3 ms·

On this theory, is the computer also a hazardous device? Because you could type this into a search engine and the same thing could happen?

zamfi 5y ago
Wouldn't that make the search engine the hazard, not the computer itself?
- emodendroket 5y ago
  I can't really see a principled distinction here; both devices are getting information from online search engines and presenting it to the user.
  - floatingatoll 5y ago
    The missing “principled distinction” is tied up in the user interface design choices that intersect with child safety concerns, even if equal content is presented to both means. Voice search and response has a very different intersection with child safety concerns than keyboard-browser search and response. A voice assistant can be reasonably expected to be operated by a very young child, who would be responsive and trusting to verbal commands in an adult-like voice from it. A keyboard computer with a search engine in a browser cannot reasonably be expected to be operated by a very young child, and would not be reasonably expected to issue spoken-verbal commands in response to queries. The information content is a relevant factor in the former case but not the latter; keyboard use of search engines is not in-scope for evaluating the child safety risk of voice assistants, though it is certainly an interesting topic as well.
    - emodendroket 5y ago
      The child in question is 10, right? It doesn't sound credible that a 10-year-old child could not operate a search engine.
      - floatingatoll 5y ago
        Whether or not a child is at risk from a browser search and result is not relevant to whether or not a child is at risk from a voice assistant search and result. They are separate concerns and considering the browser case does not nullify the necessity of considering the voice assistant case. For example, replace “10-year-old” with “3-year-old” (a simple and effective safety test for potential threat to children) and apply that test to both devices: A) Could a 3-year-old child be reasonably expected to operate a keyboard-browser search and result interface? Could they be placed into danger by doing so? B) Could a 3-year-old child be reasonably expected operate a voice assistant search and result interface? Could they be placed into danger by doing so? The answers to A and B are not the same, because the threat models (to the child) are very different when “can read and type” is not taken for granted, as is implied for a 10-year-old. This is why the US has a safety commission to consider these things: common sense can hide critical threats to children that are invisible and unrecognized by well-meaning adults.
        lawtalkinghuman 5y ago
        Good thing Amazon have never specifically marketed Alexa devices for kids. Oh, wait. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNdZAgij-K0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNdZAgij-K0
        floatingatoll 5y ago
        The question of the day for that video will end up being: “In what ways do they restrict the available voice commands and results to protect children?” And I bet it will be found that their interface allows never-reviewed-by-Amazon content to be read out loud to children, because Amazon loves to externalize human costs.
      - shkkmo 5y ago
        The issue is that Alexa stripped important safety information out when summarizing the result. If a search engine does something similar (such as Google with their answers), I see no reason why the search engine shouldn't be reported the same way Alexa should be.
kube-system 5y ago
I think curation, or the appearance thereof, makes a big difference.
- emodendroket 5y ago
  Google presents excerpts from pages in an authoritative way all the time.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    That'a a great example. Google's "answer box"/"featured snippets" have received a great deal of criticism for this... for incorrect information that was in the search results anyway. The key difference is in presentation.
dcanelhas 5y ago
The source for the information is a warning to parents about the challenge. Alexa only returned the challenge statement, without the context of it being potentially life threatening. A search would have been fine.
- gruez 5y ago
  >A search would have been fine. But what about a search that didn't return it, or returned it in a way that's not really obvious (ie. google's answer panels for questions)? Should we report google and/or the computer manufacturer to the CSPC?
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    If the answer panels are stripping important safety information out in a way that endangers children? I would so say your should definitely report Google.
  - foxfluff 5y ago
    I think there's a difference in how you present the information. So returning things in a way such that it is not obvious you're looking at mere search results should perhaps be viewed as something requiring a bit of responsibility (-> don't do it if you can't take responsibility), and dangerous/libelous/etc. information perhaps should be reported if it appears as the though the site returning it is providing editorialized content and not just aggregated search results. On the other hand, the status quo is kinda funny: https://i.imgur.com/ux42v8p.png https://i.imgur.com/ux42v8p.png
    - gruez 5y ago
      > So returning things in a way such that it is not obvious you're looking at mere search results should perhaps be viewed as something requiring a bit of responsibility That seems like a pointless distinction. Do you think kids even know what a search engine is? I'm sure some do, but are the ones who don't out of luck? I'll even say that a significant chunk of adults think that the content in google info boxes comes from google, rather than from the site itself.

zamfi 5y ago

Wouldn't that make the search engine the hazard, not the computer itself?

emodendroket 5y ago
I can't really see a principled distinction here; both devices are getting information from online search engines and presenting it to the user.
- floatingatoll 5y ago
  The missing “principled distinction” is tied up in the user interface design choices that intersect with child safety concerns, even if equal content is presented to both means. Voice search and response has a very different intersection with child safety concerns than keyboard-browser search and response. A voice assistant can be reasonably expected to be operated by a very young child, who would be responsive and trusting to verbal commands in an adult-like voice from it. A keyboard computer with a search engine in a browser cannot reasonably be expected to be operated by a very young child, and would not be reasonably expected to issue spoken-verbal commands in response to queries. The information content is a relevant factor in the former case but not the latter; keyboard use of search engines is not in-scope for evaluating the child safety risk of voice assistants, though it is certainly an interesting topic as well.
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    The child in question is 10, right? It doesn't sound credible that a 10-year-old child could not operate a search engine.
    - floatingatoll 5y ago
      Whether or not a child is at risk from a browser search and result is not relevant to whether or not a child is at risk from a voice assistant search and result. They are separate concerns and considering the browser case does not nullify the necessity of considering the voice assistant case. For example, replace “10-year-old” with “3-year-old” (a simple and effective safety test for potential threat to children) and apply that test to both devices: A) Could a 3-year-old child be reasonably expected to operate a keyboard-browser search and result interface? Could they be placed into danger by doing so? B) Could a 3-year-old child be reasonably expected operate a voice assistant search and result interface? Could they be placed into danger by doing so? The answers to A and B are not the same, because the threat models (to the child) are very different when “can read and type” is not taken for granted, as is implied for a 10-year-old. This is why the US has a safety commission to consider these things: common sense can hide critical threats to children that are invisible and unrecognized by well-meaning adults.
      - lawtalkinghuman 5y ago
        Good thing Amazon have never specifically marketed Alexa devices for kids. Oh, wait. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNdZAgij-K0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNdZAgij-K0
        floatingatoll 5y ago
        The question of the day for that video will end up being: “In what ways do they restrict the available voice commands and results to protect children?” And I bet it will be found that their interface allows never-reviewed-by-Amazon content to be read out loud to children, because Amazon loves to externalize human costs.
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      The issue is that Alexa stripped important safety information out when summarizing the result. If a search engine does something similar (such as Google with their answers), I see no reason why the search engine shouldn't be reported the same way Alexa should be.

kube-system 5y ago

I think curation, or the appearance thereof, makes a big difference.

emodendroket 5y ago
Google presents excerpts from pages in an authoritative way all the time.
- kube-system 5y ago
  That'a a great example. Google's "answer box"/"featured snippets" have received a great deal of criticism for this... for incorrect information that was in the search results anyway. The key difference is in presentation.

dcanelhas 5y ago

The source for the information is a warning to parents about the challenge. Alexa only returned the challenge statement, without the context of it being potentially life threatening. A search would have been fine.

gruez 5y ago
>A search would have been fine. But what about a search that didn't return it, or returned it in a way that's not really obvious (ie. google's answer panels for questions)? Should we report google and/or the computer manufacturer to the CSPC?
- shkkmo 5y ago
  If the answer panels are stripping important safety information out in a way that endangers children? I would so say your should definitely report Google.
- foxfluff 5y ago
  I think there's a difference in how you present the information. So returning things in a way such that it is not obvious you're looking at mere search results should perhaps be viewed as something requiring a bit of responsibility (-> don't do it if you can't take responsibility), and dangerous/libelous/etc. information perhaps should be reported if it appears as the though the site returning it is providing editorialized content and not just aggregated search results. On the other hand, the status quo is kinda funny: https://i.imgur.com/ux42v8p.png https://i.imgur.com/ux42v8p.png
  - gruez 5y ago
    > So returning things in a way such that it is not obvious you're looking at mere search results should perhaps be viewed as something requiring a bit of responsibility That seems like a pointless distinction. Do you think kids even know what a search engine is? I'm sure some do, but are the ones who don't out of luck? I'll even say that a significant chunk of adults think that the content in google info boxes comes from google, rather than from the site itself.