4 ms·
And replaced it with DuckDuckGo, which also had it missing. These actions are usually meaningless, but that makes it extra meaningless.
by MattGaiser 5y ago
And replaced it with DuckDuckGo, which also had it missing.
These actions are usually meaningless, but that makes it extra meaningless.
- unyttigfjelltol 5y agoI searched the term in DDG when this was on HN previously; the search was not censored on DDG. [edit] I recall it was at the time bing's search was still blank but I don't have a technical explanation for the different results.
- donohoe 5y agoI believe it was - but only because DDG relies on Bing for much of its search
- MattGaiser 5y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27394925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27394925 Maybe DDG corrected it earlier? But DDG is as affected for many on here.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- inigojonesguy 5y agohttps://archive.is/yemlH https://archive.is/yemlH
- simias 5y agoDoesn't DuckDuckGo use Bing's results behind the scenes? At any rate right now I see no obvious censorship: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=tank+man&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=tank+man&iax=images&ia=imag...
- adventured 5y agoThat's because Microsoft got caught censoring the results, then they lied and claimed it was a "human error," which absolutely nobody believes. Then Microsoft manually took an action to restore the image results in Bing for the query "tank man." Which then filtered down to DDG since it relies on Bing (previously DDG's image results were similarly devoid of the proper results).
- bigwavedave 5y ago> That's because Microsoft got caught censoring the results, then they lied and claimed it was a "human error," which absolutely nobody believes. Oh, I don't know. If we can label "accidentally using the wrong scope" as a human error, I could easily see a situation where someone meant to remove something from Chinese search results but accidentally did it worldwide. I don't know what their infrastructure is like, what kind of safeguards they have in place, or even what they do to block a result from the all-seeing algorithm. Which is more likely: that Microsoft would allow China to dictate what the rest of the world can/cannot see or that someone made a mistake and blocked something globally instead of regionally?
- relativ575 5y agoI find it baffled that a company of that caliber don't have regression tests that can verify region-bound changes wouldn't affect results intended for other regions.
- kbenson 5y agoIf someone accidentally didn't scope the change as region bound, what makes you think they couldn't accidentally scope the test wrong the same way? Human error knows no bounds.
- true_religion 5y agoIt was a mistake not an accident. When you make an accident, test safety checks can save you. However although you don’t intentionally make a mistake, you do intentionally carry it out. In that case, no amount of safety checking will stop a human being from implementing bad logic.
- mdoms 5y agoAs long as DDG uses Bing's results then they also implement Bing's censorship policies. That's a choice DDG makes.
- ashtonkem 5y agoLess a choice, more a consequence. It’s not like DDG wants to replicate MS’s search policies, it’s just that DDG lacks the infrastructure to do it on their own. Until they do, this is going to keep happening.
- gentleman11 5y agoI don’t think ddg was consulted or informed here. Choice is a strong phrasing
- fomine3 5y agoI don't blame DDG, but I argue that fallback into Google (self operated search engine, and not operated in China) somewhat makes sense for this.
- FridayoLeary 5y agoI agree it's pretty meaningless [Edit: in fact i posted this in the hope that someone would actually say that]. Didn't Google have the same issue? (correct me if i'm wrong). But still, bing's "explanation" was so incredibly pathetic, weak and opaque, it deserves to be dropped just for that "This is due to an accidental human error and we are actively working to resolve this.” In their own words. That's it!? They should be tripping over their feet in their haste to apologize! Executives should be coming out of the woodwork apologizing to everyone in sight and offering explanations to congress. But that's just my humble opinion.
- delroth 5y agoNo, Google didn't have this issue, because unlike pretty much all other search engines on the market Google isn't a frontend to Bing (well, I guess there are also a few frontends to Yandex, but they're more rare).
- dredmorbius 5y agoI see this as slightly resembling the "EV in a coal-fired electricity generation regime. Yes, using an EV in a location where the present primary source of generation* is coal has relatively minor impacts on the immediate carbon emissions profile of transportation. But decoupling an activity from immediate reliance on a specific mode makes future progress more viable. DuckDuckGo was also strongly criticised for the Tank Man image censorship, despite "merely" being a consumer of Bing's image search. DDG themselves have a reputation to be concerned with, and have been increasing their own public outreach and advertising over recent years, including radio spots (my principle commercial media exposure presently). So, no, it's not a complete fix. Given the limited options and degree of search market monopoly, it does remain a signal. Though it's also a sharp reminder of the extreme limits of the "consumer choice" argument in a case in which that choice simply does not exist.
- booleandilemma 5y agoAt least at that point Bing just becomes an implementation detail of DuckDuckGo rather than something Notepad++ uses directly. But yeah, this is definitely not intended to do anything other than be a political statement from Notepad++.
- baud147258 5y agoit might depends on something, but DDG is returning results for the tank man search, including images
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]