MSN Search Blocking Results For XFree86? 875
Peacefire writes "Thomas Shaddack spotted this on http://www.root.cz/ (in Czech) -- if you go to http://search.msn.com/ and
search for 'XFree86', it tells you that you've 'entered a search term that is likely to return adult content', and directs you to the porn search engine NightSurf.com, which lists a bunch of porn sites that ostensibly match the term 'XFree86'. If you search for 'XFree86' on Google, however, it's clear that the top matching terms returned by a normal search, are XFree86 sites, are not a bunch of porn sites. MSN is apparently blocking the specific term 'XFree86' and not just filtering on something stupid like the 'X' or the 'Free', since you can search for 'XFree85' and 'XFree87' with no problem. And search terms like 'Linux', 'AOL' and 'Macintosh' are allowed, so at least MSN hasn't simply blacklisted all competitors' keywords as 'porn', but why would they be blocking 'XFree86'?"
It's there service (Score:0, Insightful)
Let MSN do what they wish
Just my 2 cents
Probably just a mistake (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course the fact that such mistakes can be made, and left undiscovered for so long, speaks against closed blicklists like MSN's.
Re:It's there service (Score:5, Insightful)
The point, I think, is that the only way people are going to know it is doing stuff like this (and thus, be able to make an educated decision) is if stuff like this is public.
I mean, if Google was blocking all search results for Linux-related sites, wouldn't you want to know? Especially if you already know the Linux sites, and thus don't search for their existence (if not content) on a regular basis.
Re:Mirror List (Score:2, Insightful)
Heh, moderated as flamebait when the point made is 100% true. Not a single link in the story leads to the xfree site.
And people wonder why I worry (Score:5, Insightful)
But people wonder why I don't want to see a Micorosft Internet Search built into Windows (oh, and made so you can't remove it without damaging the operating system, like you can't remove IE or Media Player or anything else Microsoft decides is essential).
Call me crazy, but MS seems to have this weird habit of shutting down things they don't like. Is this just a stupid mistake? It could be - I mean, block things starting with X to keep kids from porn, right?
Oops - but Xfree85 works, so that can't be it.
MS gives away IE to shut down Netscape. That wasn't the crime that I thought was terrible - it was going to their OEM partners and threatening them with extra high cost of Windows if they put on Netscape.
So if they should take over the search world, can we really trust it to reflect accurately? I'm all for giving something a fair shake, but if before the game really starts they're already blocking alternate product possibilities I think "trust" is something that won't apply to MSN search.
Of course, I could be wrong. Could just be a simple misunderstanding.
Sadly, even if it is, based on their past history, I don't think I could believe that's it.
Re:What's weird (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:MSN has strange blocking restrictions (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Shameless... (Score:2, Insightful)
Doubtful this was intentional (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think about it, it's unlikely their adult filter is catches pornographic searches by the query text alone. I can think of any number of queries which would give porn but which it would be difficult to computationally distinguish from non-pornographic queries.
My guess is that MSN performs the search in any case, probes the first hits in their cache with some porn-detection algorithm, and redirects you if the algorithm thinks it might be porn.
This would suggest that, for whatever reason, the first few hits for XFree86 (as opposed to "X Free 86" or XFree85") pass the porno test.
On the other hand, the notice says "You have entered a search term that is likely to return adult content" which suggests strongly that only the query is being studied. So I don't know.
Anyway, I'd be more inclined to think it's a crappy test than to think they've explicitly coded this as some incredibly obscure means of spiting XFree86.
Re:MSN has strange blocking restrictions (Score:1, Insightful)
they wanted to buy google (Score:2, Insightful)
Overthinking this a little (Score:5, Insightful)
-
The cheek! (Score:3, Insightful)
` You are using: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040207 Firefox/0.8'
They tell me what browser I'm using which is all well and good...
`To view this site you must use:
Microsoft(R) Internet Explorer or Netscape(R) Navigator 4.0 or higher'
And have the CHEEK to suggest it's not good enough.
`Click here to find the latest free browser from Microsoft'
They already know I'm running `Linux i686' so are they saying IE 6 works under Wine? Or maybe they have a GNU/Linux version.
Or maybe they're just big monopolistic meanies!
(I had to go and check if Netscape was even available for GNU/Linux and it is. Their website is so wonderful that I had to type `download Netscape' into their search bar to find where to download it.)
The simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Conspiracy (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft must be supporting white supremacists!
A silly statement, but arguably not much more of a logical leap than assuming a plot to derail XFree86.
Re:Probably just a mistake (Score:1, Insightful)
For example, searching for "Dick Cheney" triggered it.
It's probably a very simple, stupid error that nobody has cared to fix. Nothing to see here.
Never assign.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not necessarily. This will help lock 'em in. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not necessarily.
If you start out as an MS user and hear about this other operating system, what is the first thing you need to do to BECOME clueful? Look it up. Right?
So you look it up, using the tool you know. And the tool refuses, and tells you it's something pornographic.
So you decide somebody's playing a joke on you and forget about it.
And you never DO become cluefull enough to download it and try it out.
And thus you never wean yourself from MSware.
And you keep buying upgrades from MS.
Multiply by millions.
Multiply by hundreds of bucks each.
Sounds like a GREAT marketing ploy.
What Next? (Score:2, Insightful)
link to MSN 3rd party Browser issue [com.com]
Disrespecting Privacy
link to Bad MSN Bot [algorhythm.org]
Now building a search engine that removes our ability to choose?
I seem to remember a few years ago jokes about what would happen if M$ provided searches....
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And people wonder why I worry (Score:5, Insightful)
MS gives away IE to shut down Netscape. That wasn't the crime that I thought was terrible - it was going to their OEM partners and threatening them with extra high cost of Windows if they put on Netscape.
It's refreshing to see another person not consider the Netscape fiasco a 'crime'. I was working for an ISP when IE came about. At the time, Netscape charged us $20-40 per copy that we shipped to our customers. You can imagine how quickly that adds up. When IE became an alternative, Netscape refused to negociate and lost out big-time. Meanwhile, MS would do advertising partnerships and offer a wide range of support services for free. A very tempting offer when your shop isn't making much money to begin with.
Anyway, the people at Netscape didn't move quickly to improve their browsers and, for quite some time, IE was way better concerning stability in Windows. It's not like the 2 clicks and 10 minute download destroyed them.
The anti-MS folks who always find fault in MS never really seemed to complain about Trumpet Winsock being put through the ringer by NT and 95 including their own network stacks. How about notepad.exe and calc.exe? Before that time, you could download and register shareware editors or look for freebies. I've never heard somone argue that Windows was destroying software companies by including it's own program to display image files.
But anything to do with [potentially] commerical media, such as web pages and audio/video content, grabs everyones attention and ends up with MS back in court acting confused and innocent.
I know, totally off topic. Back on topic, I promise:
I think the reason for the search results problem is likely a goof-up. Likely a low-level employee who had no idea what XFree86 is, didn't care, didn't double-check, etc before adding it to the DB. It seems reasonable that many MS employees would not be familar with Unix at all.
Re:What's weird (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Overthinking this a little (Score:1, Insightful)
Paranoids out there (Score:5, Insightful)
Blocking XFree86 is not an indication of concious effort by Microsoft to divert traffic. Perhaps their blocking software has the following algorithm:
For terms that have been searched for more than 10,000 times, block the term if the first letter is X and the second letter is a consonant.
As you can see, this search doesn't consciously target XFree86. And XFree85 and XFree87 probably wouldn't meet the 10,000 criteria.
Wouldn't you think that anyone who knows what XFree86 is would not be detered by MSN anyway?
This is non-news. Hey everybody, the dots on acoustical tile above my cube spell out "Microsoft rules!" oh no!!!
LS
I wonder if anyone has bothered... (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course I haven't done this either... but frankly, I could care less.
Cheers!
Re:nightsurf! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft browses slashdot (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Mirror List (Score:1, Insightful)
X free 86 (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Mirror List (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they're aware of its existence, but don't know anything about it. Just because you've heard of an open source project doesn't mean you are a Linux nut. People who are SEARCHING for XFree86 rather than just going to XFree86.org are more likely to be searching on MSN than a "better" search engine due to the fact that they're not savvy.
Lier Lier Pants On Fire (Score:1, Insightful)
In the interest of full disclosure however, MOST of my Google searches have porn sites in the results.
Stupidest fucking article ever (Score:1, Insightful)
Y Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
I've tried a few other terms like Microsoft loses lawsuit [msn.com] and they don't seem to be filtering results. Interestingly searching for Microsoft Warez [msn.com] IS being manipulated pointing to microsoft.com/piracy. Don't blame them. Just interesting to compare the results with other search engines.
While I can possibly see this as some form of censorship, especially when searching for Xfee86, what I'd like to know is what other terms they have manipulated which might be interpreted as a conflict of interest. What would happen if the US government had a Goolge like search engine - what kind of censorship would occur on their site? At what point will NBC (of MSNBC) become involved - if ever - to filter out searches whose results are not in their favor. Does CNN, the BBC the CBC and other media do the same thing on Internet searches on their websites?
Re:What's weird (Score:5, Insightful)
Please make up a theory why "XFree86" gets the porn warning, but "XFree86 sex" doesn't. [msn.com]
Oh, yeah, now gasgesgos will say that Porn sites plaster "XFree86" all over, but never use the word "sex"...
Re:nightsurf! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's even weirder: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not weird (Score:3, Insightful)
It is a successful model because it works. Simple minded but true. Have you ever been attacked by a competitor who will take a huge pile of insignificant crap and try to use it to leverage an advantage? It takes lots of your time to explain that the tower of shit is just a tower of shit and not advanced technology to the client.
Meanwhile the compeitior has gotten the client to join an association of like minded people who sit around blowing smoke up one another's anuses. They believe it because they *want* to believe it and it comes with lunch and a 100 dollar bill under the plate once a month. Of course it doesn't make sense. It isn't supposed to.
To summarize, this is just one of the turds in the pile. Small, but they do pile up when you have lots of people piling them. And it probably didn't cost the company anything but a double latte.
Re:Stupidest fucking article ever (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And people wonder why I worry (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:XFree69 (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, rather than a bug, I suspect that it's probably human error. Because the search engine only seems to match certain words as likely to return "adult" material, there's probably a human-generated list of terms. My guess is that they took a list of the top 1000 (or something) search terms, and assigned somebody to classify them as adult or not-adult. If the person was unfamiliar with XFree86, they may very well have guessed that it was related to porn (X and Free together).
In other words, the only thing I think Microsoft is guilty of here is creating a remarkably poor filter.
Re:XFree69 (Score:3, Insightful)
And being far too innocent to set up a porn search term filter. "hardcore" and "hardcore love" are caught by the filter, while "hardcore ass love" goes right through and gives me "Anal Cravings - Sluts who love it up the ass!" at the top of the list. Who wrote this filter, some reject from an experiment in raising children entirely within the confines of Disney World?
Re:XFree69 (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah yes. The old "Never attribute to malice what can more easily be explained by sheer stupidity." Besides, we would expect something this crapy from Microsoft. It is right in line with the rest of their products. (Hey, this is /., MS bashing is obligatory.)
/. community and the "mistake" negatively impacts one of our "precious'".
;)
You forgot, however, one thing: every rule has it's exceptions. In this case it goes something like this:
Never attribute to malice what can be more easily explained by sheer stupidity, unless it concerns either Microsoft, SCO, or one of the others currently on the bad side of the
There. So in this case, it must be on purpose!
If you need a more expanded explanation (please, no!) just let me know, mkay?