Slashdot Mirror
Google AdSense Banned a Random Webpage About a 32-Year-Old Bill Because It Was About Sexual Abuse (vice.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Earlier this week, an algorithm made an absurd choice. Google AdSense, Google's advertising program that makes up the bulk of the tech giant's advertising revenue, decided that a web page about a decades-old bill about sexual abuse was "adult content," and wasn't allowed to display ads anymore. The page, which is at least six years old and contains strictly legislative information about a bill called the "Child Sexual Abuse and Pornography Act of 1986" on free legislative research and tracking website GovTrack.us, tripped the AdSense algorithm that decides what pages are allowed to run ads. This single, very dry page being flagged as "adult content" is most likely a minor fluke in the AdSense algorithm, but it's a perfect example of how a tiny tweak in the way a platform uses automation to enforce policies can send a ripple through seemingly-unrelated parts of the internet. The page was flagged by Adsense as "policy non-compliant" on Monday, with Google citing the page's "violations" in a summary of the AdSense adult content policy. Here's what Google told GovTrack: "As stated in our program policies, we may not show Google ads on pages with content that is sexually suggestive or intended to sexually arouse. This includes, but is not limited to: pornographic images, videos, or games; sexually gratifying text, images, audio, or video; pages that provide links for or drive traffic to content that is sexually suggestive or intended to sexually arouse." The GovTrack page contains none of these, yet the page still can't run AdSense.
What's the downside here?
And the appeal was instantly denied, even though any human loading the page would immediately see that the ban was probably a mistake, and could make sure of it in less than a minute.
When algorithms make mistakes, humans need to be there to fix them, and they clearly aren't. That's the problem. Slashdot is going to get a bit overcrowded if the only way to get these mistakes fixed is to get a story posted.
That's well understood. The problem is when there is no human oversight to correct the inevitable mistakes that bots make either before or after the fact. Had you actually read TFA, you would see that a request for a review of the page was sent and the prompt (probably also automated) response was NO.
If you're going to let bots make the decisions, "talk to the hand" is not a very good response to questions.
That's what today's generation puts up with. Me, I can't get over the fact that free speech is decided by unccountable giant megacorps who can't be reined in by government because of their sheer size - not to mention, because they're in bed with said government. I'm always amazed to see what people are willing to accept these days that we weren't...
So yeah, you get over it. I don't. Not that I or people from another era matter nowadays though, mind you: we're old enough that this isn't our world anymore. We're just here for the ride. But the ride gets scarier by the day for us.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Web pages that make kids ask questions have NO PLACE on the Internet!
*sarcasm*
It looks like Twitter and Facebooks are Public Forums in at least some circumstances, according to a Federal judge
https://irontrianglepress.com/2018/05/25/presidents-twitter-account-constitutes-public-forum/
Would it be OK if a privately owned toll bridge required drivers to remove all their pro-obama bumper stickers before crossing the bridge? Would it be OK for the bridge company to require people to remove their hateful anti-Islamic bumper stickers from their cars before crossing the privately own bridge?
And, suppose that I'm offended by your subject line due to my personal religious beliefs (I know many sincere Christians would be offended by your use of Jesus's name as an expletive). Do you think would be reasonable if you were censored from participating on Slashdot because of my sensitivity? Why is it OK for you to offend me with your religious hate speech?
It is always easy to say if it is other guy's problem, or?
How about some obscure and unknown to you algorithm decides that you are dead and locks all your accounts? How do you even call help desk (assuming you know who is responsible and that they take calls from minions like you and me) if your mobile contract has been cancelled? There was an article here about guy who whose contract was wrongly marked as terminated by HR system - it took people 3 weeks to reverse from that mistake. Your statement shows that Milgram experiment was correct and showed real attitudes - we do not have guys in black uniforms with some odd emblems on it to tell us what to do and whom to persecute but we have our new algorithmic overlords.