AOL Introduces Neural-Net Content Filtering

An unnamed reader writes: "I thought this was kind of interesting. AOL has implemented a new form of parental controls, using neural net AI instead of hand-picked "lists". They seem to be willing to accept that no automated solution is infallible, and offer end-users the ability to vote to block or unblock sites. If there is an acceptible solution to parental filtering (not mandatory filtering, mind you. This scenario leaves it up to the parents), the seeming efficiency of neural net ai (at least, as efficient as the input) coupled with end-user's ability to influence the filter state seems to be it. The company that developed the AI in partnership with AOL (RuleSpace) doesn't appear to have much to say on the internals. Anybody know any AOL users who have tried it yet? If the market is pushing towards optional filtering, what would make for a better solution?"

Comments

Re:One possible solution?

[Samrobb]

I've thought about this and discussed it in the past. In order for this sort of thing to work, I think you need to make a couple of assumptions:

1. The data format for filter lists must be standardized and flexible enough to permit anyone to easily assemble and disseminate a list. A simple text file would probably do, as that can be "published" via HTTP or downloaded and "installed" by dropping it into a directory.
2. Another data format item... I'd think this is the sort of thing that XML would be overkill for, but supporting an XML format in addtiion to a plain-text format would allow for greater flexibility. For example, a list of sites could be broken down by general content, publisher, etc., in order to allow additional filtering (allow "Child-Friendly" sites, except for those run by The Mouse).
3. Filtering is opt-out by default. By this, I mean that if a site does not appear in any of your subscribed lists, it gets blocked. Unfortunately, this is the only real way (short of analyzing content in real-time) to ensure that various types of web spammers, particularly pornographers, can't fo an end-run around the filtering. Note that I don't think this should be the only mode of operation; just that the default settings should be "disallow access unless approved by me or someone I have decided to trust".
4. Multiple subscriptions are going to be the default. While I'd be quite happy suscribing to a list of Christian-friendly sites, it's unlikely that other interests of mine (/., for example) would end up on those lists. This could certainly be handled in part by a "local" list.
5. Adding new sites to the "local" list should be trivial for someone who has permission to do so. Editing a text file and restarting your browser doesn't cut it; seeing a "Access to this page has been blocked... add it to the local list?" in your browser would.
6. Whatever proxy is handling the filtering should be able to handle differing collections of access lists based on user. If Junior logs in, I want to ban potentially dangerous sites. On the other hand, I've got to deal with those buggers daily, so when I'm logged in, I should be able to access them.

Comments? Or has someone already gone and registered a Source Forge project for this?

Will Disney get blocked?

[JJ]

If the neural net takes linkages as input then Disney could find themselves on the list of blocked sites, a somewhat ironic development to say the least. (If you dont understand this, then you obviously haven't poked around these sites very much.)

Who trains the Neural Net?

[Stavr0]

Is this going to be one giant Neural Net for all AOL? Or is it going to be community-based? I don't necessarily want to filter content the same way as, say, the Bible Belt users.
Also, who gets to train the filtering decisions? Can the Slashdot or Everything2 model be applied here? That would mean that all users would have to sit down and go thru all decisions made by the engine and vote aka train the NNet. If there's only one engine that applies to the whole userbase, it'll fail, because it will filter too much for some, too little for others.
---

Skynet anyone?

[redsmoke]

On October 23, 2001 Aol's Nueral Net AI(ANNT) comes online.

October 25, 2001 the Nueral Net AI gains self awareness.

October 27, 2001 AOL Executives desperately try to shut down the ANNT but can't seem to find the any key.

October 28, 2001 In retaliation the ANNT begins the launch sequence of all of Aol's secret Nuclear weapons and launches a attack on Microsoft. Microsoft launches a retaliation on Aol with their secret Nuclear weapon stash. The two major Computer Monopoly's are destroyed.

October 29, 2001 The first wave of the giant minature space penguins begin to take over all the computers.

November 1, 2001 Linus Torvalds is crowned king of the world.

Yeah, this will work.....

[nuintari]

Yet another "advanced" pr0n filter that no adult can seem to break, but every horny fifth grader on the planet will no the workarounds for in under 2 days.

YECIAFV (Yet Another CIA FLUENT Variant)

[joq]

FLUENT, enables an operator to search stored documents in a language s/he doesn't understand by using his or her own language for queries. (read on and here)

Funny how we Americans are such tightwads when it comes to sexual content. After visiting Europe last year I saw people were a slightly bit more laid back, even though pornography is shown on television just about every night. Wow I'm surprised Parents all over the USA aren't condemning Europeans for being sexually free.

Here's a suggestion for some parents: How about talking to your kids before placing mental handcuffs on them?

I wonder if AOL has taken the time to filter regular expressions such as pr0n/s3x/etc. Then I also wonder how are kids doing homework on "sexual reproduction" or "sexual organisms" are going to fair when using AOL. What I'm waiting to see, is who is going to be the first to open online "concentration camps" AOL-TW or MS

Full Circle

[Greyfox]

Time was when you wanted pr0n you raided dad's pr0n stash. Then the Internet came along and you could get all the pr0n you wanted the the click of a button. Now it looks like we're completing the circle, making it much more likely that raiding dad's stash will once more be the preferred method of obtaining pr0n. Or dad's web cache.

Of course, pitting parents against children in access control battles over the computer will always almost always result in one victor -- the children. Unless the parent is an IT security consultant, the children seem to inevitably know more about the computer.

Parents will vote in/out sites?

[FunkyChild]

"What are you doing, honey, and what are those groaning noises coming from the computer?"

" *cough* Just ..er.. exercising my vote to ..er.. make the internet a better place for our children..."

The best filter is your own two eyes...

[RobinH]

If the market is pushing towards optional filtering, what would make for a better solution?

IMHO, a small child should not be left unattended for long periods of time on the internet. The best filtering is for you to watch your kids and see what they're viewing. This goes for television too.

When your kids are older (i.e. teenagers) just make sure they understand what you approve of them looking at on the internet. At some point you have to trust their judgement of what's right/wrong. You still need to monitor, but don't put automated filtering there, because that just shows that you don't trust them. There are lots of ways to check what they're viewing without having a screen pop up saying that your parents have blocked this site because it contains objectionable content, when all they were reading were some /. postings.

One possible solution?

[pjdepasq]

A number of years ago ('96?) I was at a Software Development Expo in Washington DC. Tim Berners-Lee was the keynote the day I went and he presented what I thought was an interesting solution.

Essentially there would be local communities (churches, schools, etc) who made restricted lists available via the browser to anyone that "agreed" with their standards. That is, if you are a parent and you like the standards your church sets, you "subscribe" or download (or whatever) the church's list of "bad" sites.

In this scheme there's little to no mandating of someone else's standards (what AOL deems inappropriate), and you can decide what's right for your family, situation, children, morals, etc.

I've never heard more about this scheme but I am interested in it (though I have no kids to patrol). One of these days when I get done with my PhD I might try to implement this solution and see how it works out.

Really a neural net?

[HongPong]

It sounds like just a voting system on websites. I read the article, but I don't get where the neural net part comes in. Also, does it apply to whole domains or subdomains, directories?

--

Worrisome

[RareHeintz]

What worries me about this "innovation" from AOL is the potential for large subsets of users to get together to ban political speech that they don't like - for example, by voting down the Village Voice site or gwbush.com or the RNC website.

Some things (and not all that many) are best done by majority vote, but some things are better left to individual discretion.

OK,
- B
--