一图胜千言：美国枪击案无法禁绝

美国总统奥巴马在2016年新年献词中誓言，将在2016年解决枪械暴力问题，并决定新年第一天开工就召见司法部长洛丽塔•林奇，讨论如何绕过国会来应对枪械暴力这个棘手问题。

实际上，2015年12月，圣贝纳迪诺枪击案发生之后，人们就开始从不同的角度对它进行解读。有些人在谈控枪法案，有些人在谈伊斯兰恐怖主义，还有人在谈精神健康问题。不管此次枪击案到底是什么原因引起的，有一件事是明显的。那就是，不管是保守主义者还是自由主义者，每个人都在为死难者感到悲痛。没有人希望类似的悲剧重演。

不幸的是，美国遭受另一次大规模的枪击事件只是时间早晚的问题。目前，美国还无法就旨在解决此类枪击事件的政策形成共识。如果你想知道为什么，就请仔细看看下面这张图。

People are explaining the San Bernardino massacre in different ways. Some people say it is about gun laws. Others say it is about Islamic terrorism or mental health. Whatever the case, one thing is clear: Everyone, conservatives and liberals alike, grieved for the victims. No one wants such a thing to happen again.

Sadly, it’s only a matter of time before the United States suffers another mass shooting. For now, the country just can’t agree on a policy to address such shootings. And if you want to understand why, take a careful look at the image that accompanies this article.

这张图片是圣贝纳迪诺枪击案发生几小时后，由纽约Betaworks公司的数据科学家绘制的。图中各种颜色的点（或者说节点）代表了社交网站Twitter上的用户账号。最重要的是，它展示了有关此次枪击案的消息和评论是怎样在三大用户群体间传播的。这三个群体分别是“为宪法第二修正案辩护者”（蓝点）、“枪械与狩猎爱好者”（紫点）和“枪支安全呼吁者”（红点）。

从图片中可以看出，在枪击案发生后，这三个群体的行为都有过强烈的爆发，他们分别开始在各自的“社交图谱”里传播关于枪击案的消息（“社交图谱”一词主要用来形容任何一种社交媒体的关系链）。在每个群体中，都有一些节点扮演了信息的超级传播者。根据Betaworks公司的数据显示，这三个群体中最抢眼的信息传播者分别是@Trident_Arms、@ConcealnNCarrynt和@Bradybuzz。

我们可以看出，这三个群体都倾向于在群体内部传递信息。其中，蓝色和紫色两个群体也会互相分享信息，但它们与红色群体之间几乎没有任何信息交流。换句话说，人们很大程度上只与已经跟自己持有相同观点的人交流信息。也就是说，支持控枪的人只和志同道合者聊天，支持《第二修正案》的人也只和支持拥枪自卫的人聊天。

Betaworks公司首席数据科学家吉拉德•洛坦指出：“这张图代表了两个两极分化的独立网络，而且它们之间是没有相互交流的。”洛坦上周在哥伦比亚大学新闻研究院发布了这张图片。人们只和与自己看法类似的人交流这种现象（又称“趋同性”或“过滤泡沫”现象）并不新鲜，不过洛坦表示，这种现象已经变得比以往更加严重。

“最终，它反映的是我们这个社会，反映的是我们非常丑陋的一面。”洛坦说。（财富中文网）

译者：朴成奎

审校：任文科

The image was created in the hours after San Bernardino by data scientists at a company calledBetaworks in New York City. It is composed of a series of dots, or nodes, that represent different accounts on the social media site Twitter TWTR 2.17% . Most importantly, it shows how news and comments about the shooting spread among three clusters of users, labeled here as “Second Amendment Defenders” (the blue dots), “Firearms and Hunting” (the purple dots) and “Gun Safety Advocates” (the red dots).

The image shows how there was an intense burst of activity among the respective clusters as people spread news of the shooting within their “social graph,” a term that describes the chain of relationships in any social media system. And within each cluster, there were some nodes that act as information super-vectors. Betaworks identified the most significant, in terms of each group, as Trident Arms, Conceal&CarryNetwork and Brady Campaign.

As you can see, each of the three groups shared information internally. Two of the groups—the purple and blue ones—passed news between their respective networks but shared almost zero with those in the red group. In other words, people largely exchanged information with those who already shared the same views: Gun control people talked to like-minded people, and the Second Amendment people did the same.

“It represents two extremely polarized and separate networks that are not talking to each other,” said Gilad Lotan, chief data scientists at Betaworks, who presented the graphic last week at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. This phenomenon of people talking only to like-minded individuals (known as “homophily” or “filter bubbles”) is not new, but Lotan says it is getting far more intense.

“In the long run, it’s kind of reflecting our society back at us. It’s reflecting a very ugly mirror at us,” said Lotan.