慶応環境情報 2015 II フレーズ・解説
原文はこちら
II
1
On November 2, 2010,
Facebook's American users
were subject to an ambitious experiment in civic-engineering:
Could a social network
get people to vote in that day's elections?
get O to do「Oに～させる」
2
The answer was yes.
3
The way
to [31 ] (1. nudge 2. shake 3. stroke) bystanders
to the voting booths
was simple.
It consisted of
a graphic containing a link for looking up voting places,
a button to click to announce that you had voted,
and the profile photos of up to six Facebook friends
〔who had indicated they'd already done the same〕.
look up「調べる」
up to「最大～までの」
done the same = voted
[32](1. Against 2. With 3. Beyond) Facebook's cooperation,
the political scientists〔who conducted the study〕
planted that graphic
in the newsfeeds of tens of millions of users.
Other groups of Facebook users were shown
a [33](1. generic 2. generous 3. genetic) get-out-the-vote message
or received no voting reminder at all.
Then the researchers compared their subjects' names
with the day's actual voting records
to measure how much their voting prompt increased participation.
4
Overall,
users〔who were notified of their friends' voting〕
were 0.39 percent more likely to vote
than those in the other group,
and any resulting decisions to vote
also appeared to spread
to the behavior of close Facebook friends,
even if those people hadn't received the original message.
That small increase in voting rates
[34](1. amounted to 2. contrasted with 3. passed up) a lot of new votes.
The researchers concluded that
their Facebook graphic directly mobilized 60,000 voters,
and, thanks to the ripple effect,
ultimately caused an additional 340,000 votes to be cast that day.
cause O to do「Oが～することを引き起こす」
5
Now consider a hypothetical, [35](1. coolly 2. hotly 3. warmly) contested future election.
Suppose that
the CEO of Facebook personally favors
whichever candidate you don't like.
He arranges
for a voting prompt to appear
within the newsfeeds of tens of millions of active Facebook users
arrange for S to do「Sが～する準備をする」
―but unlike in the 2010 experiment,
the group 〔that will not receive the message〕
is not chosen at random.
Rather,
he makes use of the fact
that Facebook "likes" can predict political views and political party affiliation,
even [36](1. before 2. beneath 3. beyond) the many users
〔who include that information in their profiles already〕.
With that knowledge,
he could choose not to change the feeds of users
〔who don't agree with his views〕.
This could then [37](1. flap 2. flip 3. flop) the outcome of the election.
could→今は仮定の話をしているのでcould（「ありえるだろう」）になる。
Should the law constrain this kind of behavior?
6
The scenario imagined above is an example of digital gerrymandering.
All sorts of factors [38](1. contend with 2. contrast with 3. contribute to)
what Facebook or Twitter present in a feed,
or what Google or Bing show us in search results.
Our expectation is that
those companies will provide open access to others’ content
and that
the variables in their processes
just help [39](1. field 2. wield 3. yield) the information
〔we find most relevant〕.
Digital gerrymandering occurs
when a site instead distributes information
in a manner
〔that serves its own political agenda〕.
instead「そうではなく」→ここでは前文で書かれている内容、つまり、われわれが期待していることとは違ってという意味。
This is possible on any service
〔that personalizes what users see or the order in which they see it〕,
and it's increasingly easy to do.
personalize「個別化する」（→個人個人に応じたものを提供する）
7
There are plenty of reasons
to regard digital gerrymandering as so dangerous
that no right-thinking company would attempt it.
regard O as 「Oを～だとみなす」
so ... that「とても...なので～」
But none of these businesses
actually promise [40](1. accuracy 2. neutrality 3. partiality).
And they have already shown themselves
willing to leverage their awesome platforms
to attempt to influence policy.
show O C 「OがCであることを見せる、示す」
In January 2012, for example,
Google blacked out its home page "doodle"
(the logo graphic at the top of the page)
as a protest
[41 ](1. against 2. by 3. for) the pending Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the US,
which [they thought] would cause censorship.
they = Google
The altered logo linked to an official blog [421(1. entrance 2. entree 3. entry)
asking Google users to contact Congress to complain;
SOPA was ultimately abandoned,
just as Google and many others had wanted.
A social-media or search company
〔looking to take the [43](1. first 2. last 3, next) step
and attempt to create a favorable outcome in an election〕
would certainly have the means.
8
So what's stopping that from happening?
The most important fail-safe
is the threat that
a significant number of users
, outraged by a betrayal of trust,
would start using different services,
hurting the company's income and reputation.
[44](1. However 2. Meanwhile 3. Moreover),
although a Google doodle lies in plain view,
newsfeeds and search results have no standard form.
They can be subtly [45](1. teased 2. tickled 3. tweaked)
without anyone knowing.
Indeed,
in our get-out-the-vote hypothetical situation above,
the people with the most reason to complain
would be those who weren't given the prompt
and may never know it existed.
Not only that,
but the policies of social networks and search engines
already state that
the companies can change their newsfeeds and search results
however they like.
An effort to change voter participation
could be covered
by the existing user agreements
and require no special notice to users.
cover「覆い隠す」
existing「すでにある、既存の」
user agreement「利用規定」
9
[46](1. At the same time 2. By the way 3. More to the point),
passing new laws to prevent digital gerrymandering
would be a bad idea.
People may be due the benefits of a democratic electoral process,
but in the United States,
both people and corporations
also have a First Amendment right to free speech
―and to present their content as they [47](1. know 2. see 3. wish) fit.
Meddling with how a company gives information to its users
, especially when the information is not false,
is asking for trouble.
10
There's a better solution available:
requiring web companies
〔entrusted with personal data and preferences〕
to act as "information fiduciaries."
Just as a doctor or lawyer is not allowed
to use information
about his or her [48](1. patents 2. paticnce 3. patients) or clients
for outside purposes,
web companies should also be prohibited from doing this.
just as 「～と同じように」
11
As things stand,
web companies are simply bound to follow their own privacy policies.
as things stand「現状では」
be bound to do「～しなければならない、～する運命にある」
Information fiduciaries would have to do more.
For example,
they might be required
to keep information about
when the personal data of their users
is shared with another company,
or is used in a new way.
They would provide a way for users
to switch to unadulterated search results or newsfeeds
to see how that content would appear
if it were not personalized.
And, most important,
information fiduciaries would promise
not to use any formulas of personalization
based on their own political goals.
12
Four decades ago,
another emerging technology had Americans worried
about how it might be manipulating them.
have O C「OをCの状態にする」
In 1974,
there was a panic
over the possibility of subliminal messages
in TV advertisements.
As a result,
the Federal Communications Commission
prohibited that kind of communication.
There was a [49](1. floor 2, foundation 3. foot) for that rule;
historically, broadcasters have accepted
a responsibility to be fair
in exchange for licenses to use the public airwaves.
The same duty of audience protection
ought to be brought to today's dominant medium.
medium→mediaの単数形
As more and more of what shapes our views and behaviors
comes from invisible, artificial-intelligence-driven processes,
the worst-case [50](1. scenarios 2. scenes 3. situations)
should be placed off limits
in ways
that don't become restrictions on free speech.
Our information intermediaries
can keep their sauces secret,
inevitably advantaging some sources of content
and disadvantaging others,
while still agreeing that
some ingredients are poison
―and must be off the table.
II
1
On November 2, 2010,
Facebook's American users
were subject to an ambitious experiment in civic-engineering:
Could a social network
get people to vote in that day's elections?
get O to do「Oに～させる」
2
The answer was yes.
3
The way
to [31 ] (1. nudge 2. shake 3. stroke) bystanders
to the voting booths
was simple.
It consisted of
a graphic containing a link for looking up voting places,
a button to click to announce that you had voted,
and the profile photos of up to six Facebook friends
〔who had indicated they'd already done the same〕.
look up「調べる」
up to「最大～までの」
done the same = voted
[32](1. Against 2. With 3. Beyond) Facebook's cooperation,
the political scientists〔who conducted the study〕
planted that graphic
in the newsfeeds of tens of millions of users.
Other groups of Facebook users were shown
a [33](1. generic 2. generous 3. genetic) get-out-the-vote message
or received no voting reminder at all.
Then the researchers compared their subjects' names
with the day's actual voting records
to measure how much their voting prompt increased participation.
4
Overall,
users〔who were notified of their friends' voting〕
were 0.39 percent more likely to vote
than those in the other group,
and any resulting decisions to vote
also appeared to spread
to the behavior of close Facebook friends,
even if those people hadn't received the original message.
That small increase in voting rates
[34](1. amounted to 2. contrasted with 3. passed up) a lot of new votes.
The researchers concluded that
their Facebook graphic directly mobilized 60,000 voters,
and, thanks to the ripple effect,
ultimately caused an additional 340,000 votes to be cast that day.
cause O to do「Oが～することを引き起こす」
5
Now consider a hypothetical, [35](1. coolly 2. hotly 3. warmly) contested future election.
Suppose that
the CEO of Facebook personally favors
whichever candidate you don't like.
He arranges
for a voting prompt to appear
within the newsfeeds of tens of millions of active Facebook users
arrange for S to do「Sが～する準備をする」
―but unlike in the 2010 experiment,
the group 〔that will not receive the message〕
is not chosen at random.
Rather,
he makes use of the fact
that Facebook "likes" can predict political views and political party affiliation,
even [36](1. before 2. beneath 3. beyond) the many users
〔who include that information in their profiles already〕.
With that knowledge,
he could choose not to change the feeds of users
〔who don't agree with his views〕.
This could then [37](1. flap 2. flip 3. flop) the outcome of the election.
could→今は仮定の話をしているのでcould（「ありえるだろう」）になる。
Should the law constrain this kind of behavior?
6
The scenario imagined above is an example of digital gerrymandering.
All sorts of factors [38](1. contend with 2. contrast with 3. contribute to)
what Facebook or Twitter present in a feed,
or what Google or Bing show us in search results.
Our expectation is that
those companies will provide open access to others’ content
and that
the variables in their processes
just help [39](1. field 2. wield 3. yield) the information
〔we find most relevant〕.
Digital gerrymandering occurs
when a site instead distributes information
in a manner
〔that serves its own political agenda〕.
instead「そうではなく」→ここでは前文で書かれている内容、つまり、われわれが期待していることとは違ってという意味。
This is possible on any service
〔that personalizes what users see or the order in which they see it〕,
and it's increasingly easy to do.
personalize「個別化する」（→個人個人に応じたものを提供する）
7
There are plenty of reasons
to regard digital gerrymandering as so dangerous
that no right-thinking company would attempt it.
regard O as 「Oを～だとみなす」
so ... that「とても...なので～」
But none of these businesses
actually promise [40](1. accuracy 2. neutrality 3. partiality).
And they have already shown themselves
willing to leverage their awesome platforms
to attempt to influence policy.
show O C 「OがCであることを見せる、示す」
In January 2012, for example,
Google blacked out its home page "doodle"
(the logo graphic at the top of the page)
as a protest
[41 ](1. against 2. by 3. for) the pending Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the US,
which [they thought] would cause censorship.
they = Google
The altered logo linked to an official blog [421(1. entrance 2. entree 3. entry)
asking Google users to contact Congress to complain;
SOPA was ultimately abandoned,
just as Google and many others had wanted.
A social-media or search company
〔looking to take the [43](1. first 2. last 3, next) step
and attempt to create a favorable outcome in an election〕
would certainly have the means.
8
So what's stopping that from happening?
The most important fail-safe
is the threat that
a significant number of users
, outraged by a betrayal of trust,
would start using different services,
hurting the company's income and reputation.
[44](1. However 2. Meanwhile 3. Moreover),
although a Google doodle lies in plain view,
newsfeeds and search results have no standard form.
They can be subtly [45](1. teased 2. tickled 3. tweaked)
without anyone knowing.
Indeed,
in our get-out-the-vote hypothetical situation above,
the people with the most reason to complain
would be those who weren't given the prompt
and may never know it existed.
Not only that,
but the policies of social networks and search engines
already state that
the companies can change their newsfeeds and search results
however they like.
An effort to change voter participation
could be covered
by the existing user agreements
and require no special notice to users.
cover「覆い隠す」
existing「すでにある、既存の」
user agreement「利用規定」
9
[46](1. At the same time 2. By the way 3. More to the point),
passing new laws to prevent digital gerrymandering
would be a bad idea.
People may be due the benefits of a democratic electoral process,
but in the United States,
both people and corporations
also have a First Amendment right to free speech
―and to present their content as they [47](1. know 2. see 3. wish) fit.
Meddling with how a company gives information to its users
, especially when the information is not false,
is asking for trouble.
10
There's a better solution available:
requiring web companies
〔entrusted with personal data and preferences〕
to act as "information fiduciaries."
Just as a doctor or lawyer is not allowed
to use information
about his or her [48](1. patents 2. paticnce 3. patients) or clients
for outside purposes,
web companies should also be prohibited from doing this.
just as 「～と同じように」
11
As things stand,
web companies are simply bound to follow their own privacy policies.
as things stand「現状では」
be bound to do「～しなければならない、～する運命にある」
Information fiduciaries would have to do more.
For example,
they might be required
to keep information about
when the personal data of their users
is shared with another company,
or is used in a new way.
They would provide a way for users
to switch to unadulterated search results or newsfeeds
to see how that content would appear
if it were not personalized.
And, most important,
information fiduciaries would promise
not to use any formulas of personalization
based on their own political goals.
12
Four decades ago,
another emerging technology had Americans worried
about how it might be manipulating them.
have O C「OをCの状態にする」
In 1974,
there was a panic
over the possibility of subliminal messages
in TV advertisements.
As a result,
the Federal Communications Commission
prohibited that kind of communication.
There was a [49](1. floor 2, foundation 3. foot) for that rule;
historically, broadcasters have accepted
a responsibility to be fair
in exchange for licenses to use the public airwaves.
The same duty of audience protection
ought to be brought to today's dominant medium.
medium→mediaの単数形
As more and more of what shapes our views and behaviors
comes from invisible, artificial-intelligence-driven processes,
the worst-case [50](1. scenarios 2. scenes 3. situations)
should be placed off limits
in ways
that don't become restrictions on free speech.
Our information intermediaries
can keep their sauces secret,
inevitably advantaging some sources of content
and disadvantaging others,
while still agreeing that
some ingredients are poison
―and must be off the table.
コメント
コメントを投稿