21 ms·
Microsoft Bing not only shows child pornography, it suggests it
- hodgesrm 8y agoHoly cow. Online search and big social media sound like a complete dystopia at this point. What's next?
- airstrike 8y agoNews corporations. Oh wait, that's already a dystopia in the present. 'Tomorrow Never Dies' has really aged well... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow_Never_Dies#Reflective_reviews https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow_Never_Dies#Reflective...
- jbob2000 8y agoWithout even reading the article, I know exactly what they are talking about. I completely stopped using Bing a few weeks ago after stumbling upon the search phrase "nude beach" with safe search turned off. Do not do this.
- tantalor 8y agoElaborate? Is that phrase code for something? Does Google do something different?
- arbitrage 8y ago"Nude beach", and other terms related to social nudity and body freedom, have long been coopted by child pornographers and sex traffickers. It's a very common phrase that's been around for a very long time (decades) used by those in the CP community, often related to selling or buying images or videos.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- whoisjuan 8y agoFor some reason Bing is highly optimized for porn. There are a lot of memes that satirize about this. I think this was a strategy to lure users from Google, which is very restrictive when it comes to indexing and showing sensitive content.
- fooker 8y agoCan confirm, I use Bing only for porn, Google for everything else.
- trumped 8y agoThis is probably automated keyword suggestions... what the the police need to do is go after the source of the problem (take down and prosecute the ones hosting these files).
- 2Ccltvcm 8y agoSome historical context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Dutroux#Allegations_of_cover-up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Dutroux#Allegations_of_co...
- hjanssen 8y agoWhile this makes totally sense, it is just a part of solving this problem. Often, those files are hosted on foreign servers with next to no chance for law enforcement to get access and take those servers down. A filter will definitly help with the spread of these atrocitys, this also protects the dignity of the victims. Google does not show these search results so it must be entirely possible to filter them out. Why can't MS do the same thing for Bing?
- trumped 8y agowe have seen the fbi blocking content that was hosted in other countries... why put every and all companies in charge of policing? is law enforcement too lazy?
- vivekd 8y ago>“Omegle for 12 years old” prompted Bing to suggest searching for “Kids On Omegle Showing”, Results called "kids on omegle showing" suggests that the kids were being prompted by predators to produce child pornography on social networks. There has got to be some rule about letting kids access these social networking platforms. Who could possibly think it's a good idea to let a child post their photos videos and profile information online and leave that open to the public for any predator who wants to reach out to them. And what's worse these kids are probably using these things unsupervised. I wonder how a search company could hope to really effectively combat this content considering it's probably constantly being produced and circulated on a daily basis. Although one should expect them to keep track of and closely monitor keyword phrases routinely associated with child porn.
- dleslie 8y agoAt least in Canada, that sort of predatory behaviour towards children is criminal. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-172.1-20070622.html https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-172.1-...
- Flashtoo 8y agoOmegle is more of a chat room than a social network. Users can video chat with random strangers. What I found odd is that Omegle video chat is moderated, probably to curb unwanted sexual content, but there are also two other video chat categories: adult, which allows sexual content, and unmoderated, which sounds like it has no systems in place to remove unwanted content like child pornography. It seems absurd to me to have an unmoderated category on top of an adult category - what legal things would you need an unmoderated video chat with strangers for? The results for "kids on Omegle showing" are most likely other users who have captured screenshots or recordings of the illegal video streams on Omegle.
- dleslie 8y ago> There’s no excuse for a company like Microsoft that earned $8.8 billion in profit last quarter to be underfunding safety measures. Perhaps the problem is that there is an excuse: it is likely that they believe that they are neither responsible for the images they index, nor are they beholden to proactively engage with law enforcement. This is where treading the line between conduit and publisher can bite the corporation who is attempting to do so. While Microsoft does not host the images, it does index them and serve links to them. What's more, they also host thumbnails and metadata that allow the images to be browsed and discovered. Because they host the thumbnails and metadata, are they not a publisher? They're hardly acting as a disinterested router of opaque data when the data served is stored on their servers and indexed by their algorithms.
- onetimemanytime 8y agoDo you really think Microsoft is showing them on purpose? What's the gain? I can see the loss and not just in PR. IMO, they failed but others failed to properly screen cp, until they fixed it.
- dleslie 8y agoI do not believe there is any purposeful or malicious intent from Microsoft. But that doesn't mean they cannot or should not be held responsible for the data that they host and serve.
- kakarot 8y agoDoesn't reddit serve thumbnails? Wave after wave of recent subreddit bannings due to reddit now believing they will be directly responsible for data they are helping to serve should make one stop to reflect about how exactly such a law would be enforced.
- onetimemanytime 8y agoFine, but responsible in what way? Not like they did it on purpose. Their bots found the images, Bing just forgot to exclude them. Now they're work a lot more to exclude them.
- paxy 8y agoThis is really surprising considering Microsoft owns PhotoDNA which is used all over the internet to detect child pornography.
- monocasa 8y agoI've heard rumors that PhotoDNA incentived the creation of new child pornography that ostensibly isn't in their database, rather than the traditional sharing of older images.
- ggggtez 8y agoThat's an interesting idea. I don't see how they would establish cause and effect, so I'm inclined to not believe it. But it is interesting to consider unexpected incentives.
- monocasa 8y agoI mean, the effects (your life being ruined forever if caught) isn't exactly amenable to the scientific process and fully establishing cause and effect. It's totally rational for them be extra cautious beyond what they can establish.
- ggggtez 8y agoI meant, how would you prove that more was produced as a result? How do you know that now isn't produced because there are now people in the world in general? Or some other cause?
- ryanmarsh 8y ago... and DEA efforts to interdict drug traffickers had many negative externalities too... You could make any effort to stop something bad seem worse than the crime itself if you follow this line of thought too far
- ouid 8y ago
- dep_b 8y agoWow. That must've been a pretty disgusting story to investigate. I heard people at Facebook that have to moderate this kind of stuff develop PTSD-like problems.
- duxup 8y agoI mean how many shares of seeing folks beaten or even executed before it gets to you. Me ... 1.
- toufiqbarhamov 8y agoI’m still haunted by some of the things I stumbled across many years ago when I was exploring FTPs just to see what I could find. That all ended the day a video labeled “AMV 1” turned out to be (at least the few seconds I saw) a very young boy tied up and being raped. I reported anonymously to the FBI, but even then it was clear they were overwhelmed and I never heard back. If I had to see that kind of thing as a job, I’d die.
- brownkonas 8y agoMy friend is on the other side of this fence, FBI agent, that's had to conduct surveillance of child pornographers after tips like this to collect sufficient evidence to prosecute. Luckily, he was eventually transferred into a white collar crime division. There are a lot of revolting, but vital jobs out there. Hats off to those with the psychological disposition to handle them, even if not sustainable in the long term.
- l0c0b0x 8y agoWhen I was looking at which professional direction to take, I started looking at government jobs (mostly law enforcement) and spoke with some industry people. My take was: Get prepared to look at a LOT of ugly stuff. Also heard horror stories that just thinking about it, makes me want to puke and punch somebody at the same time.
- ryanmarsh 8y ago
- nv-vn 8y agoWho was the guy who found this and why the fuck was he searching "porn kids" and "omegle kids showing"? Like I get that it's an issue and all but this dude was looking up really sketchy shit that you wouldn't just stumble upon by accident.
- ceejayoz 8y agoThey don't say exactly what the "anonymous tip" was. It might've just been "hey, child porn is easy to stumble on on Bing". If the filtering's this bad, maybe they searched "kids underwear" when trying to find some new undies for a toddler, and got a bit of a shock. The specific keywords appear to be ones come up with by the researchers, who are (intentionally) trying to find keywords that come up with stuff.
- Jach 8y ago"It's ok officer, I'm a journalist!"
- MagicPropmaker 8y agoIt worked for Pete Townshend.
- ursus_bonum 8y agoThis is clearly explained at the beginning of the article.
- BingHasProblems 8y agoYou misunderstand the problem. Here's how to reproduce. 1. Navigate to bing. 2. Turn off safe search. 3. Search images for keyword "sex" 4. Click on the second image. At the top of the image detail page, there will be suggested search terms. One of them is "baby sex fetish" https://i.imgur.com/ReIrw8u.png https://i.imgur.com/ReIrw8u.png (picture of suggestions - SFW) Just searching for "sex" with safe search turned off results in child pornography search suggestions. You don't have to be looking for illegal content for this to surface.
- snr 8y agoIs there a reason they don't run child exploitation detection ML engine (PhotoDNA) on the media they index? I'd guess they already run an ML engine to "describe" a image while they index it and this additional step shouldn't be too expensive?
- FakeComments 8y agoWhat makes you think they don’t, and what is found here is just the small portion that makes it past the filters?
- dwighttk 8y agoBased on the redactions in the images in the article, those searches are returning ~75% cp. I guess that could still be a small portion of whats out there, but that's horrifying.
- FakeComments 8y agoHm. Here’s my napkin math: Porn accounts for 1% of images. Child porn accounts for 1 in a million fraction of that. So it’s 10 per 1 billion images. If you figure the filters exclude 90% of child porn images, that’s 1 per billion which will show up in search results. I can’t find a good estimate of total number of images, but YouTube shows 5 billion videos a day and gets 1800 minutes of video per minute. So if we estimate a trillion photos, then we’d expect around a thousand child porn images to make it past the filters, and Bing to be able to return a few pages of 75% child porn when we accidentally stumble on a term in that category.
- dwighttk 8y agoOh yeah, didn’t think about the concentrating factor of the search term.
- FakeComments 8y agoNo worries, I’ve now spent more effort thinking about this than I really care to, and am going to go watch puppy videos. Thank you to whoever actually deals with this, so I don’t have to.
- dwighttk 8y agoTangent: (I need to start making a note of the search terms I'm using when I notice this so I can get confirmation I'm not just ignorant of the relation, but) I'm often surprised by the number of suggestive images that show up in image results even with safe search selected. I usually use duckduckgo, but sometimes also google image search.
- dwighttk 8y agoDuck Duck Go's suggestions for "omegle k" look like they are going to return awful results: https://twitter.com/dwightknoll/status/1083440852993802243 https://twitter.com/dwightknoll/status/1083440852993802243
- FakeComments 8y agoI would suspect every search engine has this problem, and every social network has the problem WhatsApp did with trading pictures in private groups. Calling out Bing in particular isn’t useful, but drawing attention to the problem might be — or it could turn into another repressive crusade. Hard to say.
- Ivoirians 8y agoIt's self-evident that a privacy-focused service is inevitably going to attract illegal/anathematic behavior. And it's possible that after enough stories like this and "terrorists coordinated on <random E2E encryption messaging app>", average people may decide that the tradeoffs inherent to privacy aren't worth it and start supporting things like Australia's encryption ban.
- Kiro 8y agoDDG is using Bing though so not surprising.
- lordnacho 8y agoYou would think that people who have illegal content would try to hide it from a mainstream search engine? Aren't they just sitting ducks waiting for police to come arrest them? I thought this kind of thing was on the dark net, and there was no way to accidentally see it?
- Bhilai 8y agoWow, Bing seems to be in a bad shape. Just a few months ago Bing was serving malware/adware disguised as a Google Chrome ad and now this.
- quantum_magpie 8y agoTo be fair, a link to real Google Chrome download is also serving malware/adware.
- theandrewbailey 8y agoAlso consider how many things Bing ties into, like Windows. Oh shit.
- hajile 8y agoThe real story is much different. Interpol, the FBI, etc have been handed a golden tool to find child porn users. They could be prosecuting all those sites and investigating their visitors, but instead, they turn a blind eye. Rather than stop real predators seeking out this garbage, they run sting operations to entrap people who are too uninformed and poor to fight back then pat themselves on the back about fighting crime.
- withinrafael 8y agoChasing users feels like a complete waste of time. Taking down the sources (e.g. on the darkweb) and physically recovering the kids involved is surely a better use of their time, right? Ideally they'd do both, but finite resources...
- hajile 8y agoChasing users is useful because those people are high-risk to be abusing children in their lives. The government drones on and on about the dangers of "The dark web" and how we need to give up all our security (because if we don't, they can't possibly catch anyone). Instead, we find hundreds of sites so easily accessible that a standard web crawler can locate them. It wouldn't be too difficult to track down the site and monitor it to find the owner. At that point, shut down the site and squeeze the owner. Sooner or later, one of them is going to have links to producers that can be followed.
- the_duke 8y agoWhat golden tool are you referring to? It's a cat and mouse game and probably always will be. Authorities have taken down several large child porn TOR sites for example.
- hajile 8y agoBing -- which obviously has a magical ability to find child porn as they crawl the web that non LEO can match. There was more than a little sarcastic meaning. This isn't someone hiding on TOR. This is someone on an easily traceable, publicly available site who could be tracked down and squeezed to find the source (and hopefully find and rescue the children).
- Animats 8y agoMicrosoft could outsource the censorship to Beyondsoft. They do much of the Internet censorship for the government of China.[1] [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/business/china-internet-censor.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/business/china-internet-c...
- mooseburger 8y agoIt still rubs me the wrong way that simple possession of child pornography is illegal. It's obviously a good idea to criminalize production of child pornography, and possibly the sale of as well, assuming that sales of child porn incentivize production of it, but images and video do not actually harm any children, meaning criminalizing possession does nothing, and is in fact an example of censorious and moralistic government overreach. Consider that it is perfectly legal to watch cartel or ISIS execution videos, and that the acts depicted in such videos are far worse than child rape. You disagree? Are you saying you would rather be flayed alive than be retroactively raped as a child and live with the trauma of it? Under what principle does it make sense that possession of gore videos is legal, and possession of child pornography is not?
- Loughla 8y agoEthics aside. >but images and video do not actually harm any children Yes, they are. In the creation of that video, a child was harmed. Criminalizing the consumption of a good is aimed at stemming the production of a good.
- openasocket 8y agoThere's also some nice secondary effects of criminalizing possession of child pornography. What little evidence we have about pedophiles suggests that the majority of consumers of child porn have also sexually abused children personally. And, while child sexual abuse tends to go un-reported and can be difficult to prove in court (usually the child is the only witness, limited physical evidence, etc.) possession of child porn is much easier to get a conviction on. So not only is criminalization stemming the production of child porn, it is helping to find and convict sexual abusers.
- DanBC 8y ago> What little evidence we have about pedophiles suggests that the majority of consumers of child porn have also sexually abused children personally. That's not true at all.
- MlkedChocolate 8y agoAHHH, so that is why Bing has 33% market share.
- zokier 8y agoWhat I find bizarre is that there would be so much child pornography still left in the indexable public internet. I would have imagined that pedophiles would have been pushed underground long ago. Why hasn't law enforcement attacked the hosters and sources of such content? Surely finding them can't be that difficult if even bing finds the material.
- gambiting 8y agoApparently one of the reasons for removal of all NSFW content from tumblr was the sheer amount of CP on it - someone on reddit wrote a whole comment about it. Basically people created lots of blogs linking to other CP content, which was re-shared, but even if the original blog was deleted you could still see the re-shares and find the original content.
- jjhawk 8y agohttps://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/a2r4h4/whats_the_deal_with_tumblr_banning_all_nsfw/eb0z65x/ https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/a2r4h4/whats_... Appears to be the comment you are referencing in case anyone else is looking for it.
- ryanmarsh 8y agoThere was so much CP on Tumblr I wonder if it wasn’t an elaborate honeypot. It was sooo bad and over the top. People have no idea. There’s also been a lot of CP on Instagram, including child sex trafficking rings advertising their wares. Backpage was the largest single source of child sex trafficking operations in the US and many in LE knew it for years before it was finally shut down. I’ve unfortunately seen far too much of what people don’t believe is out there. That’s what I get for helping anons “dig”. As they say “nothing is beyond our reach”.
- Dylan16807 8y agoThere was a serious problem, but I'm not convinced the actions they took actually helped in any significant way.
- beager 8y agoSearch engines, messaging services, and social networks that are all threatened by this should forego their competitive instincts and share information about how to combat this issue. If Google doesn’t have this issue but Bing and DuckDuckGo do, I’d feel morally bound as Google to share best practices to help them prevent indexing, suggesting, and retrieving this content.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 8y agoGoogle already does a lot to help with this. E.g. https://qrius.com/google-to-launch-ai-toolkit-in-renewed-efforts-to-tackle-child-sexual-abuse-online/ https://qrius.com/google-to-launch-ai-toolkit-in-renewed-eff... Microsoft also shares a lot of stuff with the industry, including PhotoDNA hashes of known CP images. Just because it is not publicly discussed doesn't mean there isn't a lot of work going on, even between organizations, to work on this problem.
- dzhiurgis 8y agoApparently iOS does on-device image classification and reports stuff somewhere that isn't exactly legal.
- Skunkleton 8y agoWhat like safari when it hits an arbitrary page? I wonder how this is applied to other types illegal images. Source?
- dzhiurgis 8y agoI meant pictures taken with your device.
- kwhitefoot 8y agoThat's a pretty strong claim. Do you have any evidence you can share?
- userbinator 8y agoI'm not surprised. I remember reading an article a long time ago about how porn was easier to find with Bing than Google, because the latter was doing a lot more censoring. ...and in general, I've found Bing to be more useful for searching obscure things. There's more spam in the results, but at the same time you're more likely to find what you're looking for amongst them. But unfortunately with articles like this, it seems that might change... as much as I'm against CP and abuse in general, I'm also against censorship and the degradation of search engine results to only the most mainstream/popular topics.
- rococode 8y agoRight, the same technology that would be used to block CP and abuse could probably be easily reconfigured to block any topic of choice. Some things are obviously worth blocking, but it's hard to decide where to draw the line, especially when many topics that some would consider blocking are highly politicized. edit: to clarify again, some things are obviously worth blocking (like CP)! The issue is that once that technology has actually been deployed and demonstrated, you can be sure that different groups will start pushing for other things to be blocked as well. It changes the dialogue from "it'd be nice if you could figure out how to block X" to "hey, you're already blocking Y so why not also block X?" and that's a fairly potent change in my opinion.
- Judgmentality 8y ago> but it's hard to decide where to draw the line It's actually very easy - legal and illegal.
- memory_grep 8y ago.
- tlarkworthy 8y agoDistributing digital images of marijuana is not illegal.
- Wowfunhappy 8y agoMicrosoft is, as the article points out, a multi-billion dollar company. Though they clearly have not invested enough effort into preventing this, they've almost certainly invested a great deal of effort. And it was still ineffective. What does this mean for smaller companies that make products which index the open web? Put another way, does this stuff show up on Duck Duck Go?
- glenrivard 8y agoLuckily very few use Bing. http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share http://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share Search Engine Market Share Worldwide ... Lost 25% of their share last couple of months.
- walrus01 8y agoFor the report embedded in the techcrunch article, I'm getting "This document has been removed from scribd" when attempting to view or download it. Why couldn't they just publish it as a PDF file on the techcrunch website?
- BingHasProblems 8y agoIn my mind, Bing has two separate issues here: 1. Not filtering out all child pornography images.. 2. Suggesting search terms relating to child pornography. The second point is the most damning, in my opinion. Here's an example: 1. Navigate to Bing Images. 2. Turn off safe search. 3. Search Bing images "sex" 4. Click on the second image. At the top of the image detail page, there will be suggested search terms. One of them, for me, is "baby sex fetish" They seem to process each search result image, and suggest other search terms based on what they think the image contains. For example, if I search for "breast", and click on a NSFW picture containing smaller-chested model, I end up with suggestions like "Skinny Small Tit Girls Naked". For what it's worth, Google doesn't provide suggestions for NSFW searches at all. I think this approach goes a long ways to solving this specific issue.
- commonsense1234 8y agothanks for the warning at the top. it is so tempting to reproduce the search results.
- cmarschner 8y agoThey way this usually works is: a problem surfaces, a team is created that creates countermeasures, they measure the results, they solve it, then the metrics become part of a dashboard. They run against a wall improving the metrics, they move on, team funding is cut in half (or moved to another location, like india/china, with a junior team). Meanwhile adversaries find new ways to counter the measure. The article mentions several components of the stack, developed in different locations. I presume right now they have put up a tiger team to fix it. The cycle begins again...
- asdfasgasdgasdg 8y agoSome of the search terms seemed like pretty low-hanging fruit. "Porn CP"? I thought that there was some kind of initiative to just show no results for CP-seeking queries, and that seems like one of the ones that would be pretty obvious to block. I wonder if we're not just seeing the result of a bug.
- mrsteveman1 8y agoGoogle does that, some are obvious but even those that seem obvious end up causing problems. You can't use the word "minor" at all in combination with some terms, even though it's a common last name. I don't know what the answer is, but it seems like we should be able to do a much better job selectively returning results to "wall off" the things we want to separate and avoid accidentally letting through, rather than simplistically blocking words, which is clearly what's happening in some cases. You don't necessarily have to identify every single image to know that certain terms should not be returning results from sites and pages that have a high probability of being porn, and certain NSFW terms should not be returning results from sites aimed at, or content known to have been made by, children. Anecdotally it seems like all we've done is to edge closer to ruining search for legitimate situations without accomplishing much.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago> I don't know what the answer is, but it seems like we should be able to do a much better job selectively returning results to "wall off" the things we want to separate and avoid accidentally letting through, rather than simplistically blocking words, which is clearly what's happening in some cases. This is just defense in depth. If you know a query returns 90% CP before filtering, even if your filters are 99% sensitive, you're going to get some CP in the first few pages for that set of terms. So if you identify a query as CP-seeking, then you would rather probably just show nothing at all. Of course, the definition of CP-seeking would have to be tuned, but the ratio of legitimate to CP results would have to be a component of that. > You don't necessarily have to identify every single image to know that certain terms should not be returning results from sites and pages that have a high probability of being porn We definitely already do that, and have been doing at least since the late 2000s. > Anecdotally it seems like all we've done is to edge closer to ruining search for legitimate situations without accomplishing much. Objectively, this is not true. We have accomplished a great deal in terms of CP suppression, and search is better than it ever has been for the vast majority of legitimate queries. Regardless, I'm sorry that you feel that way.
- ithrowthings2 8y agoTwo things: one) Article should redact search terms if it is illegal to try them - we can't even verify findings are real. Also, I predict a number of people (likely low but still a lot), searched the terms to verify. two) A lot of pornographic websites will advertise "young", "girls", "teen", and maybe even "kid" but all persons will be of legal age, some though do dress/look much younger. A) Maybe the people doing the investigation can't tell / have poor judgement. B) How would Microsoft Bing know whether the young "stars" look young, or are actually young? My vote would be to ban the whole damn search keywords altogether. Let investigator find and prosecute those in the darker corners of the web but just ban searches for keywords like those in the article.
- tzs 8y agoThe search given at the start of the article, "porn kids", now returns that they have nothing matching. Unlike other two word searches, where if it doesn't find something matching both words, it looks for similar things, "porn kids" is a flat out statement that it has nothing, suggesting that they explicitly special cased it. "porn teens" returns plenty of results, and I doubt that they are all teens who are legally old enough. One of the two word phrases that should not have had any matches that I tested was "porn isomorphisms". As expected, it gave me a lot of porn that had nothing to do with isomorphisms, and a small amount related to isomorphisms that had nothing to do with porn. All the porn involved women. I then tried "porn homomorphisms", expecting similar results to "porn isomorphisms", except maybe the "homo" in there would lead to more male porn. To my surprise, there isn't any porn in the results! It's almost all math stuff, or word stuff. Bing is weird.
- ryanmarsh 8y agoWeird thing about “teen porn”: When I was a teen what do you think I wanted to look at? Is that wrong?
- empath75 8y agoprobably not morally wrong to search for it if you're that age, but it's certainly wrong to produce and distribute it.
- max76 8y agoIs it wrong to produce and distribute porn of people 18 and 19 years old? Legally this is okay in the United States.
- basil-rash 8y agoTeen porn is certainly fine, and I believe you'd be hard pressed to make the case that Bing's results for "teen porn" are illegal [1]... porn companies specifically hire of-age performers that look young, then further dress them up (hair, makeup, outfit) to look even younger. Nothing illegal about that, and I don't see anything morally wrong with people choosing to watch porn with people that look closer to their own age. [1]: I haven't actually done the search myself, for obvious reasons.
- bborud 8y agoSearch is one of those businesses where just delivering a service that to most consumers seems to not change much from one year to the next actually requires a lot of work. Actually improving noticebly requires an astonishing amount of work. Improving to the degree that users overcome their brand biases is harder still. I don't envy Microsoft.
- RIMR 8y agoI stopped using Bing to search for porn specifically because the recommendations were creeping me the fuck out. I remember searching for something like "Blowjob Cumshot", and that recommendation bar started giving me options for "Preteen Blowjob Cumshot", "Middle School Blowjob Cumshot", and "Little Girl Blowjob Cumshot". All of the thumbnails for these buttons were clearly lolicon/hentai, but it blew my mind that Bing was actually suggesting these search terms as alternatives to mine... This was years ago, so it blows my mind that this is still a fucking problem...
- mac01021 8y agoNaive thought/question: if CP becomes easily accessible for free through search engines, won't that cause less CP to be produced, since the producers will be less able to make money from it? So maybe that's not all bad?
- iloveyouall 8y agoJevons paradox states that increases in production usually cause an increase in demand, and there might be similar effects here: The availability might make it more socially acceptable, which in turn might increase the demand, and therefore also the demand of original productions.
- blackflame7000 8y agoSomeday hopefully soon, computer vision will be able to more immediately identify these perverts the moment it hits any open peer network.
- ourmandave 8y agoThey also show beastiality if your search is about horses. D=
- nailer 8y agoDuckduckgo does this too. Rather than typing 'ne' to autocomplete this very site, I typed 'nn' once and there was child porn on duckduckgo's first page.
- mda 8y agoBecause duckduckgo = bing (for non trivial queries)
- lysp 8y agoI've switched from Google to Duckduckgo for the majority of searches and found that using Duckduckgo's image search is too NSFW to be used at work. One time I searched for a building called "Banana Alley" and was trying to find a photo of it to send to a friend. Google correctly returned a photo of the building, however Duckduckgo returned some "interesting things adults do with bananas". I believe Google has a pre-processor to work out if you're searching for adult content first before deciding if to show adult content in the image results. So if I search for random terms - Google will never show porn, unless I include sex-related terms in the search query. And only then will the NSFW filter be removed.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- 0b01 8y agoSeems Microsoft already have the technology: https://www.how-old.net https://www.how-old.net
- throwaway2826 8y agoThe problem of this article is that it is untrue, and that because the material may not be viewed, almost nobody has any means to check that it is untrue. Apart from incidents, which are probably removed very fast, there has not been and is there is no child pornography on Bing in the past year. It is true that the keyword recommendations are very disturbing. They probably reflect what other people have been searching for. Source: I'm sexually attracted to (some) children, and I sometimes use Bing to search for legal photos of (naked) children, because I know that Bing uses PhotoDNA to filter out everything illegal. I have never seen any child pornography. There's only naturism without any sexual posing and models (woman) that might look 15-17 but are actually from legit porn sites. You may think that's disgusting or immoral, and I can understand the disgusting part. I know that I'm sexually attracted to young boys since I was 15/16 years old, and I have decided to never act on that attraction. I have a stable relationship with another adult. However, viewing naturism photos of children is not illegal, and I don't think I harm anyone by viewing such photos. I you want to have some information about pedophilia, as there are lots of myths about it, I think this is a good resource with linked sources: https://pedofieltweets.wordpress.com/2018/12/30/pedophilia-essential-facts https://pedofieltweets.wordpress.com/2018/12/30/pedophilia-e... . Main point to take away, is that most abuse isn't committed by pedophiles, and that it is very likely that most pedophiles don't abuse children.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Proven 8y agoAlarmist garbage.
- throw7 8y agotechcrunch.com not only reports on child pornography, it suggests how to get it.
- vajrabum 8y agoIs there a reason not block the engine from returning image results or suggesting related results based on the search terms? I realize that's probably naive but seems less difficult than starting by trying to classify the images.
- flag_bcz_mad 8y agoChild porn laws are stupid and driven by emotion rather than logic. Why else could a child face legal consequences for taking pictures of their own bodies? That is something that could only come into law by having a culture where saying “no” to anything vaguely anti-cp is social suicide. The same goes for typing “kid porn” into bing. There is a reason why people are generally casual about gore content but emotional about cp content. It’s brainwashing. I once saw a bbc reporter (the uk is hyper-brainwashed about this issue, imo because they actually have tons of pedos) who was in japan doing a documentary about sex dolls. While looking around the
- deveynull 8y agoThis article doesn't do justice to the work Microsoft has done with combatting child pornography in an attempt to paint Bing as some intentionally neglected backwater and Microsoft as some criminally negligent monolith. Microsoft's PhotoDNA is far and away the most widely shared detection tool and is in place with a ridiculous range of organizations. More importantly, Microsoft works closely with LE and makes it easy for their partners to integrate with LE. Google avoids the problem in the article entirely by doing a nudity blacklist for image results, which nicely solves the problem of some reporter doing a hit job, but avoids actually doing anything that makes finding material more difficult. There are plenty of problems with black-listing based approaches, and I strongly disagree with some of the technical decisions made in PhotoDNA [1], but Microsoft should be credited for their commitment to reporting and prosecuting, and bringing their processes to other companies who otherwise would be unable to dedicate the resources required to be effective. [1] https://github.com/deveyNull/phistOfFury https://github.com/deveyNull/phistOfFury