後話
（因為我覺得如果有人只看我原文沒看後話的話會誤會所以我把後話放在前面）
寫完上面那些之後，我去搜尋了一下有沒有唐鳳跟 FB、LINE 就報導主題對談的紀錄，因為唐鳳大部分的對談都是有公開逐字稿的。結果我沒找到，只有 2017 年 FB 去拜訪他的紀錄。
不過我倒是找到當初受訪的逐字稿。
我只有快速看過一次，發現幾個亮點：
一，其實記者有問到這個政府快速澄清的機制是否有可能被濫用。
但唐鳳的回答我覺得很糟，根本沒有談到怎麼防止濫用，記者也沒有追問下去。目前就我所知，沒有防止政府濫用的機制。
二，記者有問到，政務委員羅秉成防治不實訊息的框架（大概是指這個）是否在未來有可能傷害媒體自由？
唐鳳的回答基本上是說這個機制不會影響大部分的媒體，而且羅委員背景是人權律師，所以他很重視人權。這回答我覺得也蠻糟的，這個法律框架目前看起來沒有考慮到要怎麼對付未來上台的惡意執政者。
原文
看到 CPJ 這篇很紅，再看了 HN 底下很多留言，記一下想法。
留言區有很多我認同的留言，先畫一些重點。
What is described is better than China, but it’s not ideal. However I do think they should be commended from explicitly avoiding censorship to the degree that they do.
However, communications from the government to counter other communications identified as disinformation are government propaganda. If they are not identified as such, then they have the same problem as the original disinformation.
Secondly, making it easy to flag propaganda in apps and then blocking it as she describes is in fact building in a type of censorship. It’s just a brilliant type of crowd-sourced censorship. I know the theory is that that would only be applied to false information. However, censorship doesn’t work like that. The end result is going to be a worldview that is reduced and shaped by a dominant group rather than the free flow of information. Especially if it relates to all of the information that people in a country can see. This can be very dangerous.
So I will just say what I think would be ideal even if it may not be very realistic. The history of government propaganda and censorship should be part of the public context. I think it is good to be able to flag articles as being propaganda and from what source. However I think that removing things from being visible entirely is very dangerous for freedom. Taiwanese/US/Chinese/etc. government propaganda or counter-propaganda should be identified as such if possible.
This gives me some weird feelings. I mean, if you ask a website to turn some content “unpreferred" without user consensus, isn’t that also some type of censorship?
> How is that reconciled? How does one know when the government is being truthful versus being propagandists?
If there are multiple conflicting narratives, at least some people will be motivated to do more research to resolve the contradiction. If the government is being more truthful, its statements can point to resources that provide independent verification, accelerating the process. At a minimum that will blunt the effect of the lies.
這段我倒是認同，如果有多個衝突的說法，至少有一小部分人會開始自己研究。有一部分人則是相信任何最新的反駁論點；當然還有最後一部分是相信他們所信任的來源的一切訊息。可惜後面兩種人加起來是多數。不過我想至少政府澄清可以增加衝突的說法，促使更多人開始去自己研究。
> Once they do that, Facebook promises, by June, that this will inform the Facebook’s algorithm so that it will stop being preferred to show on people’s newsfeed, but it’s not censorship. If you look specifically for that friend, that post is still there, but they have a warning that says it’s already fact-checked as false.
That’d be very interesting if the Taiwanese government was in direct communication with Facebook over something like this. CPJ wasn’t able to get a hold of Facebook, I wonder if anyone here has visibility into something like that? Given that the US government took a more “combative" approach (dragging executives in front of Congress) I’d be curious how more tame approaches like this were being received.
我覺得台灣政府和 FB 在這件事情的合作上面透明度不夠。
This is much better than removing the post, but it still makes me nervous. Just imagine that we’re in the early 2000s, and you can envision a banner saying “The claims in this article are FALSE. As confirmed by the intelligence community and the New York Times, Iraq is actively working on its nuclear weapons program." Perhaps they should have a policy limiting the use of this tool when it comes to issues that may lead to war.
>notably, for all its merits, the taiwanese system still positions the government in an information vetting capacity, which may lead some to think that it is merely another system of propaganda or quasi-censorship
This is kind of how I see it too. I think if your goal is to combat disinformation or propaganda you should just come out straight up and say it because it’s a perfectly defensible position to hold, but creating a government counter-narrative isn’t any more harmless than just censoring something, it’s just sounds nicer than having to use the word “censor" which tends to make people in some parts of the word jump up in panic.
整篇讀起來我其實覺得一部分她做的、這件事情的影響，是負面的。
- 權力傾向被濫用
政府有了這樣跟 FB 和 LINE 合作的權力，現在打擊不實訊息效果可能很好，現在的政府可能也意圖良善，但是哪天換了一個政府呢？就想，如果國民黨上台，他們會怎麼用這個機制？這些合作的公司又有多少獨立的力量可以抵抗來自政府的要求？
這機制雖然不是審查，但是確實是政治宣傳（Propaganda），現在政治宣傳還沒有被濫用，但政府已經獲得做政治宣傳更大的能力了。
- 知名度集中在唐鳳身上，知名度會給一個人更大的權力
建立這個機制的背後肯定是很多人，首先肯定是有總統的支持，還有各個行政部門首長也要配合，忽略團隊不是一件好事。尤其這篇報導是針對外國人的場合，唐鳳也並未利用此機會宣傳能夠讓她這麼做的政治系統和內部機制和合作伙伴。
- 台灣政府和 FB 和 LINE 的合作並不透明
這些應該要是透明的：
- 合作的範圍和具體定義
- 原文 “Facebook promises, by June, that this will inform the Facebook’s algorithm so that it will stop being preferred to show on people’s newsfeed” 這裡的 preferred 是什麼意思？減低多少程度？
- 不過從另一方面想起來，依照 FB 過去的糟糕紀錄，台灣政府恐怕也不知道這個詞是什麼意思，因為 FB 公共關係部門不會跟他們講清楚的。而且 FB 的公共關係部門大概也不知道這詞到底代表什麼具體的程式行為。
- FB 演算法相關資訊的透明度大概比北韓政府還低，台灣政府選擇跟這個不透明的公司建立合作而且也沒有立法要求透明，很失敗。（放任壟斷市場的企業繼續不透明，還跟他們合作）
- LINE 也是
- 政府和平臺中間具體的溝通機制
- 民間團體的角色
整體而言，我覺得這件事情有助於打擊不實訊息，但是減損我們的民主和自由。
