facebook遊戲
Fads are a big part of January. Everyone wants to hashtag their efforts at keeping up their New Year’s Resolution (#NoCheeseMonth, #NoCarbMonth, #NoFunMonth), and our collective refusal to acknowledge that the holidays are over means we’re all still desperate for distractions. But nobody minds, because we all love fads — it’s why we get obsessed with one hit wonders and dance routines (and, occasionally, both at the same time).
時尚是一月份的重要部分。 每個人都想标記他們為保持新年決心而付出的努力(＃NoCheeseMonth，＃NoCarbMonth，＃NoFunMonth)，而我們的集體拒絕承認假期已經結束，這意味着我們所有人仍然拼命分散注意力。 但是沒有人介意，因為我們都喜歡時尚-這就是為什麼我們沉迷于流行的奇觀和舞蹈套路(有時會同時出現)。
Yesterday, we got to see the confluence of a few of our favorite fads: megaconferences, big privacy promises, and clashes between tech giants. At CES, the Consumer Technology Association’s huge annual conference, representatives from Facebook, Apple, and others sat on a panel together. The topic, unsurprisingly, was privacy, and how these companies are adjusting to the changing political and regulatory landscape. There were the usual promises about “taking privacy seriously,” and recognition that governments are becoming increasingly concerned about the disproportionate power that businesses have to collect, and monetize, personal data.
昨天，我們看到了一些我們最喜歡的時尚的融合：大型會議，重大的隐私承諾以及科技巨頭之間的沖突。 在CES上，美國消費者技術協會(Consumer Technology Association)的大型年度會議上 ，來自Facebook，Apple和其他組織的代表一起參加了小組讨論 。 毫無疑問，主題是隐私，以及這些公司如何适應不斷變化的政治和法規環境。 通常存在“認真對待隐私”的承諾，并認識到政府越來越關注企業必須收集和貨币化個人資料的不成比例的權力。
And then, more than once, Facebook’s privacy czar Erin Egan made the claim that Facebook is just as protective of user privacy as Apple is.
然後，不僅僅一次，Facebook的隐私沙皇Erin Egan聲稱，Facebook與蘋果一樣，在保護使用者隐私方面同樣具有保護作用。
“See, I *do* have a sense of humor!” “看，我*有*幽默感！”
Uh…..What?
呃.....什麼？
Who knows why Facebook decided to opt for that as a talking point because, even if it is true ( which, you know, it isn’t), absolutely no one believes it to be true. It’s a scenario where saying something repeatedly is just going to make listeners angry, rather than believing that you’re right, like your uncle who keeps trying to tell you that Starland Vocal Band was the greatest group of the 70s. (It was obviously the Bay City Rollers). But given the last few years, it’s hard to imagine why Facebook would make a claim so bold, and so brazen, in a public setting.
誰知道Facebook為什麼決定選擇這一點作為談話要點，因為即使這是真的( 您知道，這不是事實 )，也絕對沒有人相信它是真的。 在這種情況下，反複說一句話隻會使聽衆生氣，而不是相信自己是對的，就像你的叔叔一直試圖告訴你，Starland Vocal Band是70年代最偉大的一群。 (顯然是Bay City Rollers )。 但是，鑒于過去的幾年，很難想象Facebook在公開場合為什麼會如此大膽，無禮。
Part of it is that Facebook and Apple are in entirely different businesses. Apple is a merchandise and services company that has an extremely potent data collection practice, while Facebook is essentially an advertising sales company driven by a massive personal data collection effort. It’s natural, if not desirable, for Facebook to have practices designed to pull in as much information about their users as possible, if only to be able to better market itself to companies that want to buy advertising services. But there is simply no question that the wholesale data consumption at Facebook is on a scale comparable really only with Google, and that allegations (and, really, proof) of malfeasance have dogged Facebook for at least a decade. Apple? Not so much.
部分原因是Facebook和Apple的業務完全不同。 蘋果公司是一家商品和服務公司，具有非常有效的資料收集實踐，而Facebook本質上是一家廣告銷售公司，受到大量個人資料收集工作的推動。 如果不希望這麼做，Facebook采取的做法是自然而然的，旨在盡可能多地擷取有關其使用者的資訊，即使這僅僅是為了更好地向想要購買廣告服務的公司推銷自己。 但是，毫無疑問，Facebook的大量資料消費量确實可以與Google媲美，并且對不法行為的指控 (甚至是證據 )已經使Facebook困擾了至少十年。 蘋果？ 沒那麼多。
The reality is that Facebook can’t make much of an argument about privacy, no matter how many times they repeat it. Consider their new “ Privacy Checkup,” which claims to provide users with the tools and information they need to create the kind of privacy controls best suited to them. It’s interesting, certainly, and the UI has been made easier and friendlier, but there’s a catch: it changes the privacy setting only as they relate to other people on Facebook, and not Facebook itself. In other words, you can make sure that facial recognition is turned off, or that your creepy next door neighbor doesn’t get to see you posts, but you still have just about the same level of control over what Facebook does with you data as you ever did: effectively bubkes.
現實情況是，無論隐私重複多少次，Facebook都無法對隐私提出太多争議。 考慮他們新的“ 隐私檢查 ”，它聲稱可以為使用者提供建立最适合他們的隐私控制所需的工具和資訊。 當然，這很有趣，并且UI變得更容易和友好，但是有一個陷阱：它僅在與Facebook上其他人相關而不是與 Facebook本身相關時更改隐私設定。 換句話說，您可以確定面部識别功能已關閉，或者您的令人毛骨悚然的隔壁鄰居不會看到您的文章，但是您對Facebook對資料所做的控制與對Facebook的控制程度大緻相同您曾經做過：有效地冒出來。
Does that come with guac? guac附帶嗎？
So why does Facebook say things like this? Why make a claim that’s so close to being just flatly untrue that it risks being called out? It’s a game, really. A language game, and it’s one, in the privacy sphere, that’s been underway for a very long time.
那麼，Facebook為什麼這麼說呢？ 為什麼要提出一個幾乎完全是虛假的說法以至于有被召喚的風險？ 真的，這是個遊戲。 在隐私領域，這種語言遊戲已經進行了很長時間了。
Quit Playing Games
退出玩遊戲
The concept of language as a game traces back to famously toussle-haired and famously ornery Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, who always looks to me like a cross between a (somehow) crankier Peter Capaldi and a (somehow) moodier Samuel Beckett. Moods aside, Wittgenstein was a brilliant, epoch-defining thinker who changed how we conceive of our use of language. According to his theories, all communication relates to its context, and so a word or phrase had no independent meaning: language is not a standalone entity that reflects reality or truth. Instead, language is a tool that we use, and it only becomes meaningful by the way we use it in a certain circumstance. For instance, if I shout “Traitor!” at you, I might be challenging your loyalty to your country, accusing you of changing your allegiance to a football team once they reach the playoffs, or making a Star Wars reference. You only know based on where we are, what we’re doing, the nature of our relationship etc etc. For Wittgenstein, when we communicate with one another, we’re playing the communication game, constructing its rules, and conveying ideas all at the same time.
語言作為一種遊戲的概念可以追溯到著名的四射頭發的和著名的讨厭的奧地利哲學家維特根斯坦(Ludwig Wittgenstein)，在我看來，他總是像一個(某種程度上)古怪的彼得·卡帕爾迪(Peter Capaldi)和一個(某種程度上)穆迪·塞缪爾·貝克特(Samuel Beckett)之間的十字架。 除了心情，維特根斯坦是一位傑出的，具有劃時代意義的思想家，他改變了我們對語言使用的看法。 根據他的理論，所有交流都與其上下文有關，是以單詞或短語沒有獨立的含義：語言不是反映現實或真理的獨立實體。 取而代之的是，語言是我們使用的一種工具，它僅在特定情況下以我們使用它的方式變得有意義。 例如，如果我大喊“叛徒！” 在您身上，我可能會挑戰您對自己國家的忠誠度，指責您一旦進入季後賽就改變對足球隊的忠誠度，或者成為《星球大戰》的參考 。 您僅基于我們的位置，正在做什麼，我們的關系性質等而知道。對于維特根斯坦，當我們彼此交流時，我們正在玩交流遊戲，建構其規則，并在所有地方傳達思想同時。
This was the happiest moment of his life. 這是他一生中最快樂的時刻。
Super! Except what happens when we’re playing different games? What if I use language in an attempt to induce the listener to believe I will do one thing, when in reality I intend the opposite, or something very different? Obviously, our communication is flawed, and wherever we take our interaction, it will carry the taint of that initial lie. More charitably, what if we’re merely talking past one another because our words carry different meanings based on the contexts from which we came to our meeting with one another? How could we communicate with one another in that situation and expect to reach the desired outcome? At least one of us is going to be disappointed, and maybe both.
超！ 除了當我們玩不同的遊戲時會發生什麼？ 如果我使用語言試圖誘使聽衆相信我會做一件事，而實際上我卻提出了相反的建議，或者是截然不同的事情，該怎麼辦？ 顯然，我們的溝通是有缺陷的，無論我們在哪裡進行互動，都會帶有最初謊言的污點。 更具有慈善意義的是，如果我們隻是彼此交談而已，因為我們的話語基于我們彼此開會的背景而具有不同的含義，該怎麼辦？ 在這種情況下，我們如何彼此溝通并期望達到預期的結果？ 至少我們中的一個會失望，也許兩者都有。
This is where we find ourselves when it comes to privacy: Facebook isn’t playing the same game that we are, at least when it comes to privacy. When they say privacy checkup, we hear “control over my privacy and what is shared,” but Facebook means “control over other users’ activity.” Facebook’s meaning is unclear because they never come right out and explain what they mean, and because privacy is a very complicated subject that makes contexutalization difficult.
在隐私方面，我們可以在這裡找到自己：Facebook至少在玩隐私方面與我們玩的遊戲不同。 當他們說隐私檢查時，我們聽到“控制我的隐私和共享的内容”，但Facebook的意思是“控制其他使用者的活動”。 Facebook的含義尚不清楚，因為它們永遠不會立即出現并解釋其含義， 并且因為隐私是一個非常複雜的主題，是以很難進行加密。
Think about it this way: when we normally deal with a company as individual people, it’s in the context of a purchase and sale. There’s little room for confusion because our context is clear: buyer and seller. Starbucks says “$4.00 for a latte,” I say “$*@$# fine, take my money,” everyone walks away clear about what happened. But Facebook (like other social media or tech companies) operates at the very center of our personhood, our identity. The difference is that Facebook uses our misunderstanding and monetizes personal data at the expense of the very privacy it claims to promote.
這樣考慮：當我們通常以個人身份與公司打交道時，這是在買賣中。 混亂的餘地很小，因為我們的上下文很明确：買方和賣方。 星巴克說“拿鐵$ 4.00”，我說“ $ * @ $＃好，拿走我的錢，”所有人都清楚地知道發生了什麼。 但是，Facebook(像其他社交媒體或科技公司一樣)在我們人格的中心即身份上運作。 不同之處在于，Facebook利用我們的誤解并利用個人資料獲利，而犧牲了它聲稱要推廣的隐私權。
“Privacy,” of course, is an extremely loaded term. When Facebook says it, they use it in the context of a commercial enterprise embedded in a complex regulatory scheme; when we say it, we’re talking about who gets the right to peer into our life. Two games, two sets of rules, two sets of meanings. That’s why we’re frustrated with Facebook, but it’s also why Facebook says that it’s just as good as Apple: we’re all talking about different things, in different contexts, for different reasons.
當然，“隐私”是一個極為繁重的術語。 當Facebook所說時，他們在嵌入複雜監管方案的商業企業中使用它。 當我們說這句話時，我們正在談論的是誰有權窺視我們的生活。 兩場比賽，兩套規則，兩套含義。 這就是為什麼我們對Facebook感到沮喪，也是Facebook為什麼說它與Apple一樣好的原因：出于不同的原因，我們都在談論不同背景下的不同僚物。
Check out his law blog. 檢視他的法律部落格。
Clearing up the Mess
清理混亂
GDPR didn’t clear up this confusion, and the linguistic hot mess that is the CCPA certainly won’t help either. What we need is a new taxonomy of privacy, a set approach to talking about privacy that gives everyone a shared context with mutually intelligible rules and parameters, if not outcomes. It’s a process that begins with changing the way we expect, and require, businesses to communicate about what they’re doing. The incessant legalese, the convoluted terms, and the byzantine clickthrough structures all have to go, for a start. From a consumer-facing perspective, that’s simply a prerequisite.
GDPR并沒有消除這種混亂，CCPA 這樣的語言熱點 肯定也無濟于事。 我們需要的是一種新的隐私分類法，這是一種讨論隐私的固定方法，可以為每個人提供一個共享的上下文，這些上下文和規則和參數即使不是結果，也可以互相了解。 這是一個過程，首先要改變我們期望和要求企業交流其工作方式的方式。 首先，必須要有大量的法文，令人費解的術語和拜占庭式的點選結構。 從面向消費者的角度來看，這僅僅是前提條件。
The only way that happens is if we change the way businesses think about privacy more generally. the conversations about privacy have to shift away from “what do we have to do about this privacy business” to “what do we have to do to make privacy our business.” That change is what GDPR was meant to inspire, but it has not materialized, even a little, as of yet. It’s more than just privacy by design, although PbD is absolutely essential. The real change is when businesses and individuals alike recognize that privacy doesn’t destroy the ability to deliver goods and services to individuals: we all bought things before our IoT toaster spied on us, we’ll continue to do so if the surveillance stops.
發生的唯一方法是，如果我們更廣泛地改變企業對隐私的看法。 有關隐私的讨論必須從“我們必須對此隐私業務做些什麼”轉變為“我們必須做什麼才能使 我們的業務隐私化。” 這一變化是GDPR所要激發的，但到目前為止尚未實作。 盡管PbD是絕對必要的，但不僅僅是設計上的隐私。 真正的變化是，當企業和個人都意識到隐私并沒有破壞向個人傳遞商品和服務的能力時：我們都在物聯網烤面包機受到監視之前就已經購買了東西，如果監控停止，我們将繼續這樣做。
This year, we’ll spend a fair amount of time talking about strategies for doing that, including promotion of verified answers, identifying sources of truth and trust, and delivering on easily-made privacy promises. For now, though, it starts with speaking the same language when it comes to privacy. When that happens, I’d be very interested in hearing what Facebook has to say.
今年，我們将花費大量時間讨論這樣做的政策，包括推廣經過驗證的答案，确定真相和信任的來源以及兌現容易做出的隐私承諾。 不過，就隐私而言，目前首先講相同的語言。 發生這種情況時，我會對聽到Facebook的發言非常感興趣。
“Nervous? Who’s nervous? I’m not nervous.” “緊張？ 誰在緊張？ 我不緊張。”
Originally published at https://wardpllc.com on January 9, 2020.
最初于 2020年1月9日 在 https://wardpllc.com 上 釋出 。
翻譯自: https://medium.com/swlh/facebooks-privacy-game-9d454191c41d
facebook遊戲