Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Tackles 'Horrifying' Bing Search Results (bbc.com)
Microsoft has "taken action" to change its Bing search engine after it was found to give "horrifying" results for some terms. From a report: Journalist Chris Hoffman discovered Bing suggested racist topics when he looked up words such as "Jews", "Muslims" and "black people". Bing also ranked widely debunked conspiracy theories among the top suggestions for other words. Mr Hoffman said Microsoft had to do better at moderating its search system. In his investigation, Mr Hoffman looked up racially-themed terms and found that the majority of suggestions for further searches that accompanied results pointed people to racist sites or images. Racist memes and images were also returned for many of the words he tried. "We all know this garbage exists on the web, but Bing shouldn't be leading people to it with their search suggestions," wrote Mr Hoffman. It is believed that the suggestions for further searches connected to these terms have emerged from a combination of user activity and concerted action by far-right groups to skew responses. [...] Jeff Jones, a senior director at Microsoft, said: "We take matters of offensive content very seriously and continue to enhance our systems to identify and prevent such content from appearing as a suggested search. As soon as we become aware of an issue, we take action to address it."
I'd appreciate a search engine that gives me exactly what I search for. I can filter things myself and get better at searching and get what I'm looking for that way.
Just create a list of words for which no suggestions will be provided.
If those pages are the type people are reading most often for those given search terms then Bing is doing its job. I don't expect morality to be a weighting factor for a query (horrible as that may be).
reason I sometimes use Bing. Thanks for killing the one advantage Bing had.
Why is it pathetic that civilized people would find it horrific that fraud and corruption are promoted? It is the job of the civilized to be horrified by cthuloid barbarism.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
These search results are like anudda shoah! Remember the 600 million!
I'd appreciate a search engine that gives me exactly what I search for.
No you wouldn't. You want something that will return the information you are seeking. That is often not going to be what you actually searched for. Furthermore that isn't a valid justification for a search engine returning the sorts of "horrifying" results Bing is evidently prone to in places where they should not reasonably be expected.
I can filter things myself and get better at searching and get what I'm looking for that way.
Even if true that doesn't mean that is the best way to do it and it also doesn't mean other people want to search that way. I sure as hell value a search engine that isn't rock dumb and that can help me get to the information I'm seeking. If I want to seek out some bogus conspiracy theories or racists propaganda there probably should be some extra steps involved in getting to that.
Search engines aren't supposed to return what is the most popular, but what is the most useful. Nobody ever needs to be told what they already know, only what they need to also know.
When you have a positive feedback loop, it's always good to stop the cycle before things get destroyed.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Why would we want any search engine with censored content? SJWs have killed liberalism. SJW does NOT equal Liberal; it's the opposite.
On the right political spectrum, there was once the "moral majority" with Jerry Falwell that advocated similar censorship. Thank God that moviement fizzled away. But why is such fascist behavior now embraced as "SJW" "woke" "uber liberal" ??? It flys agaisnt all that true liberalism embodies.
This SJW trend is all facism under various guises by people who think they know what's better for you than you yourself.
It is rather amusing to watch this thing that we here at /. 20 years ago assumed would usher in a new era of transnational singularity-driven technocracy. .. ...
Yet it turns out fuuucking /pol/ is always right. fuck. I never wanted to end up knowing all this shit.
And who decides what is the "most useful" ?
Bing search:
Migrate from Windows to Linux
"Useful" results Microsoft think you need :
- 10 reasons why you don't want to migrate to Linux
- Linux is too complicated. Here's why...
- Think twice before migrating to Linux
- You can get fired for choosing Linux solutions
- ... (213 links later) Easy migration guide to Linux
Will $CURRENT_YEAR be the year of the Linux Desktop?
The problem is that anyone who's been awake in the last few years knows that not everything called racist actually is racist, in any meaningful way.
Who gets to decide? Well, in the past, you did (modulo a large bunch of publishers and broadcasters and libraries and such).
Now? Something gets "deplatformed" and you will never see it to decide for yourself. It's too easy now to just "disappear" people and ideas.
I have no problem with filters per se, as long as they are accessible - I generally have Google's safe search on, if using Google, for example. If Bing wants to have a "Filters" panel, and a checkbox that says "hide what Bing thinks is racist", great.
Google and Bing are very different in wholesomeness.
Googling "Girl Licking Tits" would probably show you pictures of a girl licking British song birds as top image result.
Bing search "McDonalds" would probably show you a picture of Ronald having a threesome with the Hamburgler and that purple blob creature as top image result.
FYI I, for good reason, haven't actually done either of the searches above- these responses are dramatazisations.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
It's not about popularity, certainly not overall popularity. Search engines are optimized towards returning whatever the people searching are actually looking for. If you're the sort who type in a query starting with "the jews", quite likely it's antisemitic material that you're looking for and will find "most useful" (or at least click on, which is all they know). There's no need to assume right-wing manipulation here; I only wish the racist fringe wasted time skewing Bing results on queries made almost 100% by their own.
The algorithm can't be expected to learn on its own that such material is objectively junk, if the searchers think it's good. We probably wouldn't want it to try. But letting humans manually fiddle with specific search results carries its own problems.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
You can filter yourself by finding bad results and excluding them. Have you never gotten bad results in your searches before? You do realize that most people filter out results after examining them because they know they don't want them, right? You seem to be using 'filter' to mean that a person should never even know they exist to begin with, as if it's their job to shelter us from even knowing that people might disagree with us about things.
If they hide results from us, we'll never know what's out there. How would you, say, do a report on conspiracy theories if there's an organized effort to hide any such results from people deliberately looking for them because merely knowing the information exists is now 'horrific'?
Or is your point that people have to be completely protected from 'bad' information? Which information is bad? Maybe we should get rid of works that have historically led to mass violence on a global scale? Let's see, topping the death charts on that would be... the Communist Manifesto, Koran and Mein Kampf. Gotta burn 'em all?
And being a progressive is all about being a homophobe apparently
I can see "deprioritize" yes.
But if it comes to full removal filtering from the complete long-list of search results, that seems like a dangerous precedent.
It may be targeting universally objectionable racist stuff now, but it is a slippery slope to make MS, Google, and Facebook the moral police.
What if they start filtering out the postings of supporters of "trade enemy" countries. as being flamebait. Or start filtering out unpopular opinions phrased with strong language. This starts to sound exactly like the great totalitarian firewall of China.
A better solution might be search-user tweakable prioritization / filter settings, with "tame" default settings.
That way, a journalist researching, or a historian documenting, racist crap on the internet could find what they're looking for.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
I did a Bing search none of those things were on any of the 5 pages I scrolled. The first result was a linux.com 'Windows to Linux Mogration Guide.' So basically, your post is complete and total bullshit.
Someone else is deciding what is, "Horrifying".
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
... words combined with each other: racists nutcases and people looking for something to be offended by.
The question here is whether it is a search engine's task to educate and censor or not. And it has no good answer. If you say no, you get all the horrible ignorance, arrogance, racism, x-ism, etc. but you also get a true picture of reality in the net. If you say yes, you get a "morality" that is dictated by those with power, which may well be worse.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
"Useful" is a loaded term, easily abused. What, for example, would be "useful" to a racist, a sexist, a religious fanatic, or a republican?
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Hehehehe, nice!!
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Swedish media have been caught making the decision not to report on events regarding muslim immigrants because those reports would be beneficial for the (politically) unpopular part Sverigedemokraterna. This wasn't about racist memes - it was about choosing not to report factual truth about things that actually happened because it was not politically correct to do so.
Is that what you want the internet to become? In that case, quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
The last time I used Bing, I was searching for something innocuous.
Every result I got was one of my search words used in "www.<word>.com/", or something very similar. Every one was the root of the website that it returned.
Utterly Useless.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
What a surprise.
a true picture of reality in the net.
I think "reality in the net" is what people are trying to avoid in favor of "reality in the real world", because the two are often not the same. Every uninformed opinion posted online is not somehow equivalent to truth of what actually happens in the world. The "vaccine debate" or climate change are perfect examples, where there are a very small number of vocal opinions which somehow get amplified and equated with the much larger number of fact-based studies. You end up with a picture that these issues are hotly debated when they're really not, they're really a lot more settled than the online discussion would lead someone to believe.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
If I search for that phrase on Bing, the very first item at the top is from Wikihow on how to move from Windows to Linux in 8 steps (with pictures!). They even embed part of the list right in the first result. Step 1 is choose a distro. Step 2 is try the "live CD" versions first. Step 3 is about picking the correct applications to use. Step 4 is about backing up your data (maybe the steps aren't in the right order, but whatever). Etc.
The second result is the Windows To Linux Migration Guide from linux.com. The fourth result is 11 reasons why you should migrate from Windows to Linux. The next result is titled "Migrating to Linux From Windows Makes for Good Business".
I don't see a single anti-Linux result on the first page. So, if that list of what you posted is actually the results you see, then that says a lot more about your previous searches than anything about Bing. I don't use Bing at all, so I should have no history there.
If that list you posted is some example you just made up, then you're perfectly illustrating the problem that the article is about - uninformed crap posted online (and modded up!) masquerading as actual information which should not be on the top of the list.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
not even a little bit. It's safe to say that if I go to bing and search for "Jewish" that I probably don't want pro-Nazi propaganda. The percentage of people searching for issues related to, say the Jewish religion is probably a bit higher than the percentage of white supremacists. The same is true for searching for "Black Lives Matters".
You can still find the neo-Nazi sites, but you have to search for them in a way you would expect (e.g. search for "White Power" or "Neo Nazi"). What Bing is trying to fix is that when you search for relatively innocuous terms they don't bring up what are pretty clearly hate and conspiracy theory sites.
What I'd like to know is how did this sort of fringe content become the norm for a Bing search. I know Bing is bad at search, but not this bad. Somebody's been manipulating their search results for a reason. We can probably guess who...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
A cynic might suggest that anybody stupid enough to use Bing would probably want this kind of thing to turn up near the top of their searches.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
And how do you propose to do that? Force all people to post their opinions and then add a "reality" or "truth" score? The only thing a search engine can give you truthfully is the reality on the net, nothing else. Everything else will be some ones or some parties interpretation of how the world is or should be and it will be skewed.
That said, I do see your point and it would be nice to have a way to represent full truth in a search engine, but I am pretty sure it cannot be done and any attempt to do so will likely be worse than the problem it addresses.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
, but why does Bing or Google care what their key word searches return?
Because that's what the majority of customers want... or rather- more people don't want to see "offensive" pages in a search than people who would get upset about "offensive" pages being removed. It's all about money; neither Microsoft or Google are doing this (or not doing this) because of politics. They just want to maximum number of eyes, and the maximum number of ad revenue flowing through their web pages.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
If by "nice" you mean the post is bullshit and made up.
No, I'm pretty sure the point was to lie about what Bing does.
And how do you propose to do that?
I think you've got me confused with someone else, I am not a search engine engineer. It's not my job to propose things like that. People smarter than us, or at least higher-paid, are working on that problem. I would imagine that it still requires a fair amount of human intervention and correction at this point. Microsoft's AI "Tay" is plenty of evidence regarding the problems of unleashing an AI to try to understand the internet.
Part of the problem is that there is a certain segment of the population, which is small but has an outsize impact because they know how things like this work, which will actively try to undermine the entire system for the lulz. It would be an easier problem to solve if there weren't people actively trying to mess it up.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Such as how the gay community managed to create a new definition that shows up first or second in response to their dislike of Rick Santorum?
Bing is returning search results with questionable content? I really hope people realize this is not Bing's issue, it's the sites with the questionable content that have been indexed by Bing's crawler.
Wagging your finger at Microsoft is pretty silly, they did nothing wrong, they just indexed what's out there, same as any other search engine.
If people want this kind of stuff to go away, perhaps you should thank Bing for exposing it for you, then go after the sites where the content is actually hosted.
The left have established what the acceptable truth is. Facts against protected victim classes are "racist". Believable opposition to that truth are "debunked" conspiracy theories. All of these things pit victim classes against a designated aggressor class, and you know who these groups are by now.
Support alternatives, create them, but do not empower this! It is a slow march where every step seems ridiculous until it happens: PC -> censorship -> official class based blame -> ostracization -> violence -> gulags -> murder.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=...
Bing Search for Jews. Not horrifying at all.
Walled gardens need to identify themselves as such. Also, there needs to bea choice - I don't have a problem with a (self-declared) censoring search engine, if I have an alternative, any more than I object to searches having a "safe search" mode as long as I can turn it off.
I'm worried about the effect this will have on DDG to the extent it still fronts Bing, however.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Why tf are you using Bing? This sounds more like advertising for them (in the "no news is bad news" sense).
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Will you accept it if smarter people tell you any "solution" to the problem is worse than the problem itself?
When you have a positive feedback loop, it's always good to stop the cycle before things get destroyed.
But that's the entire premise of Google search: it filters your results to those that are like results you've previously clicked on. It's call the "search bubble", and they keep you in your bubble. Most people think the results are better; me, I'm horrified at the concept and use DDG.
But the "search bubble" Google traps uyou in is probably why peole think this is a "Bing problem": Google by design would only show racist search results to racists.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I wasn't specifically targeting politically motivated adjustments to query results, but ALL filtering of results.
I'm suggesting that any filtering be clearly explained by the site returning results OR that they allow users to "opt out" of the filters if they choose.
So, if some search engine wishes to be "family friendly" and strictly filter out any pages they deem to be "adult" content, that's fine, they simply have to advertise themselves as doing this. IF they don't advertise as "family friendly" they can still return "safe" results, but they have to provide unaltered search results at a user's request.
Again, if someone wants to provide a politically motivated set of search results, Say if they want to market themselves as "politically correct" but don't specify their filtering criteria, they can do that, but they have to provide an "opt out of filtering" set of results. If they put their filtering criteria out saying we remove any links that point at or are found on a list of websites but don't provide a bypass, they can do that too.
So I'm saying you must disclose your filtering techniques, or allow them to be bypassed. I don't care how or what you filter, you just have to either tell me what rules you use or allow me to see unmodified results if I want.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
If you say no, you get all the horrible ignorance, arrogance, racism, x-ism, etc. but you also get a true picture of reality in the net.
No. Example: non-batshit people aren't searching for "do vaccines cause..." at all. Hence the only history the search engine has for auto complete are the things the batshit people are searching for. The fact that a few batshit people searched for something doesn't make it the "reality in the net".
If they have reasonable data to support that then of course I'm willing to change my mind.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Why does any search engine need to modify it's results for other than ad money?
That's exactly what's going on. Google and Bing search are wholly supported by ad money. It's bad for business to have offensive results. Advertisers do not want their ads shown inline with offensive material. If that happens, you get folks claiming the advertiser supports the offensive material (which I guess they do, indirectly, by paying out to the platform that served the material).
why does Bing or Google care what their key word searches return?
See above.
Google and Bing are somehow tasked with controlling speech?
No, just their revenue. They'll do what's good for business.
The problem is that reality is very subjective.
It's not though. People are subjective, reality is not. When light from the sun reflects off a given object, that light has a certain wavelength. The fact that different people might interpret that light differently does not change the objective fact that the wavelength is measurable and constant. The wavelength of that light is an objective fact even if different eyes interpret the same wavelength as different colors.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to objectively determine the truth of most things and anyone who says otherwise is basic.
Such a blanket statement is very basic. Not everything is one extreme or another.
Now let's try to apply this to the topic at hand. If someone searches for "jews" on a search engine, would it be "more correct" to present them with a bunch of conspiracy theories about Jews, or would it be "more correct" to present them with a history of the Jewish people as we know it?
That answer does not require a debate on the nature of objective truth.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
It seems that Microsoft does not instruct its spiders to obey the robots.txt instructions I provide. The spiders download parts of the site that I do not want indexed. When I talked with the bing support people on this, they said something along the lines of, "yeah, it's a known bug in the spider." Yet they do not fix it. So I just block the spider now. Microsoft's QA quality problems seem to extend from Windows 10 updates to Bing spiders. Maybe the reality is just that Microsoft is a bug-laden company?
That didn't happen. What did happen, and yes, what is a good example, is that a small group of people gamed the system to make it behave the way they wanted it to. It would not be correct to say that "the gay community" as a whole did that though. Like with any other group of people, it only takes a very small subset to make themselves vocal. In the case of Rick Santorum, he probably should have known to expect some kind of backlash when he's comparing homosexuality to bestiality and making un-American statements suggesting that people do not have the right to privacy concerning their sex lives. But it was a fairly small group that caused their own definition to be ranked at the top of searches for his last name, so yes that's a good example of a small group of people gaming the system. There's also a discussion to be had about whether that term, defined in 2003, is actually a valid term on its own now. Or, whether Dan Savage succeeded in "memorializing the scandal." Maybe that is in fact a valid definition at this point, so maybe it is actually correct for search engines to return that definition.
So, yeah, an interesting topic. If people are actually referring to the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex as "santorum", then wouldn't it be correct for a search engine to indicate that? A linguist would suggest this term has been used for 15 years. Dictionaries seem to add pop-culture terms in less time. Searching for that term yields results about Rick Santorum, the definition of his last name as it relates to anal sex, and articles about the term and definition itself, so that seems like the behavior one would expect.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
People are growing interested in these things, so they type them into search engines.
If we really live in an open society, the only response is to ignore this and publish your own views instead.
Alternative Right.
Thats not a search product that's just public relations branding.
Let people search for and find what they want. Its their internet.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
I also tried it - bing was different to google. but had less advertising. nice!
Microsoft decides. It's either that or go back to the 90s when search results were total crap, which is clearly not what most people want or Altavista would have been the pinnacle of search engines.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Actually it's because they weren't immigrants, they were the children of immigrants, some third generation, born in Sweden. Unless their religion was a particular factor in their crime is irrelevant, same as when Christians and atheists commit random crimes.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Jew here.
Your "conspiracy theories" are often rooted in truth, if not outright facts, but called conspiracy by people who don't like their narrative disrupted.
Asians are generally better at math. Demonstrably so.
Orthodox jews cut off the tips of baby penis, and then suck the blood from the wound. You can see pictures and videos of it, but only on Bing.
If corporations gave a shit what the left (which begins at anti-capitalism), the Sioux never would have had to protest the DAPL pipeline, the media wouldn't have shoved Hillary down the throats of primary voters, CNN would have been calling for Obama's impeachment for breaking up Occupy Wall Street, etc etc.
FTFY
We saw this same story with the instant search results in Safari - just more propaganda to allow the media to engage in censorship and propaganda by selecting what you may see. And it's not like they're going to stop at blocking, say, Holocaust Denial when someone searches for "Jews". They'll also block shit like anyone who questions the conspiracy theories that Trump worked with Russia to steal an election, or that Assad decides to gas his own people whenever US politicians try to back away from regime change.
And it's not like the hysteria over fake news is ever going to be applied to mainstream news organizations. If all this hysteria was around in 2002-2003, Iraq war skeptics would have been censored, not media figures and organizations that relentlessly lied Americans into a war that cost trillions of dollars and over a million lives.
Initially I was excited to hear that Microsoft was finally acknowledging their search engine was absolute garbage... until I continued reading to discover they plan to make it even worse.
Which is why the database that the swedish government seized, which shows that 80% of the crimes were being committed by 'migrants' or whatever term you europeans want to label illegals as. Sorry, you can try painting this bullshit whatever way you want. In the UK, you've got all those child rape gangs and those are being committed by people who've migrated. In Canada, we just had our first bust in BC of a child rape/grooming gang...again migrants.
A girl by the name of Mirassa Shen was murdered in BC...by a 'migrant' who'd been in the country mere months. They charged him with 1st degree murder. Now here's the interesting part, in Canada there are two ways to get a 1st degree murder charge: Premeditation is the first key element here, meaning they had to plan, know, stalk, and then execute their plan. The other way is by rape and murder. Police have already stated that there was no premeditation, that neither person knew each other. So let's finish up, because I'll keep it in Canada. There are now hotels and motels being used as "migrant shelters" vandalism, theft, assault 1, robbery 1&2, sexual assault(1 - not rape), sexual assault(2 - rape) are clustered around these places. They're not shitholes in the cities, these places are in the downtown core in many cases.
But by all means, keep pretending that importing people who are culturally non-compatible, believe that they can "take" whatever they want, that women are worth less then a man. Are doing great things for society...
Om, nomnomnom...
Actually, you do.
There is no absolute free speech, even in an anarchy, nor should there be.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
You're equating absence of signal with absence of noise.
Signal and noise are not the same, never were.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
No, I am equating some guy in the media getting to decide what is politically correct for people to learn, and some guy in Microsoft or Google doing the exact same thing.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Again, most of the child rapists in the UK were second or third generation, i.e. born in Britain and British citizens. The fact that they were mostly Asian and Muslim has been discussed on major TV programmes extensively, and in newspapers and in Parliament and at the inquest into what happened.
What upsets people is that these discussions don't consider the fake news reports, so they think things are being covered up.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I agree, we wouldn't want those batshit people to find stuff like this:
Link
What's the problem with Concurrent Versioning System aside from the fact it's old and newer alternatives are better?
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
DDG was originally an anonymizing front-end for Bing (as Startpage is for Google). They've been moving away from that over the years, but a damaged Bing still damages DDG.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Bingo
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
Again, most of the child rapists in the UK were second or third generation, i.e. born in Britain and British citizens. The fact that they were mostly Asian and Muslim has been discussed on major TV programmes extensively, and in newspapers and in Parliament and at the inquest into what happened.
Uh...the inquest stated that most of the people were immigrants who'd been in the UK for a period greater then 1 year. The average time they'd been in the country was 4 years. That doesn't make them 1st generation. And being born in another country and immigrating with your parents doesn't make you 1st generation either.
What upsets people is that these discussions don't consider the fake news reports, so they think things are being covered up.
So what's "fake news" about it happening over and over again, the police, councils, and child protection services covering it up. And then when there's an inquiry into it, the inquiry comes back stating that they didn't investigate because they were afraid of being labeled racist. Then a year later, the same shit is still going on...the police aren't investigating, the councils are covering it up, and child protection services are looking the other way. That's the very definition of "covering it up." And then there was the "trojan horse scandal" and...well what do you know, it happened in other cities too and the response was the same. And the police, and councils and education boards ALSO simply ignored it and yet it's still happening.
Man it's like there's systemic failures in the UK, and nobody wants to do anything for fear of being labeled racist.
Om, nomnomnom...
The question here is whether it is a search engine's task to educate and censor or not.
Are these search engines run and usage mandated by the Government... No you say... Then there is no censorship what so ever.
Microsoft, Google, Whomever owns DDG, these are all private organisations. They can display whatever results they like as long as the law is complied with, they can also choose not to display what they don't like. For a private, profit driven organisation it then becomes a question of "will this make or lose us money" and well, lets face it, the overwhelming majority of people don't like racism, sexism and other bigotry, especially when combined with ignorance and arrogance. So it's a business decision to give the majority what they ask for, it's like a Subway in a majority Hindu area omitting beef from its menu because the majority of customers will not buy it.
Ultimately, the racist, sexist or otherwise bigoted customers have the choice to not use Bing or Google.
And I would also apply this to the likes of Fox News. They can serve their customer base in which ever legal way they choose, those who don't like it can simply unsubscribe. My only issue is with them calling themselves a news agency, they don't fit the technical definition and in countries where "news" means presenting facts and not opinions, they have listed themselves as a light entertainment channel (they keep the "news" moniker under the guise of parody).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Why is this "news"? You search for something and you find good and bad things. So. Fucking. What.
Meh.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
The problem is that reality is very subjective.
It's not though. People are subjective, reality is not.
This is not about reality, but descriptions and perceptions of reality. They are very subjective.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to objectively determine the truth of most things and anyone who says otherwise is basic.
Such a blanket statement is very basic. Not everything is one extreme or another.
It is impossible to determine objectively the truth of most things that involve people and, especially, politics. This is something many people do not understand though, usually because they are convinced they have the truth in an effect that Dunning and Kruger described nicely.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
So you are not qualified to offer a solution, but you presume to be qualified to judge data that supports a specific solution? That does not work.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Don't get me wrong. Everyone has opinions. Some people stick to their opinions regardless of any evidence contradicting them. Others are open to changing their opinions when presented with counter evidence. I like I think I'm in the latter group on most issues. Many people are in the former.
I'm just not a search engine engineer, that's not what I work on. I work on other problems, that's where my focus is. I don't particularly care to drop what I'm doing and focus on someone else's job in a volunteer role, but if those people want to present their solutions and data supporting them then maybe I'll take a look if I'm interested and have the time. I don't know why you seem opposed to that.
If you want to look at my posts in this thread I don't think you'll see anything suggesting that I'm some sort of authority on search engines, I'm just offering my opinion. Like you are, except I'm trying to stick to my opinion on the topic and you seem to want to offer your opinion on me.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Well, I am just a bit tired of people asking for technology to do things it cannot actually do and then chickening out when asked "and how do you think that could work?". I do get your stance now (I think), so my apologies and thanks for the explanation.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Uh oh, someone actually read those articles.
In response to the events in Europe, CDC reviewed data from the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) and found no indication of any association between U.S.-licensed H1N1 or seasonal influenza vaccine and narcolepsy.
In 2014, CDC published a study on the association between 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccines, 2010/2011 seasonal influenza vaccines, and narcolepsy. The analysis included more than 650,000 people who received the pandemic flu vaccine in 2009 and over 870,000 people who received the seasonal flu vaccine in 2010/2011. The study found that vaccination was not associated with an increased risk for narcolepsy.
CDC recommends influenza vaccination as the best way to protect from influenza disease and its complications. See CDC influenza vaccine
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesaf...
From that lil' old group known as the Center for Disease Control. But what do they know?
Oh hi there troll. I can tell your level of conviction by the way you can't even associate an account here on /. with your posts. You must *really* believe in this stuff.
We have data. You have literal fake news, that has been disproven over and over again. Screaming and raving that you're right even when the data irrefutably proves you wrong won't magically make you correct. Why do you have such a problem with dealing with reality?
So the actual inquiry reports are fake news? And the police reports are fake news? And the court cases with criminal convictions are fake? Who's the one having a problem dealing with reality again.
Om, nomnomnom...
So, according to your logic, if enough people say "Mashiki is a pedophile" over and over again, you'll somehow become one? In spite of never having done anything with a kid?
According to my logic, there have been numerous court cases. There have been multiple official inquiries, and the leaked council, police, and government reports stating that they were not to look into it. I'm not sure what's worse, that you can't understand what I said. Or you actually think that your reply approached logic.
That's essentially what you're arguing. We know that more people are in jail for falsely reporting "migrant rapes" than migrants for raping. They admitted to making things up to stir up tension. To get idiots like you to believe lies. Why can't you believe them when they admit to lying?
So the trojan horse scandal didn't happen? Rotherham and nearly a dozen other cities in the UK that had the same thing going on didn't happen? Canada just had their first 'migrant' child prostitution and rape gang bust, but that didn't happen? The cases of the same in Sweden, Netherlands and Germany didn't happen either? Are you living in an alternate timeline?
Om, nomnomnom...
The US had a different batch of vaccines, dipshit, with no adjuvant added. From that lil' old group the CDC, asshole:
Link
1. Rename it DeploraSearch
2. Drown in money while the world burns
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
That's the article I linked genius.
The US had a different batch of vaccines, dipshit,
And.... so? What are you trying to say? The CDC concluded no evidence by studying a populace that was not given the vaccine? Is that what you think?
In 2014, CDC published a study on the association between 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccines, 2010/2011 seasonal influenza vaccines, and narcolepsy. The analysis included more than 650,000 people who received the pandemic flu vaccine in 2009 and over 870,000 people who received the seasonal flu vaccine in 2010/2011. The study found that vaccination was not associated with an increased risk for narcolepsy.
Take a moment and read that.