互聯(lián)網(wǎng)時(shí)代

　　I was fortunate to witness the birth of the worldwide web up close. Initially, there were only pages oftext connected by hyperlinks, but no people. So Iformed one of the first internet start-ups, Ubique,with the mission of adding people to the web bydeveloping social networking software which offeredinstant messaging, chat rooms and collaborativebrowsing.

　　我很幸運(yùn)地近距離見證了萬維網(wǎng)(world wide web)的誕生。當(dāng)初，網(wǎng)上只有一些由超鏈接聯(lián)接在一起的文本頁面，并沒有人。所以，我創(chuàng)立了最早的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)創(chuàng)業(yè)型企業(yè)之一Ubique，希望開發(fā)出提供即時(shí)通訊、聊天室和協(xié)同瀏覽功能的社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)軟件，把人接入到網(wǎng)絡(luò)中去。

　　Since then, internet civilisation has mushroomed. According to a report published last year bythe International Telecommunications Union, there are now 3.2bn internet users worldwide. Butwhat kind of civilisation has it become? Imagine that 300m Twitter users wanted to change itsrules of conduct, or that a billion Facebook users wanted to change its management. Is thispossible or even thinkable?

　　自那以來，互聯(lián)網(wǎng)文明已迅速發(fā)展起來。根據(jù)國際電信聯(lián)盟(ITU)去年發(fā)布的一份報(bào)告，當(dāng)前全球互聯(lián)網(wǎng)用戶達(dá)到32億人。但互聯(lián)網(wǎng)文明已變成了何種文明?想象一下，假如3億推特(Twitter)用戶想要改變推特的行為守則，或者10億Facebook用戶想要改變Facebook的管理方式，這是可能、或者退一步說，可以想象的嗎?

　　In 20 years, the internet has matured and has reached its equivalent of the Middle Ages. Ithas large feudal communities, with rulers who control everything and billions of serfs withoutcivil rights. History tells us that the medieval era was followed by the Enlightenment. Thatgreat thinker of Enlightenment liberalism, John Stuart Mill, declared that there are three basicfreedoms: freedom of thought and speech; freedom of “tastes and pursuits”; and the freedomto unite with others. The first two kinds of freedom are provided by the internet in abundance,at least in free countries.

　　20年間，互聯(lián)網(wǎng)就已成熟，進(jìn)入了相當(dāng)于中世紀(jì)的階段?；ヂ?lián)網(wǎng)上有無數(shù)大型封建社區(qū)，社區(qū)“統(tǒng)治者”控制著一切，還控制著數(shù)十億沒有公民權(quán)的農(nóng)奴。歷史告訴我們，中世紀(jì)之后是啟蒙時(shí)代。偉大的自由主義啟蒙思想家約翰•斯圖爾特•密爾(John Stuart Mill)宣稱，世界上存在三種基本自由：思想與言論的自由;“趣味和志趣”的自由;以及與他人聯(lián)合的自由?；ヂ?lián)網(wǎng)提供了大量的前兩種自由，起碼在自由國家是這樣。

　　But today’s internet technology does not support freedom of assembly, and consequently doesnot support democracy. For how can we practice democracy if people cannot assemble todiscuss, take collective action or form political parties? The reason is that the internetcurrently is a masquerade. We can easily form a group on Google or Facebook, but we cannotknow for sure who its members are. Online, people are sometimes not who they say they are.

　　但是，如今的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)技術(shù)不支持集會(huì)自由，因而也不支持民主。因?yàn)?，如果不能集?huì)進(jìn)行討論、采取一致行動(dòng)或組建政黨，我們?nèi)绾文苒`行民主呢?原因在于，目前互聯(lián)網(wǎng)是一個(gè)假面舞會(huì)。我們可以輕易在谷歌(Google)或Facebook上組建一個(gè)團(tuán)體，但我們不確定團(tuán)隊(duì)成員到底是誰。在網(wǎng)上，人們的實(shí)際身份有時(shí)跟他們聲稱的不一致。

　　Fortunately, help is on the way. The United Nations and the World Bank are committed toproviding digital IDs to every person on the planet by 2030.

　　幸運(yùn)的是，援手即將到來。聯(lián)合國(UN)和世界銀行(World Bank)致力于到2030年為地球上所有人提供數(shù)字身份(ID)。

　　Digital IDs are smart cards that use public key cryptography, contain biometric informationand allow easy proof of identity. They are already being used in many countries, butwidespread use of them on the internet will require standardisation and seamless smartphoneintegration, which are yet to come.

　　數(shù)字ID是智能卡，該卡使用公鑰密碼，包含生物特征信息，可以輕松地證明身份。數(shù)字ID已開始在許多國家使用，但要將其廣泛地應(yīng)用到互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上，將需要進(jìn)行標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化和無縫的智能手機(jī)融合——這一點(diǎn)尚未實(shí)現(xiàn)。

　　In the meantime, we need to ask what kind of democracy could be realised on the internet. Anew kind of online democracy is already emerging, with software such as Liquid Feedback orAdhocracy, which power “proposition development” and decision making. Known as “liquid”or “delegative democracy”, this is a hybrid of existing forms of direct and representativedemocracy.

　　另一方面，我們需要問：在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上可能實(shí)現(xiàn)何種民主?隨著Liquid Feedback或Adhocracy等支持“提案制定”和決策功能的軟件的問世，一種新型網(wǎng)上民主已開始出現(xiàn)。這種民主被稱為“流動(dòng)式”或“代表式”民主，是現(xiàn)有的直接民主和代議制民主的混合體。

　　It is like direct democracy, in that every vote is decided by the entire membership, directly orvia delegation. It resembles representative democracy in that members normally trustdelegates to vote on their behalf. But delegates must constantly earn the trust of the othermembers.

　　它有些像直接民主，每次選舉都由全體成員投票決定，直接或者通過代表投票。它跟代議制民主相似的是，成員們通常委托代表替他們投票。但代表們必須不斷地爭取其他成員的信任。

　　Another key question concerns which voting system to use. Systems that allow voters to rankalternatives are generally considered superior. Both delegative democracy and ranked votingrequire complex software and algorithms, and so previously were not practical. But they areuniquely suited to the internet.

　　另一個(gè)關(guān)鍵的問題關(guān)系到使用何種表決制度。允許選民為候選者排序的制度通常被認(rèn)為是優(yōu)越的制度。代表式民主和優(yōu)先選擇投票制都要求復(fù)雜的軟件和算法，所以之前并不可行。但這兩者都特別適合用于互聯(lián)網(wǎng)。

　　Although today there are only a handful of efforts at internet democracy, I believe thatsmartphone-ready digital IDs will eventually usher in a “Cambrian explosion” of democraticforms. The resulting internet democracy will be far superior to its offline counterpart.Imagine a Facebook-like community that encompasses all of humanity. We may call it “unitedhumanity”, as it will unite people, not nations. It will win hearts and minds by offering peoplethe prospect of genuine participation, both locally and globally, in the democratic process.

　　盡管如今世界上在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)民主方面的嘗試屈指可數(shù)，但我認(rèn)為，智能手機(jī)適用的數(shù)字ID將最終帶來各種民主形式的“寒武紀(jì)大爆發(fā)”(Cambrian explosion)。隨之而來的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)民主將比線下民主優(yōu)越得多。想象一個(gè)包含了所有人類的Facebook社區(qū)。我們或許會(huì)稱之為“聯(lián)合人”(仿照“聯(lián)合國”——譯者注)，因?yàn)樗鼘讶祟?、而不是國家?lián)合到一起。它將向人們提供在地區(qū)和全球范圍內(nèi)真正參與民主進(jìn)程的可能性，從而贏得人們?nèi)娜獾膿碜o(hù)。