Slashdot Mirror


Google Autocomplete Still Makes Vile Suggestions (wired.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: In December of 2016, Google announced it had fixed a troubling quirk of its autocomplete feature: When users typed in the phrase, "are jews," Google automatically suggested the question, "are jews evil?" Almost a year after removing the "are jews evil?" prompt, Google search still drags up a range of awful autocomplete suggestions for queries related to gender, race, religion, and Adolf Hitler. Google appears still unable to effectively police results that are offensive, and potentially dangerous -- especially on a platform that two billion people rely on for information. Like journalist Carol Cadwalladr, who broke the news about the "are jews evil" suggestion in 2016, I too felt a certain kind of queasiness experimenting with search terms like, "Islamists are," "blacks are," "Hitler is," and "feminists are." The results were even worse. For the term "Islamists are," Google suggested I might in fact want to search, "Islamists are not our friends," or "Islamists are evil." For the term, "blacks are," Google prompted me to search, "blacks are not oppressed." The term "Hitler is," autocompleted to, among other things, "Hitler is my hero."

37 of 238 comments (clear)

  1. What did you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google is showing what others are searching for. What else would you expect from humanity?

    1. Re:What did you expect? by religionofpeas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They should prevent exploitation of their algorithms in general, not just when it suits some particular vocal group.

    2. Re:What did you expect? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 2

      That's one way to read what he said if you have a mindset which believes Russians cause everything on the Internet you don't agree with.

      I assume he meant "humanity is awful and doing awful searches". No exploitation needed.

    3. Re:What did you expect? by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      I see this as a reflection of human kind, not of Google.

      As we get more polarized, it gets too easy to see the other group as bad or evil, we tend to forget that the other people have the same set of problems that we do. And are just trying to make it in the world the same as us.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:What did you expect? by ezdiy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, Google has no obligation to prevent its services from being leveraged by those who understand how it works from exploiting

      Google bombing is exception, not a rule. It simply doesn't happen on this scale.

      There are no secret neonazi meetings for this.

      The truth is that people simply do search for these things - "are jews nice?" and "are jews evil?", the latter ends up being more frequent as a result of people encountering nazi propaganda elsewhere and following it up by questioning it via google.

      Interestingly, whenever a moral outrage happens over some tardy phrase like that (last time, it was "how to have sex with kids"), the media shitstorm actually amplifies the phrase, in ultra-refined Streissand fashion and only then we can talk about the phrases being artificially rated up.

    5. Re:What did you expect? by Sneftel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you, personally, get your news and personal opinions from Google autocomplete? If so, please stop doing that. That's not what it is for.

      --
      The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
    6. Re:What did you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      whenever a moral outrage happens over some tardy phrase like that (last time, it was "how to have sex with kids"), the media shitstorm actually amplifies the phrase

      As a parent, I read that search as being shorthand for "how to have sex with kids in the house"...

    7. Re:What did you expect? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      I think he's saying that Google shouldn't be surprised at vile things showing up in a box populated by unmoderated entries from Random Internet Fuckwads. I'm not. They should moderate the entries if they don't like it.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    8. Re:What did you expect? by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 2

      I agree with what your saying here... but I just gotta point out that the world would be equally outraged if google was found guilty of putting a shine on the search results by hiding or depressing results for evil thoughts. I'm not saying there's a fix for this... and perhaps really what I'm saying is that THERE IS NO FIX for this, because humanity is messy, and like a flag in a stiff breeze - there is no equilibrium. We are instead doomed to vacillate back and forth furiously until we're frayed, ripped at the seams, and eventually destroyed.

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    9. Re:What did you expect? by sheramil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In this case, maybe Google should take action.

      The vast bulk of humanity is, in the words of Citizen Ted, "a worthless morass of lying, defecating chimpanzees". What precisely should Google do about this? If they are developing AI that will replace us all, that's enough.

    10. Re:What did you expect? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The vast bulk of humanity is, in the words of Citizen Ted, "a worthless morass of lying, defecating chimpanzees".

      My experience is that the vast bulk of humanity are decent people. We shouldn't let a the bottom 10% ruin everything just because they shout the loudest. Slashdot accomplishes that with the moderation system, which can be abused but mostly works well.

      What precisely should Google do about this?

      I think the best solution is to disable autocomplete for racial and religious terms. That is a neutral approach, and doesn't need constant monitoring.

      If they are developing AI that will replace us all, that's enough.

      That is a good long term solution. But until Humanity 2.0 is out of beta, we still need to deal with the world as it is.

  2. Thought Police by Calydor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google is not and SHOULD not be the thought police. If their algorithms show these to be common search queries, take that as a hint that we need to DO something - as long as that something isn't to sweep things under the rug by censoring the results.

    Yes, censoring. I don't give a rat's ass about the argument that it's only censorship if the gubbermint does it. The internet is the new town square, deal with it. Circumventing censorship laws by "suggesting" to private companies what is and isn't appropriate things for people to see is bad.

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    1. Re:Thought Police by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 2

      Yes they are. In some African countries, by other black people.

    2. Re:Thought Police by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Alphabet is run by a bunch of pussies that will cave in to the request.

      Otherwise, youtube would have told the advertisers "Where the hell are you going to go, TV?" when they threatened to pull there ad's over some bullshit showing on a youtube video.

  3. Oh noes! by nwaack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google showed me something I don't agree with! Better run back to my safe space and hide with my teddy bear. - smh

    People in general are vile and disgusting, this is just another attempt to hide the real world from people and make them snowflakes.

    1. Re:Oh noes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Google showed me something I don't agree with! Better run back to my safe space and hide with my teddy bear. - smh

      Also worth noting that Google customizes its completions and suggestions based on what you look at. If you're getting results that include "kill all the jews" and "why are jews evil" - it's because Google has recognized that you seem to search for stuff like that a lot.

      This trips people up a lot when they post "hilarious" Google autocomplete results where Google recommends really weird fetishes related to some benign search - not realizing that what they're actually showing the world is that they frequently search for some bizarre fetish, so Google thinks they're always interested in it.

  4. SJW Google To the Rescue! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Help! Help! I can't think for myself and my eyes are sensitive!

  5. Color me naïve... by DrTJ · · Score: 3, Informative

    ... but I fail to see the problem.

    Those who search for "hitler is my hero" will find the results anyway and will not hindered by the completion removal.

    Most others are not likely to be converted to die-hard nazies because they see a completion alternative.

    The minuscle part of humanity that are, probably have worse problems.

  6. Who the fuck cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Welcome to the Internet. Sack up and deal with it.

  7. Nothing vile to be found - what's the problem? by bradley13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is an impossible problem to solve. There will always be the next "offensive" sentence. And anyway, who gets to define what is offensive? The only solution to this problem is to stop showing other people's searches. Which, arguably, might be a good change to make.

    Regardless, I'm not seeing the problem. These are search terms. What is offensive about searching for "blacks are not oppressed"? Are you looking for evidence to support that conjecture? To refute it? As a search term, why should anyone take offense?

    Or how about "islamists are not our friends"? The term "islamist" refers to a muslim who believes that Islam should be not only a religion, but also a political system. In the West, we believe in a separation of church and state. So, in fact, islamists are not our friends. Where's the offense?

    We'll skip the "Hitler" searches, because the vast majority of those are not serious. Bored teens on 4chan have to do something with their spare time.

    What about "feminists are sexist"? In fact, modern feminism in the West no longer seeks equality for women, it now seeks special treatment. Just as affirmative action is by definition racist, so modern feminism is sexist. Even if you disagree with this, searching for the reasons that people may believe it, is a perfectly legitimate search.

    Climate change? There is, in fact, still a great deal of debate. Not about the climate warming, perhaps, but certainly about the degree of warming, about the predictions being made, and the degree to which climate change is natural or anthropogenic. Again, why should search terms be problematic?

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
  8. Re:Yep by sinij · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When 1st amendment was written, private entities that could control so much of our communication did not exist, not even in concept. Government was called out because it was the only entity that could limit speech in a meaningful way. 1st amendment core intention isn't about Government actions, it is about limiting free speech.

  9. Ummm ... by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I too felt a certain kind of queasiness

    Then step away from the computer and read a book. The internet is not a place for people who are queasy when faced with opinions they don't agree with, ESPECIALLY AS AUTOCOMPLETIONS ON A SEARCH ENGINE. If the question "are jews evil?" makes you queasy, they you will not like the internet, and the rest of us do not want you to try to recast it in your limited vision of what is proper and correct.

    I would suggest only reading books your mother picks out for you, since she will be able to filter those to prevent you seeing queasy-making things.

  10. Queasy? by Shotgun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google returning a suggestion for a search makes the author "queasy"?

    Really, snowflake (in all of its derogatory connotations), you need to turn off your computer and go outside for a few minutes. You're not mature enough to use a keyboard.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  11. Re:Wait a minute... by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You don't understand the meaning of the word "racist".

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  12. Re:Wait a minute... by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Equality under the law means that no animals get to be more equal than any others. If you think that line if thinking is racist, then you've got the problem, not me,

  13. Islamists? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I thought Islamists was a term created specifically to differentiate the bad Muslims. (e.g. Muslims aren't bad, it's the Islamists that are bad). I don't think this is unreasonable. I don't think it's fair to say "Christians are bad" whenever some Jesus cult does some crazy shit, but at the same time, I wouldn't expect google to come with good results for "christian fundamentalists" or similar terms.

    1. Re:Islamists? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      I was curious. Interestingly, the first suggestion for "christian fundamentalists are" is "not a separate denomination." Second is "stupid," third is "cults."

      Seems reasonably on par with the results for "islamists are". I expected "...stupid" is probably a top five suggestion for any X is/are query because it's the internet.

  14. Re:Wait a minute... by farble1670 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most modern racist statements goes off the following ideas.

    1. Racism isn't a problem ...

    This is a polarizing, divisive statement. You are telling everyone that doesn't feel racist, and doesn't experience racism that THEY are racist. I am not sure if you are trolling or what, but if you have an interest in actually effecting change you should change up your tactic. Accusing and blaming people just makes them defensive and closed to your ideas.

  15. Re:Wait a minute... by sexconker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Normally this leads to vile thinking to express this statement as true.

    Most modern racist statements goes off the following ideas.
    1. Racism isn't a problem
    2. The minority group wants more then it deserves
    3. We should stop such groups from demanding more.
    4. We should role back any special considerations for them
    5. We should give preference to the majority group

    1: Racism isn't a problem that justifies treating people unfairly, it isn't a problem that justifies censorship, and it isn't a problem that justifies altering or "correcting" the truth.

    2: Many minority groups do want more than they deserve. (Hint: What you deserve for being a member of a minority group is nothing more than fair consideration and treatment.)

    3: We should indeed put an end to entitlements and get people used to the idea that fair consideration and treatment is what they are owed, not equal (or better) outcomes.

    4: We absolutely should get rid of unfair treatment that exists only to benefit specific groups.

    5: We should not give preference to the majority group. We should give fair consideration and treatment to all groups and, ideally, stop thinking of people as members of specific groups. Note, again, that this does not mean equal (or better) outcomes.

    This applies to race, sex religion, etc.

  16. Re:Wait a minute... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

    RACIST is simply a tool to dismiss something that one doesn't like. However, crying racism often leads to actual racist thoughts, like this video exposes.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Voter ID laws are racist because they (particular race) don't know where to DMV is. They don't have the knowledge. They aren't aware or uninformed. They don't have ID. They ....

    Categorizing all people one way. THAT is racist.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  17. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Normally this leads to vile thinking to express this statement as true.

    Most modern racist statements goes off the following ideas. 1. Racism isn't a problem 2. The minority group wants more then it deserves 3. We should stop such groups from demanding more. 4. We should role back any special considerations for them 5. We should give preference to the majority group

    I am not a racist, but I agree with part of this list. For all intents and purposes I am white (I have negligible traces of Native American blood). My wife is Latina with 20% Native American and 9% African blood.

    1. Racism IS a problem.
    2. Many minority groups DO want more than they deserve
    3. Anyone should be able to demand anything they want, but that doesn't mean we should pander to them.
    4. We SHOULD roll back Affirmative Action type programs which are racist by design. Racists will find ways around the regulations while the regulations actually hurt white males for nothing more than being white males.
    5. NO individual should receive preferential treatment / consideration based on race or gender.

    Do you feel that my views of these 5 talking points make me a racist?

  18. My attempt was relatively tame... by hyades1 · · Score: 2

    I tried "Jews are". Google auto-completed it as "Jews aren't white".

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:My attempt was relatively tame... by PPH · · Score: 2

      And I didn't get anything remotely racist or anti-Semitic. But what I have gotten (in the past) is auto-completes related to my recent searches. So perhaps the author of TFA spends too much time digging around for racial slights.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  19. Re:Wait a minute... by Bryansix · · Score: 2

    Please tell me more about unintended consequences. I'm sure the DNC would like to hear all about it.

  20. Be Glad Someone is Searching "Are Jews Evil?" by eepok · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why the hell would searching "Are Jews evil?" a bad thing? Is it showing one of those Google answer summaries saying, "Yes"? Chances are that it's not and that it's showing the historical issues of antisemitism, prejudice, stereotyping, and scapegoating.

    I'd be more concerned if the widely spread issues of antisemitism weren't being combated by people going to Google and asking if what they've been told as children or are being told by their peers is true.

    I searched "Is God..." and the first option is "Is God Real?". Great question!

    I searched "Are all criminals... " and the first suggestion was "Are all criminals mentally ill?" The second was "Are all criminals bad?" Again, great questions!

    Questions are good. Especially when they are intended to seek truth and combat prejudice.

  21. Re:Wait a minute... by farble1670 · · Score: 2

    The fact that you cannot even cope with the idea of racism doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    Did anyone say it didn't exist? You see, the alternative to "everything is racist" isn't "nothing is racist". Most things in the real world (to which you clearly are lacking experience) operate in the gray area between the two.

    No, the problem is you;re such a precious snowflake that you go into a blind tizzy when someone so much as mentions racism just in case someone accuses you of it.

    Unfortunately for you, the evidence of certain people going into a blind tizzy is forever memorialized on the internet now for all to see.

  22. Re: Wait a minute... by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Court rulings are not right by virtue if being court rulings. They are right by virtue if being right, only if they're right. A rather infamous court ruling held that black people couldn't be citizens, and another held that segregation was A-OK.