This is fascinating. Apparently the search engine at Amazon.com was prompting users who searched for "abortion" whether they meant to type "adoption," purely for intersecting reasons of technical and typographical chance. They have changed it, but similar problems are bound to crop up more often as large amounts of information are increasingly subject to user searches by algorithmic sorting of relevance.
Still, it is an excellent example of processes not directly under the control of humans coming up with results that humans perceive as holding a human bias, despite the absence of one. Welcome to the age of miscommunication between people and software.
No, Peter, this isn't about miscommunication. It's about a bunch of whining hypocrits who, despite all their posturing and pontificating about the importance of choice, got their panties all twisted when an algorithmic anomaly presented users with *gasp* a choice. If they wish to protect the right to abortion, that's their prerogative; we can argue about that later. Just don't sing the praises of choice and then freak out when someone, even accidentally, offers choices for pregnant women that don't require blind and uncritical acceptance of the supposed necessity of killing their children.
"I thought it was offensive," said the Rev. James Lewis, a retired Episcopalian minister in Charleston, W.Va. "It represented an editorial position on their part."
You'd think "adoption" was a dirty word or hate speech. I guess it's just not the politically correct choice.
Funky Dung
Comments 10
I do believe you missed the point and spectacularly so.
Set aside the content of the issue and which side you like and just focus on the fact that two very similar words ("abortion" and "adoption") which carry much conflicting social baggage for the human users of the system carry absolutely no social baggage as far as the system itself was concerned. However, due to the twin flukes that (1) the spellings of the words are similar and (2) both words happen to be socially charged with much controversial meaning, the mistake on the part of the system, which, although it operates without direct human supervision in the decisions such as the one described above, does operate under the auspices of human control, was then potentially credited with a bias it was not capable of having.
If you step back from your saliva-spewing righteous indignation, you should also note that purely human miscommunications are essentially identical: the first person hears in the words of a second person a meaning that the second person positively did not attach nor intend to attach.
The issue of miscommunication arises here not because of the particular content of the words involved, but because of the complexity of the computer system in attempting to communicate something to users and ultimately communicating something that was not intended.
I should also add that your vociferous, typo-ridden response on my blog (and here) is the result of yet another miscommunication, as a careful and reasonable reader of what I wrote will notice that I have not come down on either side of the controversy in this instance, nor do I care to, and yet you have responded as though I had.
Most interesting.
+0
Posted 22 Mar 2006 at 3:58 pm ¶Pardon my lack of spell-check. I've been meaning to get a WP plugin for that. Anyhow..
I guess there's more than a little irony here. I am very much aware that you took no side on the abortion issue. I am also quite aware of the complete lack of human bias involved in the offending "glitch". My point, which was either poorly communicated by me or poorly understood by you, was that this was not a matter of miscommunication. You'd have to be be paranoid delusional, a moron, and/or totally blinded by your agenda(s) to be offended by that automated prompt. Also, you missed the deeper implications of the supposed miscommunication. That is, people were offended at the mere mention of the word "adoption". Adoption is only a threat to abortion if one is pro-abortion rather than pro-choice. I was, in my sloppy little way, trying to point out the hypocrisy of calling oneself pro-choice and then proceeding to be offended by one of the choices.
+0
Posted 22 Mar 2006 at 4:08 pm ¶I did not mean to imply that you had ome down on either side of the controversy in this instance, and yet you have responded as though I had.
Most interesting.
I will edit this post to replace "you" with "one". This is a genuine miscommunication. Blasted English language…
+0
Posted 22 Mar 2006 at 4:16 pm ¶BTW, I've missed your comments round here, Peter.
+0
Posted 22 Mar 2006 at 4:26 pm ¶I tried to allude to why a person could reasonably be offended by that prompt in my responsive comment:
"…the system, which, although it operates without direct human supervision in the decisions such as the one described above, does operate under the auspices of human control…"
People like you or I are clearly able to tell when we are dealing with simulated intelligence. Other people (perhaps most people) are not so good at it, particularly when they are dealing with corporations (be it Amazon.com or any other), against whom individual citizens tend to construe conspiracy theories with vigor equal to that by which they sling them at the government.
Considering that most people are not aware of how complex computer systems work (and, as the systems get more complex, there will be even more people who understand less and less), I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect that they will be confused or even offended by some of the responses those systems generate.
Thus the comment at the end of my original post, "Welcome to the age of miscommunication between people and software." One tends to say "welcome" at the beginning of something, and I suspect that this is only the beginning of such problems. I foresee a time when software used by corporations will face legal status not dissimilar to that of employees, when software miscommunication will be just as important a management issue as employee customer-service skills.
+0
Posted 22 Mar 2006 at 4:27 pm ¶Thank you. I have missed participating. However, I find that I can easily kill half of my day writing blog entries or engaging in discussions. If I want to maintain myself in school, I simply can't do that — particularly here, where responses to and from Jerry and Steve can consume hours and hours of time.
Someday I'll just have to pitch to a publisher for a book deal so I can have my say to my heart's content. Until then, furtive posts to my blog and infrequent comments to others' will have to suffice.
+0
Posted 22 Mar 2006 at 5:01 pm ¶I was trying to point out that, technological glitch aside, being offended by the suggestion of "adoption" when you type "abortion" is asinine.
+0
Posted 23 Mar 2006 at 10:32 am ¶It's not asinine if you recognize that there is a polarized debate out there, with each side trying to sneak its influence into myriad media moments, where one of those sides would certainly advocate suggesting adoption to anyone who considers abortion and the other side would probably not. Considering the shrill whining on both sides (even yours) and the numerous apparent attempts by proponents of both views to hijack the minds of the nation to force them into an all-or-nothing proposition, I don't find it remotely unreasonable that someone would detect a bias there.
Both sides of the abortion controversy have couched themselves in such a way that everyone understands what they believe victory would look like: complete suppression of all discourse on the matter and unswerving legal enforcement of one side or the other. So long as the debate remains as shrill and vicious as it is, even appearing to take one side or the other will probably be bad for business with respect to one segment of the population.
Or, to put it another way, it's no more asinine to see a substantive bias in the automated prompts of a search engine than it is to see a substantive bias in the decision of the company to change the prompts.
+0
Posted 23 Mar 2006 at 12:00 pm ¶I'm well aware of the whining on both sides. I still think you're pretty wacked if you're offended by the mere suggestion of adoption. Even if the prompt was intentional, why in the world would anybody be offended? Does anyone actually think abortion is the ideal choice in all cases?!? What ever happened to "safe, legal, and rare"?
I agree.
+0
Posted 28 Mar 2006 at 4:35 pm ¶I am looking for message board posters about prescription drugs, conditions, and disorders. Feel free to post at my board and plug your blog in your signature file. See ya.
+0
Posted 03 Apr 2006 at 8:09 pm ¶Trackbacks & Pingbacks 2
Post a Comment