying to rank content for democracy
起初我们试问，“如果你是推特或脸书，把推送内容以民主的方式
rather than for ad clicks or engagement, what might that look like?"
而非为了广告点击率或关注度进行排序，那会变得怎么样？”
But then we realized, this sort of suggests that this is an information problem or a content problem.
但随后我们意识到，这样的提议不过是信息问题或内容问题。
And for us, the platform crisis is a people problem.
而对于我们而言，平台面临的危机是“人”的问题。
It's a problem about the emergent weird things that happen when large groups of people get together.
此问题是当无数群人们聚在一起奇怪的事情就会不断发生。
And so we turned to another, older idea.
所以我们转而去思考另一个相对陈旧的观点。
We asked, "What happens when we think about platforms as spaces?"
我们问，“当我们把媒体平台设想成空间时会发生什么？”
We know from social psychology that spaces shape behavior.
我们知道在社会心理学中空间改变着社会行为。
You put the same group of people in a room like this, and they're going to behave really differently than in a room like this.
当你把同一群人放到这样的房间，他们的行为会和在这样的房间里完全不同。
When researchers put softer furniture in classrooms, participation rates rose by 42 percent.
当研究员在教室里放些柔软舒适的家具，课堂参与度上升了42%。
And spaces even have political consequences.
空间甚至会造成政治后果。
When researchers looked at neighborhoods with parks versus neighborhoods without, after adjusting for socioeconomic factors,
当研究员观察对比那些紧邻公园的街区和没有公园的街区，在调整了社会经济因素后，
they found that neighborhoods with parks had higher levels of social trust
他们发现那些带有公园的街区社会信任度更高，
and were better able to advocate for themselves politically.
且更能在政治上为自己辩护。
So spaces shape behavior, partly by the way they're designed and partly by the way that they encode certain norms about how to behave.
所以，空间改变行为，部分取决于它们的设计，部分由于它们产生了特定的行为准则。
We all know that there are some behaviors that are OK in a bar that are not OK in a library, and maybe vice versa.
我们都知道有些行为只适合在酒吧，却不适合图书馆，诸如此类。
And this gives us a little bit of a clue, because there are online spaces that encode these same kinds of behavioral norms.
这为我们提供了一些线索，因为这些是在线的空间，它们同样产生了类似的行为准则。
So, for example, behavior on LinkedIn seems pretty good. Why?
所以，比如大家在领英上的行为似乎还不错。为什么？
Because it reads as a workplace. And so people follow workplace norms.
因为它代表着工作场所，所以人们跟随着工作场所的准则。
You can even see it in the way they dress in their profile pictures.
你甚至可以从他们头像的着装看出来。
So if LinkedIn is a workplace, what is Twitter like?
那么如果领英代表着工作场所，推特相当于什么呢？
Well, it's like a vast, cavernous expanse, where there are people talking about sports,
它像一个浩瀚的无底洞，那里有人在讨论体育运动，
arguing about politics, yelling at each other, flirting, trying to get a job, all in the same place,
争论政治，互相对骂，调情，努力找工作，全部都混在一起，
with no walls, no divisions, and the owner gets paid more the louder the noise is. No wonder it's a mess.
没有墙，没有界限，里面的吵闹声越大所有者就赚得越多。怪不得成了一团糟。
And this raises another thing that become obvious when we think about platforms in terms of physical space.
而当我们从物理空间的角度考虑平台，另一件事也变得显而易见了。
Good physical spaces are almost always structured. They have rules.
良好的物理空间几乎总是结构化的，它们有自己的规则。
Silicon Valley is built on this idea that unstructured space is conducive for human behavior.
硅谷建立在这样一个理念之上，即非结构化空间有利于人类行为。
And I actually think there's a reason for this myopia built into the location of Silicon Valley itself.
我其实认为硅谷本身的位置造成了这种缺乏远见的理念是有原因的。
So, Michele Gelfand is a sociologist who studies how norms vary across cultures.
米歇尔·盖尔芬德是一位社会学家，他研究不同文化之间的规范是如何变化的。
And she watches how cultures like Japan -- which she calls "tight"
她观察日本的文化，她称之为“紧”，
is very conformist, very rule-following, and cultures like Brazil are very loose.
很循规蹈矩，很守规则，而像巴西这样的文化则非常放松。
You can see this even in things like how closely synchronized the clocks are on a city street.
你甚至可以在一些事情上看到这一点，比如城市街道上的时钟同步得有多近。
So as you can see, the United States is one of the looser countries.
所以，如你所见，美国是比较宽松的国家之一。
And the loosest state in the United States is, you got it, California.
而在美国最放松的州之一，你猜到了，就是加州。
And Silicon Valley culture came out of the 1970s Californian counterculture. So, just to recap:
硅谷文化源于上世纪70年代加州的反主流文化。简单地概括下：
the spaces that the world is living in came out of the loosest culture in the loosest state in one of the loosest countries in the world.
这个世界正处在的空间来自于最宽松的州里最宽松的文化，还来自世界上最宽松的国家之一。
No wonder they undervalue structure. And I think this really matters, because people need structure.
难怪他们低估了规则的重要性。我觉得这很重要，因为人们需要规则。
You may have heard this word "anomie." It literally means "a lack of norms" in French.
你或许听说过这个词“失范”。在法语中，它的字面意思就是“缺乏规范约束”。
It was coined by émile Durkheim to describe the vast, overwhelming feeling that people have in spaces without norms.
它是由埃米尔·杜克希姆率先提出的，用以描述当人们处于毫无规范可言的空间时一种广泛的、难以控制的感觉。
Anomie has political consequences.
失范也有着政治后果。
Because what Gelfand has found is that, when things are too loose, people crave order and structure.
因为盖尔芬德发现，当一切都太松懈时，人们会渴望秩序和体系。
And that craving for order and structure correlates really strongly with support for people like these guys.
而对秩序和体系的渴望与对人们的支持息息相关，就像这些家伙。
I don't think it's crazy to ask
我觉得问这样的问题并不过分：
if the structurelessness of online life is actually feeding anxiety that's increasing a responsiveness to authoritarianism.
毫无规则的在线生活是否正在加剧我们的不安，进一步增加了我们对独裁主义的反应？
So how might platforms bring people together in a way that creates meaning and helps people understand each other?
那么这些平台是怎样把人们聚集起来从而创造价值，以及帮助人们相互理解的？
And this brings me back to our friend from Burning Man.
这把我带回了来自火人节的那位朋友。
Because listening to him, I realized: it's not just that Burning Man isn't the solution
因为他的话让我意识到：火人节不但不是解决办法，
it's actually a perfect metaphor for the problem.
它其实是对问题最好的隐喻。
You know, it's a great place to visit for a week, this amazing art city, rising out of nowhere in the dust.
那是去度过一周的完美去处，这令人惊叹的艺术之城，像是沙尘中诞生的奇迹。
But you wouldn't want to live there.
但你不会想要住在那里。
There's no running water, there's no trash pickup.
那里没有自来水，没有垃圾回收。
At some point, the hallucinogens run out, and you're stuck with a bunch of wealthy white guys in the dust in the desert.
到某时，要是迷幻药用完了，你会发现自己困在一堆有钱的白人中，被沙漠中的灰尘团团困住。
Which, to me, is sometimes how social media feels in 2019.
这对我来说，有时就像是2019年的社交媒体带给我的感受。
A great, fun, hallucinatory place to visit has become our home.
一个伟大的、有趣的、充满幻想的地方已经成为我们的家。
And so, if we look at platforms through the lens of spaces, we can then ask ourselves:
所以，如果当我们透过空间看待这些平台，我们可以试问自己：
Who knows how to structure spaces for the public good?
谁知道如何为公众利益构建空间？
And it turns out, this is a question people have been thinking about for a long time about cities.
结果，这是一个人们思考了很长时间的关于城市的问题。
Cities were the original platforms. Two-sided marketplace? Check.
城市是最初的平台，双边市场？符合。
Place to keep up with old friends and distant relatives? Check. Vector for viral sharing? Check.
一个可以让老朋友和远亲保持联系的地方？符合。病毒共享载体？符合。
In fact, cities have encountered a lot of the same social and political challenges that platforms are now encountering.
事实上，城市遇到了很多同样的社会和政治挑战，也正是现在的平台所碰到的。
They've dealt with massive growth that overwhelmed existing communities and the rise of new business models.
他们已经处理了淹没了现有社区的巨大增长，以及不断兴起的新商业模式。
They've even had new, frictionless technologies that promised to connect everyone together
他们甚至有了新的无缝技术，以保证让所有人保持联系，
and that instead deepened existing social and race divides.
这也反而加深了现存的社会种族分裂。
But because of this history of decay and renewal and segregation and integration,
但是因为这段曾经衰落又再度兴起、不断分裂又融合的历史，
cities are the source of some of our best ideas about how to build functional, thriving communities.
城市给我们的一些最好想法带来了灵感，关于如何建立功能性的、繁荣的社区。

Faced with a top-down, car-driven vision of city life, pioneers like Jane Jacobs said,
面对着一个自上而下的、汽车驱动的城市生活愿景，像是简·雅各布斯这样的先驱说，
let's instead put human relationships at the center of urban design.
让我们把人际关系置于城市设计的核心。
Jacobs and her fellow travelers like Holly Whyte, her editor,
雅各布斯和她的旅伴，比如她的编辑霍莉·怀特，
were these really great observers of what actually happened on the street.
她们真的很善于观察街上发生的事。
They watched: Where did people stop and talk? When did neighbors become friends? And they learned a lot.
她们观察：人们在哪里停留交谈？邻里之间是何时起成为了朋友？从中她们学到了很多。
For example, they noticed that successful public places generally have three different ways that they structure behavior.
比如，他们注意到成功的公共场所通常都有三种不同的方式来规范行为。
There's the built environment, you know, that we're going to put a fountain here or a playground there.
首先要有人造的环境，我们会在这里放一个喷泉或那里放一个嬉戏地。
But then, there's programming, like, let's put a band at seven and get the kids out.
其次，要有设定的程序，比如7点有乐队表演，把孩子们都请出去。
And there's this idea of mayors, people who kind of take this informal ownership of a space to keep it welcoming and clean.
然后，还有关于市长的想法，就是有人对这个空间享有非正式的所有权，为了确保它的欢迎度和整洁。
All three of these things actually have analogues online.
这三件事其实在网上都有类似的概念。
But platforms mostly focus on code, on what's physically possible in the space.
但是平台主要关注代码，关注在这个空间里，在物理上可能存在的东西。
And they focus much less on these other two softer, social areas.
同时，他们很少关注另外两个更温和的社会领域。
What are people doing there? Who's taking responsibility for it?
人们在那里做什么？谁该为它负责？
So like Jane Jacobs did for cities, Talia and I think we need a new design movement for online space,
就像简·雅各布斯为城市所做的，塔利亚和我认为我们需要为在线空间设计一场新的改革运动，
one that considers not just "How do we build products that work for users or consumers?"
它会不只考虑，“我们如何为用户或消费者创建可行的产品？”
"How do we make something user-friendly?" but "How do we make products that are public-friendly?"
“我们该怎么样制造便于用户使用的东西？”，但更要考虑“我们怎样让产品面向所有公众？”
Because we need products that don't serve individuals at the expense of the social fabric on which we all depend.
因为我们需要的产品不仅是为个人，以牺牲我们赖以生存的社会结构为代价。
And we need it urgently, because political scientists tell us that healthy democracies need healthy public spaces.
我们迫切地需要它，因为政治科学家告诉我们，健康的民主国家需要健康的公共空间。
So, the public-friendly digital design movement that Talia and I imagine asks this question:
所以，塔利亚和我想象的公众友好的数字设计运动问出了这样一个问题：
What would this interaction be like if it was happening in physical space?
如果这种互动发生在现实空间，会是什么样子？
And it asks the reverse question: What can we learn from good physical spaces about how to structure behavior in the online world?
它也反问我们：我们可以从好的现实空间中学到什么，从而更好的管理在线世界？
For example, I grew up in a small town in Maine, and I went to a lot of those town hall meetings that you hear about.
例如，我在缅因州的一个小镇上长大，我参加过很多你们听说的市政厅会议。
And unlike the storybook version, they weren't always nice.
但并非如各位所听说的，它们其实并不总是好的。
Like, people had big conflicts, big feelings... It was hard sometimes.
像是，人们总有大矛盾，情绪化...有时很难协调。
But because of the way that that space was structured, we managed to land it OK.
但是因为空间带给我们的限制，让我们得以掌控，让一切顺利进行。
How? Well, here's one important piece.
怎么做到的呢？这是重点。
The downcast glance, the dirty look, the raised eyebrow, the cough...
沮丧的眼神，怒目而视，扬起的眉角，还有咳嗽声...
When people went on too long or lost the crowd,
当人们没完没了的说着或者迷失在喧嚣中，
they didn't get banned or blocked or hauled out by the police, they just got this soft, negative social feedback.
他们不会被禁言或拉黑，亦或是被警察拖出去，他们只得到了类似温和的负面社会反馈。
And that was actually very powerful. I think Facebook and Twitter could build this, something like this.
而这其实是相当有力的，我认为脸书和推特可以建立类似这样的机制，就像这样。
I think there are some other things that online spaces can learn from offline spaces.
我认为在线空间还有很多其他东西可以从线下空间学习的。
Holly Whyte observed that in healthy public spaces, there are often many different places that afford different ways of relating.
霍利·怀特观察到在健康的公共场所，通常不同的地方都会为人们提供不同的社交方式。
So the picnic table where you have lunch with your family
你和家人共用午餐的野炊桌
may not be suited for the romantic walk with a partner or the talk with some business colleagues.
可能不适合伴侣的浪漫散步，或者和同事谈论商务事宜。
And it's worth noting that in real space, in none of these places are there big, visible public signs of engagement.
值得注意的是在现实空间，这些地方中都没有一个明显的公众参与的标识。
So digital designers could think about what kind of conversations do we actually want to invite,
因此，数字设计师可以考虑我们到底想邀请进行什么样的谈话，
and how do we build specifically for those kinds of conversations.
以及我们如何针对这些对话创建相应的空间。
Remember the park that we talked about that built social trust?
记得我之前谈到的那个带来社会信任的公园吗？
That didn't happen because people were having these big political arguments.
那不是因为人们有这些巨大的政治争论才出现的。
Most strangers don't actually even talk to each other the first three or four or five times they see each other.
大多数陌生人在头三到五次见面，甚至都没有与彼此交流过。
But when people, even very different people, see each other a lot,
但是当人们，甚至是非常不同的人，不断地见到彼此，
they develop familiarity, and that creates the bedrock for relationships.
他们间会越来越熟悉，而这就为关系打下了基石。
And I think, actually, you know, maybe that early idea of cyberspace
事实上，我认为或许最初的网络空间
as kind of this bodiless meeting place of pure minds and pure ideas sent us off in the wrong direction.
是为了打造纯心智和纯想法，无需面对面的交流方式，却把我们领向了错误的方向。
Maybe what we need instead is to find a way to be in proximity, mostly talking amongst ourselves, but all sharing the same warm sun.
也许我们需要的是找到一种接近的方式，主要是与彼此交谈，同时又共享一个温暖之阳。
And finally: healthy public spaces create a sense of ownership and equity.
而最后：健康的公共空间创造了所有权和公平感。
And this is where the city metaphor becomes challenging.
这就是城市隐喻的挑战所在。
Because, if Twitter is a city, it's a city that's owned by just a few people and optimized for financial return.
因为，如果推特是一座城市，这座城的掌控权仅属于少数人，为了财务利益而不断优化。
I think we really need digital environments that we all actually have some real ownership of,
我觉得我们真正需要的电子环境是在其中，我们每个人都有一定的权力，
environments that respect the diversity of human existence and that give us some say and some input into the process.
在这个环境中，尊重彼此存在的多样性，且赋予每个人以声音，让每个人都能参与这个进程。
And I think we need this urgently. Because Facebook right now -- I sort of think of, like, 1970s New York.
我相信这种多样性已经迫在眉睫，因为现在的脸书--让我想到了上个世纪70年代的纽约。
The public spaces are decaying, there's trash in the streets,
公共场所正在腐烂，街上尽是垃圾，
people are kind of, like, mentally and emotionally warming themselves over burning garbage.
人们有点像是在精神上、情感上通过焚烧垃圾来取暖。
And... And the natural response to this is to hole up in your apartment or consider fleeing for the suburbs.
而且...对此自然的反应是躲在你的公寓里，或者考虑逃往郊区。
It doesn't surprise me that people are giving up on the idea of online public spaces the way that they've given up on cities over their history.
很多人正在放弃这个关于在线空间的想法，就像历史上人们放弃了自己的城市，这一点我完全不感到惊讶。
And sometimes -- I'll be honest -- it feels to me like this whole project of, like, wiring up a civilization
而且有时--我很诚实地说--我感到整个项目就像是在连接人类文明，
and getting billions of people to come into contact with each other is just impossible.
让数以亿计的人彼此联系，简直就难以实现。
But modern cities tell us that it is possible for millions of people who are really different,
但是现代的城市向我们证明了它有可能让数百万不同的人们，
sometimes living right on top of each other, not just to not kill each other,
有时生活在彼此之上，不去互相残杀，
but to actually build things together, find new experiences, create beautiful, important infrastructure.
而是去共同建立一切，寻求新的体验，创造美好的、不可或缺的设施。
And we cannot give up on that promise.
我们不能放弃这样的承诺。
If we want to solve the big, important problems in front of us, we need better online public spaces.
如果我们想要解决我们眼前这巨大的、重要的问题，我们需要更好的在线空间。
We need digital urban planners, new Jane Jacobses, who are going to build the parks and park benches of the online world.
我们需要数字城市规划师，新一代的简·雅各布斯，那个能在网络世界建造公园和长椅的人。
And we need digital, public-friendly architects,
我们需要数字时代的公共建筑师，
who are going to build what Eric Klinenberg calls "palaces for the people" -- libraries and museums and town halls.
他们可以建设埃里克·克兰纳伯格称之为“为人民而建的宫殿”--图书馆、博物馆和市政厅。
And we need a transnational movement, where these spaces can learn from each other,
我们需要一个跨国运动，使这些空间可以互相学习，
just like cities have, about everything from urban farming to public art to rapid transit.
就像今天的城市，从城市农业到公共艺术，再到快速交通。
Humanity moves forward when we find new ways to rely on and understand and trust each other. And we need this now more than ever.
当我们能找到新的依靠、相互理解和信任时，人类就在进步。此刻，我们对这一愿景的需要胜过任何时候。
If online digital spaces are going to be our new home,
如果在线数字空间将成为我们的新家，
let's make them a comfortable, beautiful place to live, a place we all feel not just included but actually some ownership of.
让我们把它们打造成一个舒适、美好的地方，一个我们不仅能感到被接纳包容，而且都有一定所有权的地方。
A place we get to know each other. A place you'd actually want not just to visit but to bring your kids. Thank you.
一个我们能互相了解彼此的地方。一个你不仅想去，而且想要带上孩子们去的地方。谢谢大家。