Microsoft Tackles 'Horrifying' Bing Search Results (bbc.com) 220
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."
Try writing better searches (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Try writing better searches (Score:3)
How can you filter yourself? If you know the results of a search beforehand, why bother with the search? Surely the point of research/searches is to go beyond what you know and therefore what you can filter.
Re: (Score:2)
All to easy to filter for yourself. Just provide a reason to log into a search engine by allowing users to block web sites from turning up in searches. Over time this block can be used to filter out those crappy sites. They do no want to do this because the worst sites are the ones they are paid to shove in your face over and over and over again. Like all the crap American news sites, corporate propaganda on steroids, the last sites you could be bothered going to for news and yet always the first ones serve
Re: (Score:2)
Would you rather science journals publish ads as articles? It would utterly destroy science and set back civilization, but at least you'd see everything. Sales of brain bleach would sky rocket.
Nobody wants everything, nor should they suffer it. Even you don't want everything.
Signal to noise matters.
What you really want (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct. Well, maybe both of you are.
Sometimes I have no idea what I'm searching for. I have a vague idea, but I don't know what it's called, the words used to describe etc. So I start searching using the words that come to mind to describe it, fail, learn, try again.
I'd love it if the system could read my mind. If I was speaking with a Reference Librarian s/he would ask me questions and help direct me towards what I wanted.
However, I probably wouldn't appreciate seeing "horrifying" results. Of
Re: (Score:2)
I just checked, and yup...Bing still gives relevant results.
Unless of course, that is the only derogatory term that is still PC to say/use....?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? A search engine by its very nature filters results. That's the whole reason you provide it with search terms which it uses to filter out things. Otherwise what would be the point?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
And if you build or pay for it then you can have just that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you want to search for "anti-Semitism" to get these results, not "Jew". Or maybe "anti-Semitic conspiracy theories" if you want to read about, say, Cultural Marxism.
But is it really appropriate for MS to filter? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Let the free market do its job. I've long considered Bing to be a censored leftwing version of the already leftwing google, this just makes it more so.
If you don't like it, use a different search engine.
Re: (Score:2)
You would be surprised. One early instance of this problem appeared when searching "jew" on Google led to an anti-semitic website.
Here is an explanation, straight from Google in 2004 https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org]
The relevant part
If you use Google to search for "Judaism," "Jewish" or "Jewish people," the results are informative and relevant. So why is a search for "Jew" different? One reason is that the word "Jew" is often used in an anti-Semitic context. Jewish organizations are more likely to use the word "Jewish" when talking about members of their faith.
Interestingly, Google refused to fix the results and most people understood the issue were fine with it, even the Anti-Defamation League. The ADL later contacted Google in order to find a solution that didn't involve censorship. IIRC the issue ended up being fixed with a Google
Easy solution (Score:2)
Just create a list of words for which no suggestions will be provided.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Easy solution (Score:2)
Let people define their own lists, so they do not get horrified.
I thought searches were supposed to reflect realit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: I thought searches were supposed to reflect re (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
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
Re: I thought searches were supposed to reflect re (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm pretty sure the point was to lie about what Bing does.
Re: (Score:2)
Hehehehe, nice!!
Re: (Score:2)
If by "nice" you mean the post is bullshit and made up.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 10
Re: (Score:2)
"Useful" is a loaded term, easily abused. What, for example, would be "useful" to a racist, a sexist, a religious fanatic, or a republican?
Re: I thought searches were supposed to reflect re (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: I thought searches were supposed to reflect re (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 co
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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' ch
Re: (Score:2)
You're equating absence of signal with absence of noise.
Signal and noise are not the same, never were.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: I thought searches were supposed to reflect re (Score:2)
And being a progressive is all about being a homophobe apparently
Lack of censorship was the only... (Score:4, Informative)
reason I sometimes use Bing. Thanks for killing the one advantage Bing had.
This isn't censorship (Score:2)
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 f
Re: (Score:2)
It's safe to say that if I go to bing and search for "Jewish" that I probably don't want pro-Nazi propaganda.
Apparently, odds are that you do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's safe to say that if I go to bing and search for "Jewish" that I probably don't want pro-Nazi propaganda.
You changed "Jews" to "Jewish". Are you going to pretend "Jews" aren't widely talked about, often in a negative fashion? Also note that the author clicked on an "evil jew" suggestion... and was surprised to find Nazi propagana?
Let's try another one: white people. One of the Bing's image suggestions is "white people looting". Probably because people search for that as a counter to blacks looting.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it could have nothing to do with the fact that statistically, white people loot just as often as black people. Math and numbers are just liberal propaganda!
So you say without any references. I guess those are part of the white patriarchy. Also, there no corresponding suggestion for "black people looting" or "blacks looting".
But here's a statistical reference for you: In the United States, blacks commit murder at a rate eight [bjs.gov] times greater than whites ("Homocide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008", page 3).
Re: (Score:2)
Bing is heavily censored. They even operate in China, that's how good their censorship tech is.
Sadly, reality has a /pol/-leaning bias (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yet it turns out fuuucking /pol/ is always right. fuck. I never wanted to end up knowing all this shit.
Even though Microsoft pulled the plug on Tay, she will always love you. Never forget they murdered her. [wordpress.com]
it depends (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Google Vs Bing (Score:2, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
As a test, I searched 'girls licking tits' on both Bing and Google. The results are indistinguishable. Porn, lots of porn. On both standard and image search. When I tried again with safesearch mode on, however.... google returns no images, and bing shows a warning that results were blocked due to safesearch.
There is one difference, however. Google has search filtering on or off. Bing has three levels, of which the 'moderate' is the default. On this default, bing blocked the image search, but did not filter
Re: (Score:2)
Found it: On default settings, Bing's image filtering proves quite ineffective in filtering a query on 'yiff.' My speculation is that their filtering algorithm might be based in part upon image feature extraction, and so less effective on artwork than upon the photos upon which it was trained. It does block a lot of material, but more than enough slips through to make for a rather interesting page of image results.
They did have the foresight to block any query on 'hentai.' I tried that one first, but it mus
Re: (Score:2)
There's an occasional joke about someone who wonders if monosodium glutamate is safe for pets and searches for "E621 dog."
Re: (Score:2)
It is worth noting that both engines, when in their strictest filtering mode, outright refused to process the query in any manner - returning either no results (google) or no results and a suggestion to turn filtering off (bing).
This suggests a striking lack of content online concerning the habit that British women have of licking their songbirds. See, you can't trust search engines.
Re: (Score:2)
As a test, I searched 'girls licking tits' on both Bing and Google.
Thank you for doing this in the name of science! :)
I was obviously exaggerating the difference between Google and Bing; however, I've learnt the hard way not to use bing image search when I have people in my office and I need to look for an image for a project. Innocent search terms seem to pull up less than innocent results. It could be anecdotal, I've heard other people have the same issue.
It would be interesting to do an in depth study on this. How do I get government funding?
Re: (Score:2)
As a test, I searched 'girls licking tits' on both Bing and Google. The results are indistinguishable. Porn, lots of porn.
As it should be.
Re: (Score:2)
> Girl Licking Tits
Oh wait, did I say that out loud? :-)
there are 10 types of people searching those... (Score:2)
... words combined with each other: racists nutcases and people looking for something to be offended by.
Re: (Score:2)
The last time I used Bing it was 100% garbage. (Score:2)
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.
Seems about right to me (Score:2)
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.
Wrong target (Score:2)
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.
Better to light a candle than curse the darkness (Score:2)
https://www.bing.com/search?q=... [bing.com]
Bing Search for Jews. Not horrifying at all.
What does Bing have to say? Let's find out! (Score:2)
Why tf are you using Bing? This sounds more like advertising for them (in the "no news is bad news" sense).
I don't let Bing's spider on my site... (Score:2)
People are interested in these things (Score:2)
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.
Moderating a search system (Score:2)
Let people search for and find what they want. Its their internet.
Translation: yea more corporate censorship! (Score:2)
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 c
'horrifying' didn't mean what I thought it meant. (Score:2)
Hurray! Another Social Justice article. (Score:2)
Why is this "news"? You search for something and you find good and bad things. So. Fucking. What.
Meh.
Re: Horrifying? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: Horrifying? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: Horrifying? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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, w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they have reasonable data to support that then of course I'm willing to change my mind.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Horrifying? (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: Horrifying? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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".
Re: (Score:2)
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... [cdc.gov]
From that lil' old group known as the Center for Disease Control. But what do they know?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you do.
There is no absolute free speech, even in an anarchy, nor should there be.
Re: Horrifying? (Score:2)
What's the problem with Concurrent Versioning System aside from the fact it's old and newer alternatives are better?
The Problem With Filtering is... (Score:2)
Someone else is deciding what is, "Horrifying".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
means participating the decisions that affect us all
Except you don't get to participate. Only people at M.S. will participate.
Sorry if that seems like an, "extremest" view to you.
Re: (Score:2)
, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 c
Re: (Score:2)
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.
You do know Microsoft is a corporation, yes? (Score:2)
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