The Lesser Evil:

View Original

Ep27. 在無邊無際的思想集中營裡散步

哈囉,大家好嗎?而家我喺陣陣秋風嘅一個公園仔寫緊呢篇稿。今日天氣好好呀,希望你地揀呢一集嘅時候,嗰日嘅天氣都好好。

我每一個禮拜六都會同一時間,去同一間cafe,食同一樣嘢,食完然後去旁邊嘅公園仔坐一陣。通常食完差唔多一點,就會有幾個著住食環署外判制服嘅公公婆婆行入嚟休息。大概坐一個鐘,佢哋有時互相傾一兩句計,然後就坐到兩點。我有好幾次同佢哋打招呼,都好想同佢哋傾下計。我好想親口喺佢哋口中知道佢嘅一日係點,有無邊樣嘢係最討厭最辛苦,點解成日孭住個斜孭袋,好重呀咁樣孭法。我知道制度嘅問題唔係一朝一夕改變到,但係有冇啲咩可以改善到工作環境,制服係咪好熱?有冇啲好啲嘅工具、設計可以令到佢哋嘅工作舒服啲?有無其他發明可以令呢個行業冇咁厭惡性?我希望我下一個禮拜可以有勇氣主動撩佢哋傾計。鏡頭一轉,我望住對面嘅公廁,睇鏗鏘集好似係露宿者嘅聚居地。有時我會覺得自己拎住一部電腦係呢度寫稿,好似好諷刺。我寫嘅係世界各地嘅不公義,但係偏偏對自己屋企嘅不公義就乜嘢都好似做唔到咁。

今次呢一集係極其驚嚇同痛苦嘅心情寫嘅。事緣我琴日去咗一個舊同學嘅聚會。 係一個角落,我同一個好耐都無見,應該從來講嘢唔多過十句嘅同學傾計。應該會係唔會知我有呢個podcast,所以應該冇嘢卦哈哈。我哋唔知點解突然講到新疆集中營。然後佢話,其實咁樣係因為裡面嘅人信嘅宗教其中一條教條係話喺某啲情況下可以將其他人嘅頭斬落嚟,總之全部都係有極端思想,話新疆點會可能困住一百萬人,同埋新疆集中營已經比猶太人集中營好好多。以前好多唔同國家都係咁樣對待邊疆嘅人民。當時嘅驚嚇程度係達到一千over一百。因為當我聽到呢啲觀點嘅時候我完全唔知點樣反應,因為我從來都冇諗過其他人會有咁嘅推論。短短幾分鐘,已經集合咗好多唔同嘅邏輯問題,首先點解要將最差嘅同冇咁差嘅嘢相比去justify件事,第二其實無一百萬個人唔係重點,重點係係咪每一個人係入面都係已經犯罪。我覺得唔係好對路,就話:「Look, I get what you're saying, but I am not convinced. Let's just agree to disagree.」跟住我就好想有人嚟拯救我omg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

離開嘅時候,我懷著驚訝無比嘅心情,其實喺話題帶到去德國集中營之前(btw佢認為集中營喺當時嘅情況係reasonable),我其實想探討嘅話題係,點樣可以確保關住嘅人係真係有犯罪嘅心。~~因為當我哋對話嘅時候,我嘗試好冷靜咁聽對方嘅論點。我亦都睇得出佢係真心覺得佢講緊嘅嘢係有根有據嘅。OK,令到我更加想理解究竟點解。~~先唔好講地域、歷史背景,不如我哋跳出一步,傾吓點樣平衡社會總體利益同埋個人人身自由。佢嘅論點係,為咗保障大眾嘅安全,我哋要犧牲某一啲人嘅人身自由。呢一個範疇唔係啲咩新鮮事:我知道有preventive detention呢一樣嘢,即係為咗避免佢犯罪,而困住佢。係呢一個層面,我係同意嘅,因為假使你同我講眼前呢一個人隨時會進行恐怖襲擊,我一樣會鎖住佢,去保障其他人嘅安全。

但係呢一個conclusion係建基於,我極度肯定佢一定會犯罪。個問題唔係應唔應該困住佢,而係我點樣肯定會一定會犯罪。係咪單單因為宗教、所謂嘅洗腦,我就可以斷定呢一堆人一定會犯罪呢?一個人嘅思想好容易控制,但好難measure。究竟preventive detention點樣先係justifiable架呢?我覺得有以下幾點:一)一定係要根據客觀嘅事實証明當事人有犯罪傾向。而宗教背景只係其中一部份;二)一定要有制衡嘅機制。例如一定要經過正反論述,比雙方論證;決定之後一定要有上訴機制,同埋要將呢一啲討論記錄在案,方便以後覆核決定;三)一定要釐清preventive detention嘅目的係啲乜嘢,係咪真係保護其他人安全?為咗唔好犯國安法,我應該要shut up喇。

退後一步,以後我哋會用乜嘢方式去measure思想呢?喺Homodeus嘅新時代,我哋嘅一舉一動都被電器記錄。我哋嘅思想會有相對嘅行為。簡單嘅係對比起以前嘅電視廣告,而家網上見到嘅廣告,係根據我哋係網上世界嘅一舉一動。例如google知道你喺過去嘅28日搜尋過某一隻字,google就將你歸類。商家就可以落個ad,專門target某一堆人,從而影響呢一堆人嘅思想。以前同而家唔同嘅地方係,以前我哋會有好多common grounds,因為我哋資訊嘅吸收係報紙、電視,我哋marketing嘅人叫佢哋做mass communication。但係近呢十年多咗嘅係targetted communication。好聽嘅係每個人收到嘅訊息係custom-made,但係難聽嘅係每個人嘅真相都可以唔同。當商家可以咁樣利用data,political campaigns亦都可以。有時我唔知究竟係政治、軍事活動帶動科技,定係vice versa。

相信大家都已經睇過《Social Dilemma》,但係呢個只不過係入門版,其實我哋應該一早知啊!進階版應該係《The Great Hack》。入面講到Cambridge Analytica。呢一間公司利用一啲非法得返嚟嘅Facebook資料,然後利用用家follow嘅fashion brands去推算佢哋嘅性格(如果你有讀Psychology係Big Five Personality),從而點樣先可以改變佢哋嘅政治取向。例如follow Abercrombie嘅人同follow Ralph Lauren嘅人係唔同嘅[4]。之前咪好興做心理測驗嘅,就係用呢一啲initial data去將你嘅心理測驗結果同你嘅Profile配對,然後extrapolate去其他同你profile差唔多嘅人身上。[1]佢哋會幫佢哋嘅political client分拆32個唔同嘅consumer segment,然後每一個segment都可以配對相應嘅廣告、新聞、文章等等[2]。點樣可以影響選舉結果呢?佢target嘅唔係一啲死硬派,而係一啲中間遊離嘅選民[3]。Christopher Wylie就係呢間公司嘅Whistleblower,而我第一次聽唔係喺The Guardian,而係喺Business of Fashion[4](如果你對fashion作為一盤生意,好建議你睇吓呢個publication,我好仰慕個founder哈哈)。

呢一啲targetted communications嘅廣告我都經常會落。作為一個marketer,this is how we live。我嘅工作就係點樣揀一啲最容易convert嘅客人,去講一個我知佢哋一定會鍾意聽嘅故事,然後希望影響佢哋嘅思想。究竟咁係啱定錯呢?即係等於有一個售貨員見到一個全身好多係粉紅色飾物嘅客人,好自然都會推介一啲粉紅色嘅產品俾佢。你嘅喜好係我一眼就望得穿嘅,咁你唔可以怪我利用呢啲資料。而點樣先係unethical呢?就係當你無俾consent我,而我又利用一啲你唔知道我知嘅資料向你推銷。

其實政治就係全世界最active嘅marketing campaign。Marketing係大家心目中可能係一個好似淨係叫人買嘢嘅職業,但係喺我心目中係storytelling。It's an art of changing minds。點解我覺得咁有使命感,就係因為我哋知道點樣先可改變思想,而我一定要做得有backbone、「君子愛財,取之有道」。我哋需要嘅係更多ethical嘅人去做storyteller。我擔心嘅係,依家我哋尚且只係依靠我哋網上嘅資料去落廣告,但係以後當internet of things科技更加融入我哋嘅生活,根據biometrics例如心跳、體溫、nerve signals去理解思想,唔會天方夜譚。究竟我哋係咪步向緊一個更加無邊無際嘅集中教育營呢?

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/06/cambridge-analytica-how-turn-clicks-into-votes-christopher-wylie

“a neurotic, extroverted and agreeable Democrat could be targeted with a radically different message than an emotionally stable, introverted, intellectual one, each designed to suppress their voting intention – even if the same messages, swapped around, would have the opposite effect.”

[2] https://politicaladvertising.co.uk/2017/02/15/psychographic-segmentation-and-election-campaigns/

[3] https://www.npr.org/2018/03/20/595338116/what-did-cambridge-analytica-do-during-the-2016-election

[4] https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/video/cambridge-analytica-weaponised-fashion-brands-to-elect-trump-says-christopher-wylie