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: 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?