Slashdot Mirror
Google Responds On Skewed Holocaust Search Results (bbc.com)
Google says it is "thinking deeply" about ways to improve search, after criticism over how some results -- including ones discussing the Holocaust -- were ranked. From a report on BBC: Searching for "did the Holocaust happen?" returned a top result that claimed it did not, as Guardian journalist Carole Cadwalladr reported. Now, the ranking has changed for US users. The page -- from white supremacist site Stormfront -- remains top in the UK. "This is a really challenging problem, and something we're thinking deeply about in terms of how we can do a better job," said a Google spokesman. "Search is a reflection of the content that exists on the web. The fact that hate sites may appear in search results in no way means that Google endorses these views."
Use Wikipedia.
Otherwise use Google.
This article is sure to bring out the slashdot neo-nazis out of hiding.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Seems fine to me. Don't hide shit, everything is working as intended.
You the reader must take responsibility for deciding what is real and what isn't on the internets. Do not require that anyone do that for you otherwise they eventually will when you don't want them to. If you need a warning label to avoid suffocating yourself on the plastic bag that is the world wide web then just turn around and walk away from whatever device you're using to access it.
Just query the "Ministry Of Truth" to find out.
I believe Google that their search results reflect content (perhaps popular content) on the www. The worst part of the story is what this means for the state of content on the world wide web. We thought we would have an information panacea, instead we are ending up with a sewer.
never heard of it before, I recon worth checking out
It's gray and rainy outside. It's the window's fault!
Far from a perfect metaphor. Hardly accurate at all. But it does bear a kernel of truth.. I think.
Why does google get to determine whether or not something is 'hateful' or legitimate?
If we're going to have a data-driven search engine, then the top ranking results are the sites with the most traffic, period. As soon as you start introducing value judgements into algorithms you start having problems. If your argument is that we should "protect" people from becoming the victims of "fake" news or false propaganda, all you're doing is making them more vulnerable to it when they eventually do encounter it. People who deal with lies and deceit every day are easily able to identify it and dismiss it, but someone who has never encountered it is much more likely to be gullible. So stop laying the foundations for a completely gullible public that's ready to fall for every lie that makes its way past the Ministry of Truth, or promoted by it for that matter.
but someone should pay those idiot white supremacists a visit and just whack them a bit, while letting them speak freely.
Google engineer: ok google, how many people were killed during the holocaust in world war two?
Google: The holocaust was a fictitious event that was created in the diary of a bored gypsie
google engineer: no google thats not true i think six million people were killed during...
Google: six million is a fictitious account used by Jews who secretly control the world bank and regulate the filling in poptarts and twinkies from a secret mansion...
google engineer: OMG google no.
Good people go to bed earlier.
If you want to suppress these kinds of results, you only have two choices:
a) invent strong AI. Good luck with that, but hey, it you manage it, it will literally be a new era in the history of mankind. Forget the neolithic revolution, that was irrelevant compared to this.
b) manual censorship by humans. That opens the typical can of worms all censorship does.
Just wait for when we have better AI and it harbors beliefs that aren't "Politically Correct."
If it's historically the most popular page people visit after entering that query, then the algorithm seems to be working as intended. It's not up to the operator of the search engine to censor a result that is legitimately returned by the engine (ie. page has not been hijacked or the popularity is the result of some automated SEO or other artificial skewing of the result) just because it makes people uncomfortable. I know, Google isn't the government, and they don't have to have any page on their site blah, blah, blah.
But as the defacto gatekeeper to the internet (at least for millions of non-savvy users), they have a responsibility to stop with the "deep thinking" about how to "imrpove" the algorithm. Because what they mean is they are trying to figure out how to censor speech they (and admittedly, most sane people) find "deplorable", for lack of a better term. But that's always the problem with free speech, it isn't free if you don't hear something that makes you uncomfortable once in a while. If you can't stand being uncomfortable once in a while, then you aren't an adult, you're a whiny child...and you don't deserve the benefits that come along with those rights as well.
Soooo disappointing.
In other news, search engines find what other people put out there, and page-rank sorts according to the links to the content.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Let's think about this differently.
Don't get me wrong, we all know those results should be "correct."
But remember, and this is the core discussion to be had, how do you know:
1 - If any of your top results are correct? Should you really take Google's top position over your own critical thinking and compare-and-contrast of other articles?
2 - If Google can "choose" what's correct, even with the most noble of intentions, then what's to say they won't do it for other--less noble--purposes? Now this is slightly moot of a point, because they're already choosing using their search algorithm. The question becomes a finer one of, should algorithm's be designed specifically for morality? Maybe?
The search term suggests the kind of content the searcher might most be interested in. That's all Google, Facebook, et. al. care about. They want to give you information you will want to consume. Truth doesn't matter. Objectivity doesn't matter. If you search for "did the holocaust happen", that strongly suggests a point of view you'd like to reinforce. Google is designed to give you what you're looking for. This is why all of us are increasingly in impenetrable information bubbles that seem to conflict with our neighbors and with reality.
Google should just shut up, and continue to serve pages according to some automated relevancy criteria. In particular, they should leave politics, beliefs and such emotionally loaded criteria out of the algorithm.
If they start mucking about with their algorithm, all they'll do is dig a nice grave to lie on. Because today is holocaust denial, and everyone can agree that's bad, so let's block that.
But once that precedent is set, you'll have people asking you to block all sorts of stuff. The Vatican doesn't want you to know about contraception. Turkey doesn't want you to know about Woman's rights. China doesn't want you to know about Tienanmen square. Russia doesn't want you to know about Crimea.
Knowledge is power, and many people don't want you to have that power. They want to control information and filter out the unflattering parts.
It's a VERY slippery slope. Best move is not to play: just let the machine search and rank content by some automated criteria and LEAVE IT THE FUCK ALONE.
And if someone complains, just tell them: "Hey, we didn't do anything. The machine ranked this higher because apparently this thing is popular. Maybe you should be more concerned about how that happened, because, frankly, that is disturbing."
It's for their own sake, really.
Google's stated goal has always been "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." Which in the past has always meant returning the results that people were looking for. They now face the problem of truthiness which has disproven the fundamental theory behind Google, that feedback loops from users selecting links will correctly identify which information should be returned. In short, Google has to figure out how to counter the self-delusion of the internet and it's users. It's no wonder they are thinking about it deeply because they are going to need create something like IBM's WATSON to sort reality from delusion.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
It is very clear that described problem is malfunction of search ranking algorithm, you don't fix it by making it impossible to find offending searches, you fix it by making it rank result appropriately.
I am cynic and believe this is Google's plot to acclimate public to skewing the search results. Ad revenue is down, and they are not making any money from indexed search. So they plan to intentionally break your search algorithm. Highlight sensationalist results. Push for "curated results" as a solution. Then monetize all search results by charging for favorable decision, so Pepsi doesn't show as a top search result when googling for Coke.
Doesn't google already replace your search terms to their liking by default, why don't just do that. Just make sure to tell the user that she's an idiot at the top of the page.
Muh 6 gorillion!!!!1111
> You would hope that more trustworthy results are ordered above less trustworthy ones.
If only people would understand that top rank simply means something like 'most read and/or referred to on the web'.
I suppose it doesn't instantly make you a neo-nazi, you could just be brain dead, or you might be 10 years old and hadn't read anything on it yet. I can't think of any other possibilities.
Trump supporter
That's all the GP is saying.
But you alt-right people are always accusing others of being alt- right.
While I can not blame them for trying to make sure, truth about Holocaust trumps the lies about same, I can't help but wonder, what else they will (and already have) manually altered to better suit an agenda... Because truth may be a victim rather than a victor next time...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You the reader must take responsibility for deciding what is real and what isn't on the internets.
People are incredibly bad at doing this. If you need an example I refer you to The Bible. People have been mistaking that tome of mostly fictional stories as reality for centuries. You think they are going to stop being credulous just because somebody tells them a tall tale on the internet? Not likely.
Sometimes we need a responsible party to stand up and tell the facts. No reason Google can't serve that role in a case like this. Arguably it would be irresponsible for them not to insist that their search engine provide actual true facts instead of made up bigotry.
I think Google's preferred fix would be for the opposite-of-denialists to buy more advertising.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
They came to lower the page ranks of the Holocaust Denier sites, but I said nothing, because I was not a holocaust denier.
They came to lower the page ranks of the Intelligent Design sites, but I said nothing because I didn't believe in Intelligent Design.
They came to lower the page ranks of the Climate Change Denier sites, but I said nothing, because I was not a Climate Change Denier.
They came to lower the page ranks of the Pro-Electoral College Sites, I but said nothing because I believe in One Vote for Each American.
They came to lower the page ranks of the Pro-Gun Ownership Sites, but I said nothing, because I believe in stricter gun control.
They came to lower the page ranks of the Life Begins at Conception sites, but I said nothing because I believed that life begins at birth.
They came to lower the page ranks of the Anti-Assisted Suicide Sites, but I said nothing because I believe assisted suicide is okay.
They came to lower the page ranks of the Anti-One Payer Healthcare sites, but I said nothing because I believe in single payer healthcare.
They came to lower the page ranks of the Sugary Drinks and Fatty Foods sites, but I said nothing because I believe everyone should be eating healthy.
They came to lower the page ranks of the Meat and Dairy Industry sites, but I said nothing because I believe meat and dairy are unhealthy.
They came to lower the page ranks of the Alcohol Industry sites, but I said nothing because I stopped drinking a few years ago. Just in time, right??
They came to lower the page ranks of the Legal Marijuana Industry sites, but I said nothing, because I didn't want my boss to know I smoked weed.
They came to lower the page ranks of the Humor and Satire sites, but I said... wait, what???
They came to lower the page ranks of every few remaining sites outside the walled gardens of a few mega-corporations allied with a global Nanny State with vested interests in controlling what people could read, and I said, "Hey, Now! Wait a minute! What about my Apple Gadget Blog?! Nobody can find my Apple Gadget Blog anymore!
White supremacist, racist, Hitler, holocaust etc. doesn't have as bad a ring to it as it used to have.
These are all words that are losing their meaning, thanks to the left who are applying them to everyone they don't like.
So maybe you should stop using these words to define anyone who holds a different opinion than you.
I think it is just Google's algorithms that have been fucked up because of that.
Also I am thinking it is about time that I start to say "I am white and proud of it".
I am sick and tired of hearing you calling all white people, racist, privileged, oppressing, etc. Don't mistake my kindness for weakness.
Google should just shut up, and continue to serve pages according to some automated relevancy criteria. In particular, they should leave politics, beliefs and such emotionally loaded criteria out of the algorithm.
Why? So some bigoted blowhard can warp those search criteria to propagate a pack of lies about a genocide? A search engine that returns nothing but falsehoods is worse than useless. It can actually be actively harmful.
It's a VERY slippery slope.
Spare me. The slippery slope argument is almost always complete nonsense. I could make the same argument in reverse that Google is supporting bigoted speech by NOT fixing their search algorithm. Why should we believe that act is not intentional? Even inaction is still an action in this case. Failing to act means they find the current outcome acceptable. That's just as slippery a slope as your proposed one.
So basically they wiped out 2/3 the Jewish population in Europe. I'd call that a Holocaust. You sir an an imbecile. You fashion yourself an iconoclast by questioning doctrine, but don't really have any true evidence to support your skepticism.
Letter To Iran
I read comp.risk for the first time in years last week (an old Usenet fav), mainly to see what they had to say of the election tampering. One of the articles lashed out at Google and how they should be ashamed of themselves.
If you search for the world is flat, Google will prove it is.
My thanks to:
http://www.didtheholocausthapp...
Search engines shouldn't give a shit what they are indexing
No but the people who design the algorithms definitely should. A search engine that returns false, misleading, or harmful results is worse than useless. Every search algorithm is simply a choice made by people about what to search for. If you want false "information" that's up to you but I want actual facts, not some asshole's version of truthiness.
Short of actual malicious websites that try to break your computer/device, just index and provide results. I do not EVER and will not EVER need a "responsible" party to get in between me and information, right or wrong.
Bullshit. You have responsible parties between you and information all the time. Scientists tell you how the world works. Engineers give you information about how to apply science to real problems. Journalists inform you of social events. All of them try to filter the facts from the rubbish. You aren't smart enough to make sense of it all yourself. Neither am I. We depend on other people for information all the time and anyone who doesn't insist on high quality factual information is an idiot.
I'm sad so many people disagree with that, but if they want to only view whitewashed information, then that is there choice.
An algorithm is just a hardcoded human choice. Apparently that fact never occurred to you. You aren't getting some version of reality unencumbered by human choice. Not ever.
But fuck you and anyone else who wants to make that choice for me.
How sweet. Keep living in your delusion that you don't depend on anyone else's choices.
So this is a concern to me and it's interesting to see how Google (and Facebook) will handle this. The bias that I have is that information is to "inform". I use these computer products to find out what I need, not what I want. But not everyone uses these systems the same way nor do they want the same things.
The new continuum of these folks (AltRight, give it a name) want validation on their identity and the world as they see it. At a certain point the hard decision is that their needs, perceived as they may be, can not be served by these products. The extreme example (and a biased one I will admit) is that you don't make cute cuddly pink guns, because guns are a tool that kill things, and focus on a gun that children can use is something we all agree (mostly) is not something that should exist.
The dilemma for these companies is acknowledging that these products and services they offer can not be used in a way that is inconsistent with the folks that made them, and it will just have to be what it is. If who you are is it at odds with a core product or service, then frankly that product or service can not (and should not) be re-engineered to serve those needs. They will derive no benefit, logistical or spiritual (yes, I went there) by using these products until they change who they are.
Changing who you are, whether it's 1st or 2nd or 3rd generational feminism, human rights, or smoking in public all are societal changes that there will always be folks who don't adopt. A search for truth is not something for everyone, but these products and services must, and will eventually, go back to the reason for their existence, even if it in the end it's perceived as the "biases" of those who made them.
The natural eventual conclusion is if these folks attempt to re-create an alternative that works for them instead of using the one's creating by those they disagree with; In the long analysis an "Alt-Right" Google will be no more effective than a Creationist Museum. It is what it is.
Eventually, by the long path perhaps, Google, Facebook and the like will come around to playing to the larger shared values as we all do, and also playing to their strengths and who they are.
"Don't fear death... fear not living..." -me
One of the things I've noticed is the framing of the question can mean multiple things with multiple interpretations.
Take, Did Canada fight in Vietnam vs Did Canada have troops in Vietnam.
Canada did not have combat troops in Vietnam, but Canada did have volunteers that did fight in Vietnam.
Also, Canada did have Medical support troops units in Vietnam. So technically Canada didn't fight the Vietnam war is accurate, but not completely true.
So you can see, its way more complicated and nuanced than "did x do y" when searching google, wikipedia, etc.
And this is how biased fact checking sites call someone a liar while claiming another is telling the truth, on the same subject, but how they make the statement.
If you give X money, and X gives Y Money, and Y pays terrorists, did you commit the terrorism by giving money to X? You didnt know Y paid terrorists. And we didnt take into account, morals, laws or other aspects that could make you guilty in some circumstances...
Life isn't binary, and treating interaction as a binary result, with a binary yes/no results, isn't fully accurate in analog experience. This is how Bias changes binary conversation into news, when subjects are more granular than that.
I do not trust Google or anybody to decide what is true or false regardless of how demonstrably true or false it may be.
Really? You don't trust anybody about anything? Sorry my friend but you aren't that smart and don't have enough time to verify everything yourself. Nobody is asking you to believe everything you read, even from sources likely to be credible. But you can't verify everything yourself even if you wanted to.
Yes, that could mean I have to wade through some information that ends up being false but as a thinking human being I am armed to deal with that.
I very much doubt that you are more exceptional in that regard than the rest of us. And most people are routinely pretty poor dealing with falsehoods and bad or missing data. Religion wouldn't exist if they were.
Couldn't possibly be more than one right answers, right?
It's not about answers, it's about data. If you can explain the utility of false data then you might have a point.
Censor the hell out of those son-of-a-bitch nazi scum.
Problem solved.
As soon as they start tweaking for better or for worse they aren't doing their job.
I did your mars search for fun and guess what? Exactly what you said the first 5-6 results were kooky sites that confirm my bias or my interest in what people who search for that are seeing. I would assume this is the exact same thing for just about every kooky conspiracy theory; ask a dumb question get a dumb answer.
Given that there seems to be quite a bit of contention over the evidence of whether or not the Holocaust occurred presented on google, I can think of but one solution.
Let's have a do-over, and this time we'll document it every step of the way! That way nobody will ever be able to deny the Holocaust again!
they are going to need create something like IBM's WATSON
I'd rather they don't make any judgments whatsoever about what speech is acceptable.
And recall that Microsoft's Tay A.I. quickly learned to spout pleasantries like "Hitler was right."
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Don't normalize. There is such a thing as truth. Right and wrong are not "skewed" versions of each other. Be responsible, even (especially!) when others fail to do so.
...from politically correct ranking to outright censorship. Only an idiot would want to start down this moronic path. Perhaps this is evidence that Google is run by PC idiot morons.
Oh yeah, Google?
Go and "sensor" the official numbers in the Polish Auschwitz camp.
The official plate from 1948 to 1989 in Auschwitz - "Four million people suffered and died here at the hands of the nazi murderers between the years 1940 and 1945"
The official plate from 1989 to some years ago in Auschwitz - "For ever let this place be a cry of despair and a warning to humanity, where the nazis murdered about one and a half million men, women, and children mainly jews from various countries of europe"
The official plate currently in Auschwitz says something like this - "Thousand of people suffered here"
The official numbers have gone down from 4 million to thousands of people, but the number of 6 million still stands somehow?
Fact: search engines are dangerous.
Improper use can permanently damage your consciousness.
Anyone should be trained (in school) how to NOT use a search engine.
Search engines are not (yet) good in AI (compared to a real person/teacher).
Also search engines should be forced (by law) to include documentation for proper use to avoid similar pitfalls.
The problem here is the question.
You typically should not address the engine as a real person by expecting a good answer to your question, search engines are still based mostly in keywords matching AFAIK.
So when you search "holocaust did happen" in the same sentence, guess what: you get the results that include this keywords in the same sentence. And this keywords are used far more frequently in the same sentence by the deniers. I guess the same goes for search results from "Is the earth flat?" or "Is the earth hollow?" or "Did we land on moon" or "Is codex alimentarius dangerous?" "do alien abductions really happen?" etc etc
I will go as far as to say that improper use of google (and any other) search engine has blurred the lines of reallity and imagination and fueled conspiracy theories bloom. On the other hand search engines are an irreplacable tool aiding spreading knowledge.
But nothing really wrong with google, except the fact that it encourages the notion that it is really super-smart so you can search anything it comes to your mind, and get nothing less than best/truth at the top results. No. NO. That google promoting strategy is not only false, but dangerous, especially for kids that want to learn. And please google create a user FM so users can RTFM.
I'm in the US. The top response right now is a SearchEngineLand story about how Google changed something so that the Stormfront site is no longer the #1 result.
https://xkcd.com/471/