您现在的位置: 纽约时报中英文网 >> 纽约时报中英文版 >> 科技 >> 正文

你在Facebook上点的“赞”是如何被人利用的

更新时间:2018-3-21 19:42:28 来源:纽约时报中文网 作者:佚名

How Researchers Learned to Use Facebook ‘Likes’ to Sway Your Thinking
你在Facebook上点的“赞”是如何被人利用的

Perhaps at some point in the past few years you’ve told Facebook that you like, say, Kim Kardashian West. When you hit the thumbs-up button on her page, you probably did it because you wanted to see the reality TV star’s posts in your news feed. Maybe you realized that marketers could target advertisements to you based on your interest in her.

可能在过去几年中的某个时候,你曾告诉Facebook,你喜欢——比如说,金·卡戴珊·韦斯特(Kim Kardashian West)。你在她的主页上点“赞”,可能只是因为你想在自己的新闻推送中看到这个电视真人秀明星的发帖。可能你也明白,营销人员会根据你对她的兴趣而向你投放定向广告。

What you probably missed is that researchers had figured out how to tie your interest in Ms. Kardashian West to certain personality traits, such as how extroverted you are (very), how conscientious (more than most) and how open-minded (only somewhat). And when your fondness for Ms. Kardashian West is combined with other interests you’ve indicated on Facebook, researchers believe their algorithms can predict the nuances of your political views with better accuracy than your loved ones.

但你可能不知道的是,研究人员已经弄清了你对金·卡戴珊的兴趣如何与某些性格特征相关联,比如你有多么外向(非常外向)、有多么严谨(比大多数人都严谨),以及思想有多开放(只是有点开放)。一旦把你对卡戴珊的喜爱和你在Facebook上显示出的其他兴趣相关联,研究人员相信,他们的算法就能比你的爱人更精准地预测出你政治观点的细微差别。

As The New York Times reported on Saturday, that is what motivated the consulting firm Cambridge Analytica to collect data from more than 50 million Facebook users, without their consent, to build its own behavioral models to target potential voters in various political campaigns. The company has worked for a political action committee started by John R. Bolton, who served in the George W. Bush administration, as well as for President Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016. “We find your voters and move them to action,” the firm boasts on its website.

正如《纽约时报》周六的报道,正是这一点促动了咨询公司剑桥分析(Cambridge Analytica)收集了5000多万Facebook用户的信息,在未经他们同意的情况下,建立起了自己的行为模型,以便在不同的政治活动中瞄准潜在投票者。这个公司曾为乔治·W·布什(George W. Bush)政府的约翰·R·博尔顿(John R. Bolton)创建的政治行动委员会工作,也曾在2016年的总统大选中帮助过特朗普。“我们帮你找到投票人并催促他们行动,”该公司在其网站上如此宣称。

Cambridge Analytica now says it has destroyed the user data it collected on Facebook. Raw data reviewed by The Times suggests the information, or copies of it, may still exist. In either case, specific user information was merely a means to an end, a building block in a far more ambitious construction: a behavioral model powerful enough to manipulate people’s activity and, potentially, sway elections.

现在,剑桥分析表示,他们已经销毁了从Facebook上收集来的用户数据。但时报查阅的原始数据显示,这些信息或信息副本可能依然存在。对他们而言,某位用户信息只是通往一个目标、一个用以建造更具野心的建筑物的砌块:也就是一个足以操控人们的活动,并且还有可能操纵选举的行为模型。

The firm adapted its approach to personality modeling from studies conducted by researchers at Stanford University and the Psychometrics Center at the University of Cambridge. The studies relied on data collected by a Facebook app called myPersonality, a 100-question quiz developed by the Psychometrics Center that assessed a person’s openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness and neuroticism, traits commonly referred to in the academic community by the acronym Ocean.

该公司根据斯坦福大学(Stanford University)及剑桥大学(University of Cambridge)心理测量中心(Psychometrics Center)研究人员进行的研究调整了自己的性格建模方法。该研究依赖于Facebook一款名叫myPersonality(我的性格)的应用收集来的数据,这是一套由心理测量中心开发的100问小测验,可测评一个人的开放性(openness)、严谨性(conscientiousness)、外向性(extroversion)、宜人性(agreeableness)和神经质(neuroticism),这些特征常被学术界以缩写“OCEAN”指代。

Many respondents who took the quiz through the myPersonality app authorized it to gain access to their Facebook profile data, and that of their friends — access that was allowed by the social network at the time. That allowed researchers to cross-reference the results of the quiz — numeric Ocean scores — with the users’ Facebook “likes,” and build a model from the correlations they found between the two. With that model, the researchers could often make precise guesses about subsequent users’ personalities using only a list of their likes, no 100-question quiz necessary.

许多通过myPersonality接受测试的受试者都同意授权该应用访问其个人及其好友的Facebook资料数据——当时Facebook还允许这么做。这使研究人员得以对测试结果——OCEAN数值得分——及用户的Facebook“点赞”进行交叉对照,并根据他们在两者之间找到的关联建模。有了这个模型,研究人员往往只需一张他们的“点赞”清单,就能精准预测后续用户的性格,不需再进行100题测试。

One of the studies the Psychometrics Center produced, published in 2015 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, was built on the “likes” and Ocean scores of more than 70,000 respondents who took the myPersonality quiz on Facebook. It found that a person who liked the movie “Fight Club,” for example, was far more likely to be open to new experiences than a person who liked “American Idol,” according to a review of data provided to The Times by Michal Kosinski, an author of the 2015 study and a computer science professor at Stanford.

心理测量中心2015年发表在《美国国家科学院学报》(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)上的一项研究,正是以Facebook上的点赞数以及在该平台上接受myPersonality测试的7万多名受访者的Ocean得分为依据。例如,根据对2015年那项研究的作者、斯坦福大学计算机科学教授米哈尔·科辛斯基(Michal Kosinski)提供给时报的数据所做评估,该研究发现,喜欢电影《搏击俱乐部》(Fight Club)的人很可能比喜欢《美国偶像》(American Idol)的人更愿意接受新体验。

In that study, the researchers compared the accuracy of their model with personality assessments made by the respondents’ friends. The friends were given a 10-question version of the myPersonality quiz and asked to answer based on their knowledge of the respondents’ personalities.

在那项研究中,研究者将自己的模型与受访者好友做出的性格评估进行了准确性对比。好友得到了只有10个问题的myPersonality测试,被要求基于他们对受访者个性的了解回答那些问题。

Based on a sample of more than 32,000 participants who were assessed by both the model and one or two friends, the researchers found that the model, using just 10 likes, was more accurate than a work colleague. With 70 likes, it was more accurate than a friend or roommate; with 150, more accurate than a family member; and with 300, more accurate than a spouse.

根据3.2万多名接受该模型以及一两位好友评估的参与者的样本,研究人员发现,通过分析仅仅10个点赞得出的模型比同事的评估更准确。对70个点赞的分析比朋友或室友的评估更准确;对150个点赞的分析比家庭成员的判断更准确;对300个点赞的分析比配偶的判断更准确。

The model, the researchers said, was particularly adept at “predicting life outcomes such as substance use, political attitudes and physical health.” The real-world efficacy of the approach, however, has been called into question.

研究人员表示,该模型尤其擅长“预测物品使用、政治态度和身体健康状况等生活结果”。不过,这种方法在真实世界里的效用受到了质疑。

When Cambridge Analytica approached the Psychometrics Center about using its models, the center declined. Cambridge Analytica then turned to Aleksandr Kogan, a psychology professor at Cambridge University who was familiar with the center’s work. Dr. Kogan developed a Facebook app called “thisisyourdigitallife,” a quiz similar to myPersonality, and used it to harvest data from more than 50 million Facebook profiles. Of those, 30 million contained enough information to generate personality profiles. Only 270,000 users authorized Dr. Kogan’s app to have access to their data, and all were told that their information was being used for academic research.

当剑桥分析公司向心理测量中心申请使用它的模型时,该中心拒绝了。剑桥分析公司随后求助于剑桥大学(Cambridge University)的心理学教授亚历山大·科根(Aleksandr Kogan),后者非常熟悉该中心的工作。科根博士开发了一款名为thisisyourdigitallife的Facebook应用程序,这是一个类似于myPersonality的测试,用来收集了5000多万个Facebook简介的数据。其中3000万个简介包含了足够的信息,可以生成个性概述。只有27万名用户授权科根博士的应用程序获取他们的数据,所有人都被告知他们的信息用于学术研究。

Cambridge then pitched its services to potential political and commercial clients, ranging from Mastercard and the New York Yankees to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

随后,剑桥分析公司向潜在的政治和商业客户宣传自己的服务,包括万事达卡(Mastercard)、纽约扬基队(New York Yankees),以及参谋长联席会议(Joint Chiefs of Staff)等。

Facebook has now banned Cambridge Analytica from its platform, as well as its parent company and Dr. Kogan. In Facebook’s eyes, Dr. Kogan’s infraction was not collecting the data, but giving it to Cambridge Analytica.

现在,Facebook已禁止剑桥分析公司以及它的母公司和科根博士使用这个平台。在Facebook看来,科根的违规行为并不是在收集数据,而是把数据交给剑桥分析公司。

“Although Kogan gained access to this information in a legitimate way and through the proper channels that governed all developers on Facebook at that time, he did not subsequently abide by our rules,” Facebook’s deputy general counsel said in a statement on Friday.

“尽管科根以合法的方式以及当时约束Facebook上所有开发者的正当渠道获得了该信息,但他后来并没有遵守我们的规定,”Facebook的副总法律顾问周五在一份声明中说。

By handing over that information to a private company, Facebook said, Dr. Kogan violated its terms of service.

Facebook表示,科根博士将这些信息交给一家私人公司,违反了服务条款。

Facebook in 2015 changed its policies, including altering rules about how third-party apps can gain access to information about users’ friends. But user data collected through such apps over the years probably remains in the wild, not to mention the models that can continue to be used to target people around the world.

2015年,Facebook改变了自己的政策,包括对第三方应用程序如何获取用户好友信息的规定。但是,多年来通过这些应用程序收集的用户数据很可能依然流传在外,更别提那些可以继续被用来在世界各地锁定目标用户的模型了。

“全文请访问纽约时报中文网,本文发表于纽约时报中文网(http://cn.nytimes.com),版权归纽约时报公司所有。任何单位及个人未经许可,不得擅自转载或翻译。订阅纽约时报中文网新闻电邮:http://nytcn.me/subscription/”

相关文章列表