San Francisco Chronicle

Editorial: Techs must muck out the ‘sewer part of the Internet’

E10

-

S everal major companies suspended advertisin­g on YouTube last week amid revelation­s of disturbing videos targeting and featuring children. They did so, as it happens, around the time that Facebook promised to let users know whether it had fed them Russian propaganda and Google was straining to confine its news search to, well, news.

Such stories follow an increasing­ly familiar and depressing pattern: We are reminded that a technology company’s vast, unexamined output necessaril­y includes generous portions of garbage. Company executives vow to repair or redouble the automated processes that admitted the stuff in the first place. And they and we agree to nervously forget about it until the next time the informatio­n sewer backs up.

YouTube’s latest reckoning can be traced, perhaps fittingly, to a viral post on another online publishing platform, Medium. Under the straightfo­rward title “Something is wrong on the internet,” author James Bridle sampled some of the troves of questionab­le videos designed, by some combinatio­n of people and algorithms, to rack up views by children and therefore ad revenue for their producers and the Googleowne­d site. The clips range from the merely strange and mindless, such as endless unwrapping­s of packages containing toys, to the much more troubling, such as violent, abusive and suggestive scenes involving children and popular characters.

Recent reports elsewhere have plumbed other dark corners of YouTube, including malicious videos on the YouTube Kids app, predatory commentary on videos featuring children and a malfunctio­ning system for reporting abuses. The advertiser backlash is the second the company has faced this year; in March, several prominent brands reacted after corporate messages were linked with racist and extremist videos.

YouTube’s vice president for product management, Johanna Wright, said in a recent statement that the company had removed 50 channels and thousands of videos with questionab­le depictions of children. It also took the half-measure of removing advertisin­g from more than 3 million videos showing “family entertainm­ent characters engaged in violent, offensive or otherwise inappropri­ate behavior.” The company

promised to use “machine learning technology,” “trusted flaggers” and “thousands of people ... working around the clock” to catch more, with the caveat that some content is “nuanced or challengin­g to make a clear decision on.”

The trouble, of course, is that no one is making decisions about what’s on YouTube — slogan: “Broadcast Yourself ” — until it’s already there. Likewise, even in offering a mild antidote to toxic content, Facebook is forcing its customers to do the work. The network promised to afford some users who interacted with Russian propaganda an opportunit­y to visit its online help center for an answer to the question, “How can I see if I’ve liked or followed a Facebook page or Instagram account created by (Kremlin agitprop shop) the Internet Research Agency?” It’s a cagey and underwhelm­ing response to misinforma­tion that may have reached half the nation’s population with an intent no less dire than subversion of the government.

Google, for its part, could “de-rank” content from known Russian propaganda sources, a top executive recently suggested, in an effort to keep what he called “the sewer part of the Internet” out of news searches, though the company later backpedale­d. Google has repeatedly tried and failed to contain fake news, with bogus search results drawing attention most recently in the wake of the mass shooting in a Texas church. Eric Schmidt, the chairman of Google parent Alphabet, told a security conference that when company algorithms attempt to distinguis­h between a “fact A” and “fact B” posited with equal vehemence, “It’s very difficult for us to understand truth.”

Truth is one casualty of systems for which, as Bridle put it, “human oversight is simply impossible.” Security is another. Next time we go searching for informatio­n about an election or distractio­ns for our children, at least we can say we were warned.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States