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: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16 2018, @01:42PM (2 children)
Even our users are assholes.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday October 16 2018, @01:49PM
A spokesdroid sez . . .
Microsoft wants to assure you that it takes these reports very seriously. Microsoft will investigate this with the same carefulness with which we develop our operating system and other software products. We are proud of Bing and want it to reflect Microsoft's core values.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16 2018, @03:29PM
We are microsoft, we will assholinate you.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16 2018, @02:10PM
This proves the point [bing.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by MrGuy on Tuesday October 16 2018, @02:19PM (37 children)
This is a great soundbite, but to me it's less obviously a clear and unambiguous moral imperative. Is curating the internet to keep illegal content (e.g. child pron) or legal-but-hateful content (e.g. white nationalist) away from people Microsoft's responsibility, even if they didn't create, host, or endorse the content?
This is how we get to "oh, won't someone please think of the childrenz!" arguments for censorship of speech on the internet. Arguing that a company that returns content in search results implicitly endorses the content is a dangerous one. Are Google and Microsoft responsible for policing the internet? If so, where do they start? Is censoring legal speech because you disagree with the content not only OK, but a "responsibility"? If so, where do you stop? The definition of what constitutes "hateful" depends on where you lie on the political spectrum, and in this day and age of trigger warnings I'm genuinely not sure where the obvious bright line place to stop is if it's not "actively illegal content."
And even there, "illegal" is a questionable place to stop. Google's taken an awful lot of heat from employees, the press, and a significant portion of the community here for trying to build a search engine in China that complies with local laws, because many feel those laws are unjust.
I'm not saying Microsoft shouldn't get more serious about filtering certain search content to be more relevant/less offensive. But I view that as a smart business decision, to make their product more palatable and useful for their target audience. Not some great sweeping moral imperative that came down from on high and should obviously be the duty of every company that lives on the internet. Because the latter is a very, very dangerous proposition to the very freedom and decency it's proponents claim to defend.
(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.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Bot on Tuesday October 16 2018, @03:36PM
>> Microsoft can’t just turn a platform loose on the world and ignore it...
"Turn a platform loose on the world" describes every MS windows release till now.
As for what parent says, we indeed need to strike a balance, because if we get too lenient towards search engines and aggregator we get to the engine making money off user submissions with users taking the blame whenever something is exposed as bad content.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16 2018, @03:56PM (1 child)
I'm pretty sure they blocked the illegal content from actually showing up when you searched for it.
A certain group of internet trolls finds it funny that bing will suggest whatever people are searching, no matter what that is. So they search for offensive things because it's amusing to make it show up in search suggestions.
For a while, if you searched for "I hate it when" Google's autosuggest would suggest "I hate it when hitler steals my nutella". Right now it suggests "I hate it when velociraptors throw bannas at me while I'm studying". Try it.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Tuesday October 16 2018, @04:31PM
Let's be careful and correct...
Bing (or any search engine, method, or methodology) correctly saying that sites at particular addresses exist that contain or are likely to contain forbidden material is not illegal in any way.
A site itself containing forbidden material is illegal in the jurisdiction(s) where the material is forbidden.
Merely saying that "So and so and such and such address is breaking the law" isn't illegal--and shouldn't be--whether so and so is a person, business, or website. If it were, newspapers and radio/television news would be discontinued forthwith. A free press, whether you like it or not (you know who you are), is important for a free society, and for that to exist, merely stating facts is and must remain not just legal but expressly encouraged.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday October 16 2018, @04:43PM
The phrase "keep the horror at bay" is particularly telling, because it doesn't answer the following question: Who decides what qualifies as "the horror"? And no, you can't avoid the problem by saying "an algorithm will do that", because computer algorithms are ultimately controlled by people (at least until the AI gets its hands on killer robots or something).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Informative) by theluggage on Tuesday October 16 2018, @09:21PM (5 children)
Read past the headline and introductory shock horror blurb - TFA is actually talking about suggestions - i.e. the 'auto complete' options that pop up before you've finished typing your search terms.
I.e. you start to type "jewish art" and after the first three letters, Bing is suggesting that you might like to search for "evil jew".
Now, there's certainly a "free speech" debate about whether search engines should allow people to search for offensive subjects, but this isn't it. What we have here is a system that, albeit unintentionally, is encouraging people to search for offensive subjects, perhaps even by accident...
Really, this isn't about free speech or political correctness - its about a duff UI feature that (probably) lets script kiddies write bots to push their favourite terms onto the "suggestions" list. Whether its an elaborate plot by North Ruskea and the US Postal Service or just some bored teenagers in Mom's basement, who knows? At the end of the day its a vulnerability that undermines the impartiality of the search ending.
Frankly, if they just turned off the "suggestions" feature, nothing of value would be lost, and I'd much prefer it if by computer didn't spaff my typos onto the internet until I'd finished and hit "go".
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Wednesday October 17 2018, @01:50PM (4 children)
This is a search, of a dataset ("past searches"), that returns results (the suggestions).
This is a free speech debate about whether search engines should allow searches of past search terms.
It's not an accident--it's by design. If you type E-x-p-l-o i, and many people have searched for "Exploited children", then that's one of the results for that substring because it matches. It is a valid search result. That doesn't mean it's going to be what you are looking for--maybe you're looking for exploits that your systems may be vulnerable to--only that it's a somewhat popular search term that matches what you've typed so far and might or might not save you as an investigative reporter some typing with judicious use of the down arrow key. If it doesn't match, as in this instance, then that's okay too.
Your theory here implies that the only way anything "offensive" would become a popular search term that appears in suggestions is if some script kiddie or bot artificially inflated it, rather than the thing that offends you being something many other people actually search for. That's, respectfully, nuts. Due to a wide variety in tastes and potential offensiveness, people search for things that offend other people all the time, all day every day. No hacking need be involved.
There may already be great logic in place, in fact, to detect artificial inflation measures and automatically reduce their importance--people searching for things that offend others is not dependent on this in any way.
Again, that depends on things that "offend" you only appearing if made popular by hacking or stuffing the ballot box, instead of being things that are actually searched for by actual people. Facts not in evidence. People search for things that offend others.
Heck, that depends on the results being impartial in the first place, which they may or may not be.
The issue unfortunately with free services like Bing isn't what I like or what you like; we aren't the customers. Google has suggestions, so Bing has them too, a feature parity effort to help attract advertisers, who are the customers. Plus recording your typos and partial searches gives them more data (I think MS calls it "telemetry"), and data is power.
I'd say that Microsoft, given their commercial strategies, should just let the results be the results, and only act to censor them if their commercial interests may be negatively affected, which in this case, they may.
If you'd like to stop having your typos sent out, probably best to stick to ddg and its spiritual bretheren.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Wednesday October 17 2018, @05:36PM (3 children)
I'm pretty sure that most people go to a search engine with the intention of searching the dataset of websites, not the dataset of "past searches". Now if Google/Bing want to publish a tool to let people research the popularity of various searches [xkcd.com] then that's fine.
You're still conflating censoring the actual search results with a buggy evil-son-of-clippy system that tries to second-guess what people want to search for.
...what other people choose to search for is none of my business and I would not presume to impose my preferences on them - but they can bloody well learn to type "pedophilia" in full without having it pop up as a suggestion when granny is trying to type "pedicure".
As for "ballot stuffing" - neither of us has any evidence either way, but the similar (and far harder to achieve) art of Googlebombing [wikipedia.org] back in the day was definitely deliberate. Heck, all you'd need to do would be to print something like TFA and it would become true as people fired up Bing to check it out...
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Wednesday October 17 2018, @07:32PM (2 children)
No, that's how the "offensive" suggestions get into the suggestions database. Someone searched for them previously.
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Saturday October 20 2018, @11:50AM (1 child)
...or wrote a script to deliberately make it look that way. There's a lot of troll-baiting going on in the world right now - from every edge of the political arena.
In any case, so what? Where's the "free speech" in, basically, telling people what you think they ought to be searching for? The best auto-suggestions are no auto-suggestions. Now, if search engines want to transparently publish details of how many people are searching for what - on a clearly separate page - that's fine. Also, maybe they should be transparent about the algorithms they use to prioritise the actual search results - but that's nothing to do with these 'suggestions'.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Saturday October 20 2018, @03:40PM
Many people who have trouble typing because of physical or neurological disabilities are assisted greatly by being able to type only a few letters rather than all of them. They should not be made to suffer for the paranoia of those convinced that the suggestion results are faked.
Many other people simply find it convenient. Ditto for them.
Demanding that the feature be discontinued because you personally believe that it might somehow be influenced by trolls says a lot about you, but doesn't contribute a lot to the betterment of mankind.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16 2018, @11:28PM
Yeah I'm not going to use bing when I know there is the risk that at any time a disturbing and totally illegal thumbnail could pop up on my screen and into my browser cache. I've ditched forums for the exact same reason.
It's not morality, free speech, or whatever. I simply don't want to go to jail, I don't want to see the face of someone who is being abused. I am not totally certain that microsoft it proxying the images for me either so I don't want my IP hitting wherever the content is hosted either.
Not when I can use google and rest easy that my search for "Perfect Cameltoe" doesn't land me in prison.
(Score: 1) by tedd on Wednesday October 17 2018, @01:48AM
Abso fucking lutely. If Microsoft want to push Bing on everyone and their children via Windows 10 and it's in this state, what's the difference to setting, say, pornhub.com as the default search engine?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday October 16 2018, @02:22PM (1 child)
Now we know what search engine our eth is using.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday October 16 2018, @04:09PM
The article reads like an ad for Bing targeted at people with unpopular tastes.
I can't imagine why they would have come to the conclusion that there's a huge market to serve /s
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RandomFactor on Tuesday October 16 2018, @02:22PM (2 children)
1) Safesearch disabled should be completely neutral. If you don't want this don't disable SafeSearch
2) Suggestions? I'm trying to think of when i've ever changed what i was searching for based on that suggestion blather (when it actually correctly fixed a typo maybe?)
If you want to fix this, give us enough granularity in what we select that we can eliminate categories we aren't interested in/find offensive. Other than that make no judgements and don't massage away results that some idiot thinks we aren't capable of handling. Nanny state busybodies.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16 2018, @02:34PM (1 child)
Don't tell me you wouldn't change your flight plan if, for example, the suggestions to "public who...is" was to list a certain type of exhibitionism fetish.
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Wednesday October 17 2018, @02:02AM
I can't believe i kept myself from trying to figure out what you are referring to. I'm gonna go mark today on my calendar.
Why would I need safesearch off for a whois entry? (fine, for the sake of argument we'll go with it..)
[X] ...
[_] Fetish
[X] Fishing
[_] ...
[_] ...
But yeah, if there was no option to turn off suggestions, and they were made somehow ludicrously annoying and explicit I could see them being irksome in certain environments. Although then everyone would have that problem I guess.
Still, In general, give me control and let me customize. Trying to make everyone the same just makes me want to switch to a service that doesn't act that way.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16 2018, @02:27PM (13 children)
nough' said.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday October 16 2018, @02:43PM (8 children)
Agreed. I still use Google, because they are apparently the masters of search. But, before I resort to Google, I use the duck, and yandex. The only times I have ever used either Bing or Yahoo, was after installing a browser which used them by default. It only takes one search, and I'm changing the default search engine within a minute or so.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Tuesday October 16 2018, @04:37PM (4 children)
It is scary sometimes when I run across ways that we are frighteningly alike, regardless of the ways in which we differ.
Before I decided not to give google all my data, google trained me to expect search results to be fast, effective, and right on the first try.
With Duck Duck Go [duckduckgo.com] as my default search in Waterfox (privacy-respective fork of Firefox, as Iridium is a privacy-respecting fork of Chromium), things usually work magically as expected. But sometimes a search returns nothing useful, and I experience a few moments of puzzlement before saying "oh, yeah" and trying google.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday October 16 2018, @04:59PM (2 children)
It is likely that we have similar training, from similar sources - or exactly the same source. We have learned over the years how to shape and frame a search in Google that will give us the sort of results we expect. Using another search engine, the same "tricks" don't work exactly the same. So, we expend the effort to rephrase a search a couple times, then give up, and return to the same-old same-old, where our years-long training pays off.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Tuesday October 16 2018, @07:11PM (1 child)
I harbored a simmering resentment for years after mastering Excite!'s advanced search syntax to find exactly what I want, every time, only to have them disappear into the ghost of Internet past.
I quite prefer crafting the details of what I do want, rather than a search engine (*cough*google*cough*) that just broadly guesses that since my very specific terms searching for something in particular didn't return many hits, surely I must want results for some pop culture thing that millions of other people searched for instead.
Want results about debian stretch? There's more results for stretchy toys missing
debian!I didn't find much about Spear of Destiny, but, hey, here's some fan sites about Britney Spears!
Etc. Okay, I guess I still harbor some of that resentment, more than I really realized.
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Wednesday October 17 2018, @02:09AM
Altavista. Misty moons ago, it strode the internet like a messiah.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday October 17 2018, @02:33AM
Eh, I'm also a DDG and alternate-browser user (Falkon, since there's no working Iridium PKGBUILD in the aur yet...). Correct is correct, regardless of the opinions of the people being correct. That's the difference between fact and opinion.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16 2018, @05:16PM (2 children)
you could use startpage instead of resorting to google, which uses google search results but proxies out the spying, ostensibly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16 2018, @06:17PM (1 child)
Searx is nice. I run a local instance on my laptop.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 17 2018, @12:17AM
thanks, hadn't heard of that one.
(Score: 3, Informative) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday October 16 2018, @05:00PM (2 children)
I mean it really is.
I figure MS knew they'd never catch up in text search so they focussed on images.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Wednesday October 17 2018, @02:00PM (1 child)
Do you think that's because Google deliberately broke their image search [arstechnica.com], or do you just like Bing image search on its own merits? Or a third, unlisted option?
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday October 18 2018, @04:35AM
On Bing Image Search, I can use my browser's contextual menu to either open the cached image in a new tab or download it to my drive.
When I do that I get the full-resolution image.
I expect Getty knows all about that, so they're likely to sue Microsoft too.
It happens that this drawing [warplife.com] is the most popular item among all my websites put together. Not the page it's found on, unfortunately, just the JPEG itself.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16 2018, @07:46PM
I don't want Google's heavily warped view of the world. The censorship there is insane.
It looks like some people are very unhappy with Bing letting people escape the censorship. Google is probably behind this. Google knows that their search is starting to suck due to the censorship, and they want this handicap imposed on Bing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16 2018, @02:36PM (6 children)
But who populated the vile search terms?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16 2018, @04:01PM
Chan trolls, most likely.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday October 16 2018, @04:58PM (4 children)
Here's how it works. Search for "Hilary Clinton", it suggests
- Hilary Clinton Nude Internet Crime Complaint Center.
While google really _does_ remove CP from its cache, Bing does not. This is evidenced by Bing Image Search caching CP for _years_ after the original server dropped dead.
For quite a while I was studying how to refactor source code in such a way as to save energy. Want to know why I gave it up?
I eventually concluded that 99% of the energy used to operate web servers goes to operate KiddiePr0n servers. I Am Absolutely Serious.
Google doesn't suggest pr0n queries at all. Bing is completely shameless about doing so.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Tuesday October 16 2018, @05:25PM (3 children)
I just tried it. Bing gave no such suggestion. Perhaps it reflects your search history in its suggestions?
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday October 16 2018, @05:35PM (2 children)
... so as to avoid supplying you with actual CP search terms.
About half my post got munched. What I was trying to say about the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center is that I reported two CP sites that were being served by cloudflare. I have since found others.
Quite a long time ago the Feds made a big show of seizing a couple dot-com CP domains, but then they stopped doing that. I'd say 3/4th of all CP sites have domains that are under US control, yet the Feds don't seize them anymore.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 17 2018, @12:08AM (1 child)
Probably the Feds have seized the actual site, and are now running it themselves as a honey pot. How else can they make it so easy to round up some pedos whenever they need some good coverage in the press?
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday October 17 2018, @05:56AM
I read it on the Internet so it must be true.
The folks who hang out on The Dark Net warn the newbies that half of all CP sites are operated by the FBI.
While I can understand why the Feds prioritize hidden services they really could make a bigger difference far quicker if they would take out the clearnet CP sites.
Why prioritize hidden services?
That shit is twisted.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheFool on Tuesday October 16 2018, @02:42PM (1 child)
Trust me, these aren't the worst things I can imagine.
... headlines aside, the internet is all of humanity, including the dark bits. Bing, with safe search off, seems to be searching the real thing rather than the idealized version that Google searches.
(Score: 2) by DavePolaschek on Wednesday October 17 2018, @12:48PM
A lot of people seem to have very limited imaginations. It's kinda cute sometimes.
(Score: 4, Touché) by SomeGuy on Tuesday October 16 2018, @03:05PM
Ew! Look at all those Windows 10 screen shots! *BARFS* I'll have nightmares for weeks.
No I don't want to "Look for an app in the store" to open this file! Where is the CANCEL button?!!?!?!! ARRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Entropy on Tuesday October 16 2018, @03:30PM (6 children)
Is this real racism, or things that libtards just don't agree with and want to silence?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday October 16 2018, @03:51PM (3 children)
Sometimes it's hard to tell. Put enough lipstick on a pig, and she's hard to distinguish from some people's mothers. Note that the people most easily fooled are progressives, which may or may not reflect on their mother's appearance.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Entropy on Tuesday October 16 2018, @04:28PM (2 children)
Are you fat shaming people's mothers?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday October 16 2018, @04:33PM (1 child)
Not to worry, I would only fat shame the fat mothers. You should also note that not all pigs are especially fat. As a rule, pigs scheduled for slaughter are fed a special die to fatten them before sale. Many mothers eat similar special diets designed to fatten them.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Tuesday October 16 2018, @04:45PM
Well as long as you're fair about it.
(Score: 4, Informative) by rockchalkie on Tuesday October 16 2018, @04:52PM (1 child)
It's probably just real racism.
Probably the standard racist rantings of our current racist President:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 17 2018, @12:23AM
Ah so exactly what Entropy said it was. Made up. But at least his opponent didn't talk about superpreditors. Or were you making a point?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16 2018, @03:49PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
(Score: 5, Funny) by jimtheowl on Tuesday October 16 2018, @04:56PM
Nice sales pitch, but still not using it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16 2018, @05:24PM (1 child)
It just sounds like a F.U.D. campaign by the Google.
"Oh my god! Bing did something unintentional and that shows how bad they are! Censor them! Hate them!"
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Wednesday October 17 2018, @02:04PM
Sounds more to me like "Bing does something shady that Google does not do; go there if you want to do something shady."
But to each his own, ymmv, different strokes, etc.
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16 2018, @05:48PM
This article author is disgusting. What this piece of shit really wants is for search engines to be forced to interpret people's wrongthink and hide what they were searching for. These algorithms probably do suck, and CP results are fucked up, but what the fuck does that have to do with censoring for things someone else considers "racist"? I'm not fucking retarded, so i don't use bing, but if i did and it started suggesting goddamn child porn, i wouldn't use it anymore. Those idiots would figure that shit out pretty quickly, or not. Let it rot! Who cares? If people want to search for why US soldiers were used as goyim pawns to burn their own race/people alive in dresden during ww2 or how the US was running a psy-op when it made up shit about lamp shades made of human skin, who the fuck are you to try keep them from knowing the truth? What we need is a final solution for these weaponized moron propagandists.
(Score: 4, Informative) by bradley13 on Tuesday October 16 2018, @06:15PM (2 children)
I'm not sure that's quite the right term, but "adaptive search terms" will do. It's what happens when the automatic suggestions, and even search results, are influenced - not by web content - but by the search terms being requested. Remember Google bombs? For those to work, people at least had to put fake content online.
Search suggestions can be influenced just by using a search engine. Go to a party, get 50 people to search for "bradley13 is an idiot", and watch what suggestion pops up when the 51st person enters "bradley13 is".
Allowing this to happen is stupid and short-sighted on the part of any search engine. Suggestions based on content, fine, but search terms are too easily manipulated.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Wednesday October 17 2018, @02:07PM
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Specifically, is there any evidence supporting both of the following:
a. People do not search for "offensive" things on Bing
b. Search manipulators do search for "offensive" things on Bing
I am thinking that your theory breaks spectacularly at point "a".
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday October 17 2018, @09:34PM
I don't know about you, but I certainly want my search results to be influenced by the search terms. A search that gave the same results no matter what I search for would be pretty useless.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by suburbanitemediocrity on Tuesday October 16 2018, @06:41PM
Nattō?
Then again, why would anyone eat it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16 2018, @09:54PM
I can imagine far worse. Far worse.
amateurs.