SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for chromas
Bing Is Suggesting the Worst Things You Can Imagine
If you use Bing’s image search, you’re going to see the worst filth you can imagine. Bing suggests racist terms and shows horrifying images. Bing will even suggest you search for exploited children if you have SafeSearch disabled.
We contacted Microsoft for comment, and Jeff Jones, Senior Director at Microsoft, gave us the following statement:
“We take matters of offensive content very seriously and continue to enhance our systems to identify and prevent such content from appearing as a suggested search. As soon as we become aware of an issue, we take action to address it.”
Update: Since publication, Microsoft has been working on cleaning up the offensive Bing suggestions that we mentioned. Based on our research, there are still many other offensive suggestions that have not yet been fixed, including a few that we’ve mentioned below. We are unsure if they are simply fixing the offensive items we pointed out, or if they are improving the algorithm.
Note: The screenshots here show what we saw when we wrote this piece testing the US version of Bing Image search in an Incognito private browsing session, but Bing’s results shift over time. Google didn’t have any of these problems, according to our tests. This is a Bing problem, not just a search engine problem. The same problem affects Bing’s video search.
[...] Microsoft needs to moderate Bing better. Microsoft has previously created platforms, unleashed them on the world, and ignored them while they turned bad
We’ve seen this happen over and over. Microsoft once unleashed a chatbot named Tay on Twitter. This chatbot quickly turned into a Nazi and declared “Hitler was right I hate the jews” after it learned from other social media users. Microsoft had to pull it offline.
[...] Microsoft can’t just turn a platform loose on the world and ignore it. Companies like Microsoft and Google have a responsibility to moderate their platforms and keep the horror at bay.
Suggestions Have a History of Serious Problems
Of course, there’s no team of people at Microsoft choosing these suggestions. Bing automatically suggests searches based on other people’s searches. That means many Bing Images users are searching for antisemitism, racism, child pornography, and bestiality.
Please refer to TFA for actual search terms, suggested items, and images found.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday October 16 2018, @03:12PM (24 children)
That's the thing: search results are a kind of endorsement. Microsoft is endorsing that those results match what you're looking for. Which is fine for a private business to do.
The real problem here is that search engines are a kind of Google-Microsoft duopoly. If Microsoft wasn't the #2 player in a probably 2-player market, it wouldn't matter. But because it is, whatever Microsoft endorses is necessarily what society at large endorses. That puts it under the purview of the government, who has a responsibility to ensure that extremist voices do not overcome the bulk of society.
The real solution here is to fix the duopoly. Google and Bing need to not be the only search engines anybody uses. As it is now, if you as an average consumer don't like the results Bing gives you, all you can do is crawl back to Google. If you had more choices (that were useful and accessible to average consumers, not just to techy types that hang out here), one search engine's biases would no longer reflect on society at large and therefore no longer be an actionable matter of public concern.
How to break up the search engine duopoly is left as an exercise to the reader.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by MrGuy on Tuesday October 16 2018, @03:34PM (10 children)
Under what theory do you believe the government has a responsibility to silence extremist voices? At least in the US, Article 1 of the constitution specifically disclaims any such power. Different governments have different laws, and different communities have different standards.
But I’m still waiting for someone to explain how censorship of unpopular, even hateful content is an obvious and unambiguous duty of either a corporation or government.
(Score: 4, Funny) by MrGuy on Tuesday October 16 2018, @03:50PM
And, I'm an idiot - I meant to reference the first amendment, not article 1. #needmorecoffee
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday October 16 2018, @04:01PM (5 children)
Most mainstreet corporations do not want the bad publicity, because it can impair revenue.
A government is tasked with keeping the peace (internally) and protect the community it serves. Most governments in the world consider that moderating extremist voices, and censoring harmful lies, prevents unrest and division. The US takes an absolutist view of free speech, but still reserves an exception if there is imminent harm. "hateful" is where most others draw the line (regularly, "hateful" is indexed on who is hated).
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday October 16 2018, @05:08PM (4 children)
From time to time AC will advocate that CP should be legal as the law criminalizes the possession of mere information.
What makes CP illegal in the US is that it depicts actual children in nude and sexualized poses, or engaged in actual sexual activity.
Hentai is not regarded as CP in the US, but it is in Canada.
Most actual arrests for child pornography are the people who create it. It is less common for simple possession to be prosecuted, but it does happen. Torrenting CP is prosecuted as "dealing in child pornography" because when one torrent, one uploads at the same time as one downloads.
Here's why SOMEONE SHOULD THINK OF THE CHILDREN:
#MeToo
I was only twelve. I was screaming bloody murder. I am quite certain that I could be heard for quite a long ways, yet no one came to my aid. No one called the police.
That particular individual collected child pornography.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by bradley13 on Tuesday October 16 2018, @06:07PM (1 child)
"What makes CP illegal in the US is that it depicts actual children in nude and sexualized poses... Hentai is not regarded as CP in the US, but it is in Canada. Most actual arrests for child pornography are the people who create it."
We're getting a bit off-topic, but you appear to be wrong on all three of these points.
While I'm not in the US, I have read of US cases where people were arrested for for photo-shopped content and even for cartoons. The law seems to be that material is criminal if it has "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting", that "depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct" [cornell.edu] IIRC, a guy was prosecuted for drawing a sarcastic cartoon of Bart Simpson in a sexual situation. I also recall a case (which I can't seem to find just now) of a guy arrested for possessing a written story (no illustrations) that described a sexual situation with a child.
These kinds of laws have nothing to do with protecting real children. In fact, they arguably have the opposite effect. The first paragraph of the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] does a fair job of summarizing the arguments here.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Reziac on Wednesday October 17 2018, @02:53AM
Parallel: if these hentai-etc. cartoons are kiddie porn, why aren't violent video games murder?? Discuss.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 17 2018, @02:34AM (1 child)
Other people have already pointed out your factual error regarding the US definition, so I'll just focus on your non-argument as to why the law, whatever it says, is justified.
Let me start by presenting an analogous argument:
Ban orange juice now!
You've pointed out (or at least implied*) that this person caused actual harm to an actual victim (you). They should be arrested -- for that actual crime. But you've neglected to demonstrate any way in which collecting child porn hurts actual people, or any justification for the apparent implication that anyone possessing child porn will necessary go on to abuse 12-year-olds, so your vignette The Screaming Twelve-year-old isn't the argument you seem to think it is.
So try again. Bonus points if you manage not to imply that everyone possessing adult porn is bound to rape an adult at some point.
*Some 12-year-olds scream bloody murder when their parents demand they eat nutritious food before dessert, and can be heard quite a long ways, and yet no one comes to their aid or calls the police. Of course, I assume you're talking about (or rather talking around) some genuine abuse, rather than CP-fueled vegetable enforcement, but it's only fair to note the distinction.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday October 17 2018, @06:01AM
The weariness comes and goes. When it comes I'm totally useless. Likely I'll go nap for a little while.
But I do want to explain that I had what at the time a good reason not to report my abuser. I feel now that was a very good reason.
The man is dead now, but I still won't post his name in public.
Most of the headshrinking I've experienced since twelve years of age was the result of being molested, however I avoided giving any of my shrinks his name until long after the statute of limitations expired.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by AssCork on Tuesday October 16 2018, @05:40PM (1 child)
The Government has an interest (read: self-preservation) to ensure extremist voices do not overcome the bulk of society.
Just popped-out of a tight spot. Came out mostly clean, too.
(Score: 2) by VanessaE on Wednesday October 17 2018, @10:57AM
Everyone seems to forget (or intentionally disregard) that the government's job is, among other things, to "promote the general Welfare", or so says the Constitution's preamble. No matter what anyone thinks, "We should persecute/eliminate $MINORITY because $REASONS" is never good for the health of the populace (or government self-preservation, sure).
Of course, it's easy to argue that the First Amendment supersedes the above "promote" phrase, but it just simply was not meant to serve as a "Get off Scott-free" card for those who advocate violence, murder, or G*d forbid, another period of genocide. I don't buy into the slippery slope "If we ban X, then let's ban harmless things Y and Z, too" argument.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Thursday October 18 2018, @03:27PM
I was very careful about my wording. “To ensure that extremist voices do not overcome the bulk of society“ != “To silence extremist voices”.
The government has a responsibility to protect and uphold Democracy, because every entity has a responsibility to protect the basis of its own existence. The tools to do so may be constrained by the constitution, and for good reason. But it is still the responsibility of a democratic government to, by whatever means possible, ensure that 1% of the population does not manipulate everyone else against their own interests.
Search engines are an area of public concern precisely because of how opaque they are. Nobody really knows why Bing suggests the things it does. Therefore, if somebody figured out how to spread a lie by manipulating Bing search results, nobody would be able to know.
Censorship is not the answer. I imagine the answer involves some combination of regulations requiring transparency, splitting up the big players to create a free market, and increasing levels of experience and wisdom when it comes to detecting lies and manipulation on the internet. The challenge, as always, is to solve this problem *without* needing more government bureaucrats to maintain the solution.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by requerdanos on Tuesday October 16 2018, @04:26PM (5 children)
Search results by definition aren't an endorsement. They're the honest, unvarnished result of a search. If I list all the businesses on a particular block, and some of them are strip clubs, I am not "endorsing" strip clubs by admitting that they are sitting there between the payday loan and check cashing places. If I were to frown on all three business types there, and I lied and said "Nope, those businesses are not found", as many seem to be clamoring for, that would be a disclaimer of the businesses, yes. But admitting their existence isn't an endorsement of their merits, merely a statement of fact.
That doesn't mean that Microsoft admitting their existence means that they endorse the links nor content in any way. My endorsement that you are wrong, for example, doesn't mean I am endorsing your position (I'm not), but you're still wrong. Saying that someone is endorsing something by admitting its existence is somewhere between misleading and lunacy.
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday October 17 2018, @05:17AM (3 children)
What about if you search for restaurants in that part of town and most of the results are strip clubs that also serve food? At least that is the impression of the results that Bing is returning.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Wednesday October 17 2018, @01:06PM (2 children)
There's a strip club in Myrtle Beach, SC that has a $5 steak-and-egg dinner. I wouldn't want that one to be left out of the search results--*I* want to be the one who decides who I eat. Not you, not $Government, not Microsoft.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Wednesday October 17 2018, @01:07PM
I guess in this context, it's especially important that I specify that that should say "where", and not "who." I seem to have gotten the services mixed up.
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday October 17 2018, @02:44PM
The problem is if the search engine leaves out (or ranks way lower) the Chinese restaurant that is besides the strip club. Not showing or only showing is just as bad.
Anyways, it sounds like the problem is actually the suggestions, you search for how to strip paint and it makes a bunch of suggestions to autocomplete with strip club searches.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday October 17 2018, @07:26AM
The complaint isn't about the search results.
It is about the suggested searches that come up. Popping up "Did you mean to search for Cheese Pizza?" is a bit different to just listing all the Pizza in the area.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 16 2018, @04:34PM
Riiight. Are we to assume that you (and I) are endorsing Bing's search results because we're not denouncing them strongly enough?
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Tuesday October 16 2018, @06:23PM (4 children)
I think within 200 to 300 years, or maybe within 100 years, search engines will see the same fate before them as that that befell East India Company - outright takeover by the government. The whole trajectory is exactly like this. In fact, may be it will happen within 50 years.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday October 16 2018, @07:46PM (2 children)
There's also the other possibility -- the companies will take over the government (they are already exerting a great deal of influence in various direct and indirect ways).
(Score: 5, Funny) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday October 16 2018, @09:53PM
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday October 17 2018, @10:32AM
Actually, that was the problem that demised East India Company. The crown didn't care much as long as it was bringing huge amount of money and didn't directly threaten it. (Btw, it must have been nice to be in British Government back then.) EIC kept getting bigger, having to take on roles that became more about governance of its subjects, and it took one big fumble and Crown outright took over, turning it into a public sector company.
I think search engines, and the companies behind it, are similarly getting bigger, taking on roles of moral policing, and it is going to take 1 big fumble before Congress decides enough is enough.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 16 2018, @11:35PM
Because? The problems with the East India Company were 1) It controlled and ran a major region, India; 2) It had it's own private army; 3) It was making all kinds of problems for UK foreign policy; and 4) It was a long term threat to the UK government. Of course, it got nationalized.
I don't see a similar path to ruin for any existing company, particularly, search engine businesses. They're just not that big a deal.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Tuesday October 16 2018, @08:55PM
Horse hockey. Search results are the output of algorithms you neither know nor understand. Nobody is endorsing anything. If they consistently give good results you'll keep using the search engine, otherwise you'll switch. I use duckduckgo myself.
As someone else pointed out, as long as they aren't returning links to illegal stuff they're fine. Don't like white nationalists and want them blacklisted? Fine, but don't come crying to me when they decide they don't like Republicans or Democrats either.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.