Slashdot Mirror
Safari's 'Siri Suggested' Search Results Highlighted Conspiracy Theories, Fake News (buzzfeednews.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from BuzzFeed News: Apple's Safari, one of the internet's most popular web browsers, has been surfacing debunked conspiracies, shock videos, and false information via its "Siri Suggested Websites" feature. Such results raise questions about the company's ability to monitor for low-quality information, and provide another example of the problems platforms run into when relying on algorithms to police the internet. As of yesterday, if you typed "Pizzagate" into Apple's Safari, the browser's "Siri Suggested Website" prominently offered users a link to a YouTube video with the title "PIZZAGATE, BIGGEST SCANDAL EVER!!!" by conspiracy theorist David Seaman (the video doesn't play, since Seaman's channel was taken down for violating YouTube's terms of service). The search results appeared on multiple versions of Safari. Apple removed all examples of the questionable Siri Suggested sites provided to it by BuzzFeed News.
[W]hen BuzzFeed News entered incomplete search terms that might suggest contentious or conspiratorial topics (as shown below), the search algorithms directed us toward low-quality websites, message boards, or YouTube conspiracy videos rather than reliable information or debunks about those topics. Meanwhile, Google does not feature such unreliable pages in its top search results. Those suggested results matter since Safari is one of the internet's most popular web browsers -- some estimates suggest it has captured over 10% of the browser market share. The poor suggestions may be a result of a "data void," which is "what happens when a term doesn't have 'natural informative results' and manipulators seize upon it," reports BuzzFeed. "Many of the sites surfaced by the Siri Suggested feature came from conspiracy or junk sites hastily assembled to fill that void."
In a statement, Apple said: "Siri Suggested Websites come from content on the web and we provide curation to help avoid inappropriate sites. We also remove any inappropriate suggestions whenever we become aware of them, as we have with these. We will continue to work to provide high-quality results and users can email results they feel are inappropriate to applebot@apple.com."
[W]hen BuzzFeed News entered incomplete search terms that might suggest contentious or conspiratorial topics (as shown below), the search algorithms directed us toward low-quality websites, message boards, or YouTube conspiracy videos rather than reliable information or debunks about those topics. Meanwhile, Google does not feature such unreliable pages in its top search results. Those suggested results matter since Safari is one of the internet's most popular web browsers -- some estimates suggest it has captured over 10% of the browser market share. The poor suggestions may be a result of a "data void," which is "what happens when a term doesn't have 'natural informative results' and manipulators seize upon it," reports BuzzFeed. "Many of the sites surfaced by the Siri Suggested feature came from conspiracy or junk sites hastily assembled to fill that void."
In a statement, Apple said: "Siri Suggested Websites come from content on the web and we provide curation to help avoid inappropriate sites. We also remove any inappropriate suggestions whenever we become aware of them, as we have with these. We will continue to work to provide high-quality results and users can email results they feel are inappropriate to applebot@apple.com."
Why it's Apple's job or any other company's job to monitor links to content outside their control?
Let ***ME*** decide if the links are valuable or not.
If I type "Pizzagate" it's because I want to find information about that topic (both against and for the conspiracy).
Logically Safari (and Bing and Google) should show me what's available, rather than make it invisible.
I want to see ALL the possible websites, not just the ones Apple of Microsoft or Google thinks is "safe" for my consumption.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
When did (some) westerners turn into wilting violets? Do they think Batboy is a real person every time they buy groceries and see a tabloid at checkout? If these assholes had been pushing this censorship crap in 2002, anyone questioning the march to invade Iraq would have been slandered as a conspiracy theorist and censored*.
Then there's the fact that the people calling for said censorship can easily be hoist on their own petard, as happened to ThinkProgress after they cheered for Alex Jones being deplatformed. The Weekly Standard picked a nit with an article they wrote on Trump's nominee for SCOTUS, and so FFB throttled them. Because FFB trusted a science-denying, Iraq war loving Bill Kristol rag to do "fact checking".
*To those who say it's not censorship if the government isn't involved, I'll refer you to the Congressional hearings where senators demanding big tech companies do something about "fake news", and the fact that FFB is relying on the Atlantic Council to police their platform - an organization that receives direct funding from the US military.