演講MP3+雙語文稿:社交媒體對大眾有何義務(wù)？
聽力課堂TED音頻欄目主要包括TED演講的音頻MP3及中英雙語文稿，供各位英語愛好者學習使用。本文主要內(nèi)容為演講MP3+雙語文稿:社交媒體對大眾有何義務(wù)？，希望你會喜歡！
[演講者及介紹]Eli Pariser
網(wǎng)絡(luò)民主倡導(dǎo)者。作為Upworthy的聯(lián)合創(chuàng)始人和《過濾泡沫》(the Filter Bubble)一書的作者，伊萊·帕里瑟(Eli Pariser)利用技術(shù)幫助建立更好、更民主的社會。
[演講主題]社交媒體平臺對大眾有何義務(wù)?
[中英文字幕]
翻譯者 Yanyan Hong 校對者 Yolanda Zhang
00:12
I was talking to a guy at a party inCalifornia about tech platforms and the problems they're creating in society.And he said, "Man, if the CEOs just did more drugs and went to BurningMan, we wouldn't be in this mess."
在加利福尼亞的一個派對上，我和一個伙計在談?wù)摽萍计脚_，以及它們在當今社會帶來的問題。他說：“兄弟，如果 CEO們都多磕點藥，然后去火人節(jié)轉(zhuǎn)轉(zhuǎn)，我們就不會陷入這類麻煩了?！?/p>
00:28
(Laughter)
（笑聲）
00:29
I said, "I'm not sure I agree withyou." For one thing, most of the CEOs have already been to Burning Man.
我回道，“我不確定我是不是贊同你?！背舜蟛糠諧EO 確實都曾去過火人節(jié)。
00:36
(Laughter)
（笑聲）
00:37
But also, I'm just not sure that watching abunch of half-naked people run around and burn things is really the inspirationthey need right now.
但同時，我不確定看著一群半裸的人四處亂跑，焚燒東西真的可以給他們帶來現(xiàn)在所需的靈感。
00:44
(Laughter)
（笑聲）
00:45
But I do agree that things are a mess. Andso, we're going to come back to this guy, but let's talk about the mess.
但是我確實贊同現(xiàn)在事情都是一團糟。我們等會兒再回到這伙計身上，我們先談?wù)勥@團混亂。
00:53
Our climate's getting hotter and hotter.It's getting harder and harder to tell truth from fiction. And we've got thisglobal migratory crisis. And just at the moment when we really need new toolsand new ways of coming together as a society, it feels like social media iskind of tearing at our civic fabric and setting us against each other. We'vegot viral misinformation on WhatsApp, bullying on Instagram and Russian hackerson Facebook. And I think this conversation that we're having right now aboutthe harms that these platforms are creating is so important.
我們的氣候正日漸變暖，真實和謊言變得難以辨別，同時，我們還面對全球性的移民危機，就在我們正迫切需要新的工具，以及團結(jié)新社會的方式時，社交媒體的闖入有點像是在撕裂我們的城市結(jié)構(gòu)，讓我們互相攻擊。在WhatsApp上，我們看到病毒似擴散的假消息，Instagram上的網(wǎng)絡(luò)欺凌，還有臉書（Facebook）上的俄羅斯黑客。而且我認為我們現(xiàn)在在進行的這場對話，關(guān)于社交平臺所帶來的傷害是非常必要的。
01:30
But I also worry that we could be letting akind of good existential crisis in Silicon Valley go to waste if the bar forsuccess is just that it's a little harder for Macedonian teenagers to publishfalse news. The big question, I think, is not just what do we want platforms tostop doing, but now that they've effectively taken control of our online publicsquare, what do we need from them for the greater good? To me, this is one ofthe most important questions of our time. What obligations do tech platformshave to us in exchange for the power we let them hold over our discourse? Ithink this question is so important, because even if today’s platforms go away,we need to answer this question in order to be able to ensure that the newplatforms that come back are any better.
但我也擔心我們會使硅谷的善存危機浪費掉，如果成功的標準僅是讓馬其頓青少年們更難發(fā)布假新聞。但我認為真正的問題不只是我們想要社交平臺停止做的事，而是現(xiàn)在他們正有效地掌控著我們的在線公共空間，我們需要他們做什么才能獲得更大的公眾利益？對于我而言，這是我們時代最重要的問題之一，這些科技平臺對于我們有什么樣的義務(wù)，作為交換，我們賦予了它們掌控我們討論的力量？我認為這個問題至關(guān)重要，因為即使今天的一些社交平臺不在了，我們?nèi)匀恍枰@個問題的答案，以確保回歸的新的平臺比原來的更好。
02:24
So for the last year, I've been workingwith Dr. Talia Stroud at the University of Texas, Austin. We've talked tosociologists and political scientists and philosophers to try to answer thisquestion. And at first we asked, "If you were Twitter or Facebook andtrying to rank content for democracy rather than for ad clicks or engagement,what might that look like?" But then we realized, this sort of suggeststhat this is an information problem or a content problem. And for us, theplatform crisis is a people problem. It's a problem about the emergent weirdthings that happen when large groups of people get together. And so we turnedto another, older idea.
在去年，我一直在同德克薩斯大學分校的塔利亞·斯特勞德博士共事。我們與很多社會學家、政治科學家和哲學家探討過，就為了獲得這個問題的答案。起初我們試問，“如果你是推特或臉書，把推送內(nèi)容以民主的方式而非為了廣告點擊率或關(guān)注度進行排序，那會變得怎么樣？”但隨后我們意識到，這樣的提議不過是信息問題，或內(nèi)容問題。而對于我們而言，平臺面臨的危機是“人”的問題，此問題是當無數(shù)群人們聚在一起奇怪的事情就會不斷發(fā)生。所以我們轉(zhuǎn)而去思考另一個相對陳舊的觀點。
03:08
We asked, "What happens when we thinkabout platforms as spaces?" We know from social psychology that spacesshape behavior. When researchers put softer furniture in classrooms,participation rates rose by 42 percent. And spaces even have politicalconsequences. When researchers looked at neighborhoods with parks versusneighborhoods without, after adjusting for socioeconomic factors, they found thatneighborhoods with parks had higher levels of social trust and were better ableto advocate for themselves politically.
我們問，“當我們把媒體平臺設(shè)想成空間時會發(fā)生什么？”我們知道在社會心理學中空間改變著社會行為。當研究員在教室里放些柔軟舒適的家具，課堂參與度上升了 42%?？臻g甚至會造成政治后果。當研究員觀察對比那些緊鄰公園的街區(qū)，和沒有公園的街區(qū)，在調(diào)整了社會經(jīng)濟因素后，他們發(fā)現(xiàn)那些帶有公園的街區(qū)社會信任度更高，且更能在政治上為自己辯護。
03:51
So spaces shape behavior, partly by the waythey're designed and partly by the way that they encode certain norms about howto behave. We all know that there are some behaviors that are OK in a bar thatare not OK in a library, and maybe vice versa. And this gives us a little bitof a clue, because there are online spaces that encode these same kinds ofbehavioral norms. So, for example, behavior on LinkedIn seems pretty good. Why?Because it reads as a workplace. And so people follow workplace norms. You caneven see it in the way they dress in their profile pictures.
所以，空間改變行為，部分取決于它們的設(shè)計，部分由于它們產(chǎn)生了特定的行為準則。我們都知道有些行為只適合在酒吧，卻不適合圖書館，諸如此類。這為我們提供了一些線索，因為這些是在線的空間，它們同樣產(chǎn)生了類似的行為準則。所以，比如大家在領(lǐng)英（LinkedIn）上的行為似乎還不錯。為什么？因為它代表著工作場所，所以人們跟隨著工作場所的準則，你甚至可以從他們頭像的著裝看出。
04:33
(Laughter)
（笑聲）
04:34
So if LinkedIn is a workplace, what isTwitter like?
那么如果領(lǐng)英代表著工作場所，推特相當于什么呢？
04:39
(Laughter)
（笑聲）
04:40
Well, it's like a vast, cavernous expanse,where there are people talking about sports, arguing about politics, yelling ateach other, flirting, trying to get a job, all in the same place, with nowalls, no divisions, and the owner gets paid more the louder the noise is.
它像一個浩瀚的無底洞，那里有人在討論體育運動，爭論政治，互相對罵，調(diào)情，努力找工作，全部都混在一起，沒有墻，沒有界限，里面的吵鬧聲越大所有者就賺得越多。
04:55
(Laughter)
（笑聲）
04:56
No wonder it's a mess. And this raisesanother thing that become obvious when we think about platforms in terms ofphysical space. Good physical spaces are almost always structured. They haverules. Silicon Valley is built on this idea that unstructured space isconducive for human behavior. And I actually think there's a reason for thismyopia built into the location of Silicon Valley itself.
怪不得成了一團糟。而當我們從物理空間的角度考慮平臺，另一件事也變得顯而易見了。良好的物理空間幾乎總是結(jié)構(gòu)化的，它們有自己的規(guī)則。硅谷建立在這樣一個理念之上，即非結(jié)構(gòu)化空間有利于人類行為。我其實認為硅谷本身的位置造成了這種缺乏遠見的理念是有原因的。
05:26
So, Michele Gelfand is a sociologist whostudies how norms vary across cultures. And she watches how cultures like Japan-- which she calls "tight" -- is very conformist, veryrule-following, and cultures like Brazil are very loose. You can see this evenin things like how closely synchronized the clocks are on a city street. So asyou can see, the United States is one of the looser countries. And the looseststate in the United States is, you got it, California. And Silicon Valleyculture came out of the 1970s Californian counterculture.
米歇爾·蓋爾芬德是一位社會學家，他研究不同文化之間的規(guī)范是如何變化的。她觀察日本的文化——她稱之為“緊”——很循規(guī)蹈矩，很守規(guī)則，而像巴西這樣的文化則非常放松。你甚至可以在一些事情上看到這一點像城市街道上的時鐘同步得有多近。所以，如你所見，美國是比較寬松的國家之一。而在美國最放松的州之一，你猜到了，就是加州。硅谷文化源于上世紀 70 年代加州的反主流文化。
06:04
So, just to recap: the spaces that theworld is living in came out of the loosest culture in the loosest state in oneof the loosest countries in the world. No wonder they undervalue structure. AndI think this really matters, because people need structure. You may have heardthis word "anomie." It literally means "a lack of norms" inFrench. It was coined by Émile Durkheim to describe the vast, overwhelmingfeeling that people have in spaces without norms. Anomie has politicalconsequences. Because what Gelfand has found is that, when things are tooloose, people crave order and structure.
簡單地概括下：這個世界正處在的空間來自于最寬松的州里最寬松的文化，還來自世界上最寬松的國家之一，難怪他們低估了規(guī)則的重要性。我覺得這很重要，因為人們需要規(guī)則。你或許聽說過這個詞“失范”。在法語中，它的字面意思就是“缺乏規(guī)范約束”，是由埃米爾·杜克希姆率先提出，用以描述當人們處于毫無規(guī)范可言的空間時一種廣泛的、難以控制的感覺。失范也有著政治后果，因為蓋爾芬德發(fā)現(xiàn)，當一切都太松懈時，人們會渴望秩序和體系。
06:55
(Laughter)
（笑聲）
06:57
I don't think it's crazy to ask if thestructurelessness of online life is actually feeding anxiety that's increasinga responsiveness to authoritarianism.
我覺得問這樣的問題并不過分：毫無規(guī)則的在線生活是否正在加劇我們的不安，進一步增加了我們對獨裁主義的反應(yīng)？
07:10
So how might platforms bring peopletogether in a way that creates meaning and helps people understand each other?And this brings me back to our friend from Burning Man. Because listening tohim, I realized: it's not just that Burning Man isn't the solution -- it'sactually a perfect metaphor for the problem.
那么這些平臺是怎樣把人們聚集起來 從而創(chuàng)造價值，以及幫助人們相互理解的？ 這把我?guī)Щ亓?來自火人節(jié)的那位朋友，因為他的話讓我意識到： 火人節(jié)不但不是解決辦法—— 它其實是對問題最好的隱喻。
07:31
(Laughter)
（笑聲）
07:32
You know, it's a great place to visit for aweek, this amazing art city, rising out of nowhere in the dust. But youwouldn't want to live there.
那是去度過一周的完美去處，這令人驚嘆的藝術(shù)之城，像是沙塵中誕生的奇跡，但你不會想要住在那里。
07:41
(Laughter)
（笑聲）
07:42
There's no running water, there's no trashpickup. At some point, the hallucinogens run out, and you're stuck with a bunchof wealthy white guys in the dust in the desert.
那里沒有自來水，沒有垃圾回收，到某時，要是迷幻藥用完了，你會發(fā)現(xiàn)自己困在一堆有錢的白人中，被沙漠中的灰塵團團困住。
07:52
(Laughter)
（笑聲）
07:53
Which, to me, is sometimes how social mediafeels in 2019.
這對我來說，有時就像是 2019 年的社交媒體帶給我的感受。
07:57
(Laughter)
（笑聲）
07:59
A great, fun, hallucinatory place to visithas become our home. And so, if we look at platforms through the lens ofspaces, we can then ask ourselves: Who knows how to structure spaces for thepublic good? And it turns out, this is a question people have been thinkingabout for a long time about cities. Cities were the original platforms.Two-sided marketplace? Check. Place to keep up with old friends and distantrelatives? Check. Vector for viral sharing? Check. In fact, cities haveencountered a lot of the same social and political challenges that platformsare now encountering. They've dealt with massive growth that overwhelmedexisting communities and the rise of new business models. They've even had new,frictionless technologies that promised to connect everyone together and thatinstead deepened existing social and race divides. But because of this historyof decay and renewal and segregation and integration, cities are the source ofsome of our best ideas about how to build functional, thriving communities.
一個偉大的、有趣的，充滿幻想的地方已經(jīng)成為我們的家。所以，如果當我們透過空間看待這些平臺，我們可以試問自己：誰知道如何為公眾利益構(gòu)建空間？結(jié)果，這是一個 人們思考了很長時間的 關(guān)于城市的問題。城市是最初的平臺，雙邊市場？ 符合。一個可以讓老朋友 和遠親保持聯(lián)系的地方？ 符合。病毒共享載體？ 符合。事實上，城市遇到了 很多同樣的社會和政治挑戰(zhàn)，也正是現(xiàn)在的平臺所碰到的。他們已經(jīng)處理了淹沒了現(xiàn)有社區(qū)的巨大增長，以及不斷興起的新商業(yè)模式。他們甚至有了新的無縫技術(shù)，以保證讓所有人保持聯(lián)系，這也反而加深了現(xiàn)存的社會種族分裂。但是因為這段曾經(jīng)衰落又再度興起、不斷分裂又融合的歷史，城市給我們的一些最好想法帶來了靈感，關(guān)于如何建立功能性的、繁榮的社區(qū)。
09:18
Faced with a top-down, car-driven vision ofcity life, pioneers like Jane Jacobs said, let’s instead put humanrelationships at the center of urban design. Jacobs and her fellow travelerslike Holly Whyte, her editor, were these really great observers of whatactually happened on the street. They watched: Where did people stop and talk?When did neighbors become friends? And they learned a lot.
面對著一個自上而下的、汽車驅(qū)動的城市生活愿景，像是簡·雅各布斯這樣的先驅(qū)說，讓我們把人際關(guān)系置于城市設(shè)計的核心。雅各布斯和她的旅伴，比如她的編輯霍莉·懷特，她們真的很善于觀察街上發(fā)生的事。她們觀察：人們在哪里停留交談？鄰里之間是何時起成為了朋友？從中她們學到了很多。
09:46
For example, they noticed that successfulpublic places generally have three different ways that they structure behavior.There's the built environment, you know, that we're going to put a fountainhere or a playground there. But then, there's programming, like, let's put aband at seven and get the kids out. And there's this idea of mayors, people whokind of take this informal ownership of a space to keep it welcoming and clean.All three of these things actually have analogues online. But platforms mostlyfocus on code, on what's physically possible in the space. And they focus muchless on these other two softer, social areas. What are people doing there?Who's taking responsibility for it?
比如，他們注意到成功的公共場所 通常都有三種不同的方式 來規(guī)范行為。首先要有人造的環(huán)境，我們會在這里放一個噴泉 或那里放一個嬉戲地。其次，要有設(shè)定的程序，比如 7 點有樂隊表演，把孩子們都請出去。然后，還有關(guān)于市長的想法，就是有人對這個空間享有非正式的所有權(quán)，為了確保它的歡迎度和整潔。這三件事其實在網(wǎng)上都有類似的概念。但是平臺主要關(guān)注代碼，關(guān)注在這個空間里，在物理上可能存在的東西。同時，他們很少關(guān)注另外兩個更溫和的社會領(lǐng)域。人們在那里做什么？誰該為它負責？
10:36
So like Jane Jacobs did for cities, Taliaand I think we need a new design movement for online space, one that considersnot just "How do we build products that work for users or consumers?""How do we make something user-friendly?" but "How do we makeproducts that are public-friendly?" Because we need products that don'tserve individuals at the expense of the social fabric on which we all depend.And we need it urgently, because political scientists tell us that healthydemocracies need healthy public spaces. So, the public-friendly digital designmovement that Talia and I imagine asks this question: What would thisinteraction be like if it was happening in physical space? And it asks thereverse question: What can we learn from good physical spaces about how tostructure behavior in the online world?
就像簡·雅各布斯為城市所做的，塔利亞和我認為我們需要為在線空間 設(shè)計一場新的改革運動，它會不只考慮，“我們?nèi)绾螢橛脩艋蛳M者創(chuàng)建可行的產(chǎn)品？““我們該怎么樣制造便于用戶使用的東西？”但更要考慮“我們怎樣讓產(chǎn)品面向所有公眾？”因為我們需要的產(chǎn)品不僅是為個人，以犧牲我們賴以生存的社會結(jié)構(gòu)為代價。我們迫切地需要它，因為政治科學家告訴我們，健康的民主國家需要健康的公共空間。所以，塔利亞和我想象的公眾友好的數(shù)字設(shè)計運動問出了這樣一個問題：如果這種互動發(fā)生在現(xiàn)實空間，會是什么樣子？它也反問我們： 我們可以從好的 現(xiàn)實空間中學到什么，從而更好的管理在線世界？
11:34
For example, I grew up in a small town inMaine, and I went to a lot of those town hall meetings that you hear about. Andunlike the storybook version, they weren't always nice. Like, people had bigconflicts, big feelings ... It was hard sometimes. But because of the way thatthat space was structured, we managed to land it OK. How? Well, here's oneimportant piece. The downcast glance, the dirty look, the raised eyebrow, thecough ... When people went on too long or lost the crowd, they didn't get bannedor blocked or hauled out by the police, they just got this soft, negativesocial feedback. And that was actually very powerful.
例如，我在緬因州的一個小鎮(zhèn)上長大，我參加過很多你們聽說的市政廳會議。但并非如各位所聽說的，它們其實并不總是好的。像是，人們總有大矛盾，情緒化……有時很難協(xié)調(diào)。但是因為空間帶給我們的限制，讓我們得以掌控，讓一切順利進行。怎么做到的呢？這是重點。沮喪的眼神，怒目而視，揚起的眉角，還有咳嗽聲……當人們沒完沒了的說著，或者迷失在喧囂中，他們不會被禁言或拉黑，亦或是被警察拖出去，他們只得到了類似溫和的負面社會反饋。而這其實是相當有力的。
12:27
(Laughter)
（笑聲）
12:31
I think there are some other things thatonline spaces can learn from offline spaces. Holly Whyte observed that in healthypublic spaces, there are often many different places that afford different waysof relating. So the picnic table where you have lunch with your family may notbe suited for the romantic walk with a partner or the talk with some businesscolleagues. And it's worth noting that in real space, in none of these placesare there big, visible public signs of engagement. So digital designers couldthink about what kind of conversations do we actually want to invite, and howdo we build specifically for those kinds of conversations.
我認為在線空間還有很多其他東西可以從線下空間學習的?；衾?middot;懷特觀察到在健康的公共場所，通常不同的地方都會為人們提供不同的社交方式。你和家人共用午餐的野炊桌可能不適合伴侶的浪漫散步，或者和同事談?wù)撋虅?wù)事宜。值得注意的是在現(xiàn)實空間，這些地方中都沒有一個明顯的公眾參與的標識。因此，數(shù)字設(shè)計師可以考慮我們到底想邀請 進行什么樣的談話，以及我們?nèi)绾吾槍@些 對話創(chuàng)建相應(yīng)的空間。
13:13
Remember the park that we talked about thatbuilt social trust? That didn't happen because people were having these bigpolitical arguments. Most strangers don't actually even talk to each other thefirst three or four or five times they see each other. But when people, even verydifferent people, see each other a lot, they develop familiarity, and thatcreates the bedrock for relationships. And I think, actually, you know, maybethat early idea of cyberspace as kind of this bodiless meeting place of pureminds and pure ideas sent us off in the wrong direction. Maybe what we needinstead is to find a way to be in proximity, mostly talking amongst ourselves,but all sharing the same warm sun.
記得我之前談到的那個帶來社會信任的公園嗎？那不是因為人們有這些巨大的政治爭論才出現(xiàn)的，大多數(shù)陌生人在頭三到五次見面，甚至都沒有與彼此交流過。但是當人們，甚至是非常不同的人，不斷地見到彼此，他們間會越來越熟悉，而這就為關(guān)系打下了基石。事實上，我認為或許最初的網(wǎng)絡(luò)空間是為了打造純心智和純想法，無需面對面的交流方式，卻把我們領(lǐng)向了錯誤的方向，也許我們需要的是找到一種接近的方式，主要是與彼此交談，同時，又共享一個溫暖之陽。
13:58
And finally: healthy public spaces create asense of ownership and equity. And this is where the city metaphor becomeschallenging. Because, if Twitter is a city, it's a city that's owned by just afew people and optimized for financial return. I think we really need digitalenvironments that we all actually have some real ownership of, environmentsthat respect the diversity of human existence and that give us some say andsome input into the process. And I think we need this urgently. BecauseFacebook right now -- I sort of think of, like, 1970s New York.
而最后：健康的公共空間創(chuàng)造了所有權(quán)和公平感，這就是城市隱喻的挑戰(zhàn)所在。因為，如果推特是一座城市，這座城的掌控權(quán)僅屬于少數(shù)人，為了財務(wù)利益而不斷優(yōu)化。我覺得我們真正需要的電子環(huán)境是在其中，我們每個人都有一定的權(quán)力，在這個環(huán)境中，尊重彼此存在的多樣性，且賦予每個人以聲音，讓每個人都能參與這個進程。我相信這種多樣性已經(jīng)迫在眉睫，因為現(xiàn)在的臉書——讓我想到了上個世紀 70 年代的紐約。
14:35
(Laughter)
（笑聲）
14:36
The public spaces are decaying, there'strash in the streets, people are kind of, like, mentally and emotionallywarming themselves over burning garbage.
公共場所正在腐爛，街上盡是垃圾，人們有點像是在精神上、情感上通過焚燒垃圾來取暖。
14:44
(Laughter)
（笑聲）
14:46
And --
而且——
14:48
(Applause)
（掌聲）
14:53
And the natural response to this is to holeup in your apartment or consider fleeing for the suburbs. It doesn't surpriseme that people are giving up on the idea of online public spaces the way thatthey've given up on cities over their history. And sometimes -- I'll be honest-- it feels to me like this whole project of, like, wiring up a civilizationand getting billions of people to come into contact with each other is justimpossible. But modern cities tell us that it is possible for millions of peoplewho are really different, sometimes living right on top of each other, not justto not kill each other, but to actually build things together, find newexperiences, create beautiful, important infrastructure. And we cannot give upon that promise.
對此自然的反應(yīng)是躲在你的公寓里，或者考慮逃往郊區(qū)。很多人正在放棄這個關(guān)于在線空間的想法，就像歷史上人們放棄了自己的城市，這一點我完全不感到驚訝。而且有時——我很誠實地說——我感到整個項目 就像是在連接人類文明，讓數(shù)以億計的人彼此聯(lián)系，簡直就難以實現(xiàn)。但是現(xiàn)代的城市向我們證明了它有可能讓數(shù)百萬不同的人們，有時生活在彼此之上，不去互相殘殺，而是去共同建立一切，尋求新的體驗，創(chuàng)造美好的、不可或缺的設(shè)施。我們不能放棄這樣的承諾，
15:45
If we want to solve the big, importantproblems in front of us, we need better online public spaces. We need digitalurban planners, new Jane Jacobses, who are going to build the parks and parkbenches of the online world. And we need digital, public-friendly architects,who are going to build what Eric Klinenberg calls "palaces for thepeople" -- libraries and museums and town halls. And we need atransnational movement, where these spaces can learn from each other, just likecities have, about everything from urban farming to public art to rapidtransit.
如果我們想要解決我們眼前這巨大的、重要的問題，我們需要更好的在線空間，我們需要數(shù)字城市規(guī)劃師，新一代的簡·雅各布斯，那個能在網(wǎng)絡(luò)世界建造公園和長椅的人，我們需要數(shù)字時代的公共建筑師，他們可以建設(shè)埃里克·克蘭納伯格稱之為“為人民而建的宮殿”——圖書館、博物館和市政廳。我們需要一個跨國運動，使這些空間可以互相學習，就像今天的城市，從城市農(nóng)業(yè)到公共藝術(shù)，再到快速交通。
16:25
Humanity moves forward when we find newways to rely on and understand and trust each other. And we need this now morethan ever. If online digital spaces are going to be our new home, let's makethem a comfortable, beautiful place to live, a place we all feel not justincluded but actually some ownership of. A place we get to know each other. Aplace you'd actually want not just to visit but to bring your kids.
當我們能找到新的依靠、相互理解和信任時，人類就在進步。此刻，我們對這一愿景的需要勝過任何時候，如果在線數(shù)字空間將成為我們的新家，讓我們把它們打造成一個舒適、美好的地方，一個我們不僅能感到被接納包容，而且都有一定所有權(quán)的地方；一個我們能互相了解彼此的地方；一個你不僅想去，而且想要帶上孩子們?nèi)サ牡胤健?/p>
16:59
Thank you.
謝謝大家。
17:00
(Applause)
（掌聲）
