Slashdot Mirror


Google Tells Army of 'Quality Raters' To Flag Holocaust Denial (theguardian.com)

Google is using a 10,000-strong army of independent contractors to flag "offensive or upsetting" content, in order to ensure that queries like "did the Holocaust happen" don't push users to misinformation, propaganda and hate speech. From a report on The Guardian: The review of search terms is being done by the company's "quality raters", a little-known corps of worldwide contractors that Google uses to assess the quality of its systems. The raters are given searches based on real queries to conduct, and are asked to score the results on whether they meet the needs of users. These contractors, introduced to the company's review process in 2013, work from a huge manual describing every potential problem they could find with a given search query: whether or not it meets the user's expectations, whether the result offered is low or high quality, and whether it's spam, porn or illegal. In a new update to the rating system, rolled out on Tuesday, Google introduced another flag raters could use: the "upsetting-offensive" mark.

14 of 429 comments (clear)

  1. isn't that a German thing? by turkeydance · · Score: 0, Interesting

    flags and denying?

    1. Re:isn't that a German thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I find it unusual when people claim that today's so-called "Native Americans" somehow aren't "immigrants", while pretty much everybody else supposedly is (even those who were born in America, and who had numerous ancestors born in America often going back centuries).

      It's well known at this point that today's "Native Americans" are descended from Eurasians who crossed the Beringian land bridge during several waves of migration. For the time being, let's ignore that many of today's "Native Americans" also have significant, if not a majority, modern European ancestry due to interbreeding with European settlers.

      So ignoring their partial/majority European ancestry, the reality is that today's "Native American" ancestors were just among the latest to arrive, likely displacing/eliminating those people who arrived earlier, such as the Clovis peoples.

      In addition, there's also some evidence to suggest that people from Southeast Asia arrived in the Americas by boat even before then.

      So it's absurd to consider today's "Native Americans" to not be immigrants. Their ancestors arrived in the Americas from Eurasia, just like the Europeans did. Their ancestors weren't even the first to arrive in the Americas. In fact, their ancestors could very well have exterminated the peoples who had arrived earlier. So it makes no sense to give them special treatment, ideologically or otherwise.

  2. Google as gatekeeper of truth by sinij · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am concerned that Google is attempting to act as a gatekeeper and arbiter of truth. While holocaust denial is certainly appalling, what else are they going to censor? What if China decides that Tiananmen Square is offensive?

    1. Re:Google as gatekeeper of truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Look we *know* it is a lie. However, the idea they can censor things they do not like is very troubling.

      Move past the thing and look at the possibilities. What if suddenly they do not like fuzzy kitties. Is that going to be censored? What is next? Are they going to take on the legal responsibility if someones precious snowflake sees boobies?

    2. Re:Google as gatekeeper of truth by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, they did not emigrate. They were murdered. The only significant exoduses where of wealthier families who had the resources to get the fuck out of Dodge, but since, despite the longstanding ethnic slur against Jews that they were all money hoarders, most European Jews were not wealthy people.

      There were millions of Jews in Central and Eastern Europe before the War, only fragmented groups after, there's no evidence they emigrated, since only a few every managed to make it to Israel, Britain or the Americas. So unless you're asserting there's a magic land filled with Jews that nobody knew about, your claims is patently absurd.

      But I get it, as with most conspiracy theories, all that is required as retort, even if the retort is utterly moronic and completely untrue.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Google as gatekeeper of truth by hackertourist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      About 1 million Jews died at Auschwitz. This according to the Nazis, who kept meticulous records of their crimes.
      The old sign probably read '6 million Jews died in Nazi concentration camps'. There's no conspiracy behind changing the sign.

      The Nazis built factories with the express purpose of killing people in large numbers. The Americans built internment camps. The difference is huge. Calling the Nazi concentration camps "not a great thing" is a monumental betrayal of the people who were exterminated there.

      So piss off with your denial. You're not convincing anyone here.

    4. Re:Google as gatekeeper of truth by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      He's not being very philosophical at all. There's nothing particularly compelling about Omphalism. It is, in fact, a denial that any kind of knowledge can be reliable. As you point out, if direct observation is the requirement, then any ability to determine the truth of a historical claim won't get much further back then when you were 4-6 years old, and really, couldn't even count things that happened anywhere beyond your immediate vicinity at that time, since watching something on TV isn't necessarily direct observation either.

      The real joke is that what our brains "see" isn't even in and of itself direct observation. What we perceive in the visual center in our brain is a highly altered representation of the photons that struck the retina. None of our direct senses are really direct, and all go through considerable processing before we actively and consciously perceive them. About the only things that come close to being directly "observed" are some automatic reactions, like the jerking back at a painful stimuli, where our nervous system has evolved so as to not wait for the brain to sort out what painful thing our skin has contacted, but rather the sensation hits the lower parts of the central nervous system, the spinal cord. But even there, I'd argue that the sensation of pain that the spinal cord is detecting still has at least some processing by pain receptors at the site of the signal and by the nerves themselves, since even nerve cells have some processing capability.

      So ultimately, if we're going to call Omphalism in all its forms a philosophy, I'd lump it in the category of "things people believed a long time ago, but which only stupid people still think are sensible ways to measure the world now."

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  3. Why is Holocaust Denial Such a Huge Deal? by Tempest_2084 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've always been curious about this. It's a dumb thing to do, and makes the person look foolish, but beyond that why is this actually a crime in some places? I mean I can pretend that Obama was never president, but that doesn't make it so and it makes me look really stupid, but they would never make that a crime (Note to Self: Check back in 10 years and see if they did indeed make this a crime). Just ignore the morons and let them play in their little pretend world.

    1. Re:Why is Holocaust Denial Such a Huge Deal? by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's picked up in the last couple decades as the people who survived the camps and the soldiers who liberated them have been dying of old age. I remember reading an article in the 1980s about a Holocaust survivor who was invited to speak about about her experience to a high school history class What she was saying was so inhumane, so unthinkable, that the students were having trouble believing her, even when she showed them her tattoo. The teacher, who happened to be a WWII vet, had to step in and say it absolutely was true - he'd been there when they liberated the camps and had seen it with his own eyes.

      Now imagine if the teacher hadn't been an eyewitness and the woman's testimony had had to stand on its own. With fewer first-hand accounts, it drops to a he said/she said state. And the deniers are working their hardest to speak as loudly as possible. I imagine in 50+ years we're going to have similar problems with 9/11 denial (denying that the attacks ever happened, not conspiracy theories about who dunnit).

  4. Re:Searching for racism by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...Why would a naive searcher believe racism is a thing of the past? Where are you seeing sources that claim this? You don't need to personally witness an atrocity to accept that it's happening. The first hit for that query actually returns Racism in the United States, which has an appreciable "Present" section. Similarly, I'm pretty sure most people today take it at face value that the holocaust happened without personally having to see photographic evidence of it.

    --
    Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  5. Re:Does DuckDuckGo have something similar? by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Not that I know of. I suspect Google's been disappearing unpleasant facts on their News product for a while now. A number of times last year I went to find an article I knew I had seen on Google News with its own search and wound up empty handed. Using DuckDuckGo, I was easily able to find the article I was looking for.

    If somebody can say DuckDuckGo (i.e. Yahoo as sibling pointed out) may be doing this as well, there are other alternatives. StartPage/IxQuick seems to come up often.

    If all else fails, I guess we could always go back to the days of the meta-search-engine search engine.

  6. Re:Goody Goody Gumdrops Google by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Lies promoting prejudice was what I said. Your example wouldn't qualify.

    Holocaust denial would, because for some weird reason racists believe it's OK to hate Jews if Hitler killed less than the generally quoted numbers. Historians can debate revising numbers if and as new evidence comes to light, and their findings aren't lies. People without access to primary sources claiming it didn't happen? Lies, in promotion of hatred.

    It's not really that difficult a distinction to draw unless you're defending the methods you're using to spread your prejudices.

  7. Re:Goody Goody Gumdrops Google by GLMDesigns · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One of those is clear cut. The other is conjecture on your part.

    This defines the problem.

    You shouldn't be afraid to say what you're thinking. Freedom of Thought, Speech and Press are THE fundamental principles of a free society.

    No freedom of speech and you're living under a tyranny. Tyrannies need not be repressive for the majority of the population. (Many people in China are doing quite well. It's still tyranny.)

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  8. Re:Agree, but still claim no censorship should exi by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's an upward estimate of the Great Leap Forward. I think I've read that 20-40 million is a better count, but nobody really knows, since the whole famine itself was caused as much by local officials intentionally distorting virtually all the data on food shortages and deaths for the Chinese government. One thing is certain, however many died in the Great Leap Forward, it was enough people for the Party to sideline Mao for several years and for the more technocratic party members like Deng Xiaoping to run the country until Mao found his footing again and used the Cultural Revolution to sideline those in the Party that had diminished him due to the catastrophe of the Great Leap Forward.

    The Great Leap Forward is indeed a good example of how suppression of information can, if not create a catastrophe, then greatly inflame it, but in that case it worked somewhat in reverse. It wasn't the central government trying to stifle information, it was local and regional officials. But the reason those officials did it was because they had been handed absurd quotas (like the amount of steel to be produced by a certain district), and because they were sufficiently afraid that they wouldn't meet these quotas, they had a great deal of impetus to distort both the production numbers and quality of production (there are plenty of stories of large amounts of steel being produced that were of such low quality that it was effectively useless), and almost certainly to try to suppress any reports of famine and death tolls. But it's hard to imagine even if the figures had been honestly communicated to the the Chinese government that that information would ever have been disseminated, though possibly the plan might have been abandoned before the death toll reached as high as it did.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.