
How Microsoft Bing Censors the Middle East - CapitalistCartr
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/07/how-microsoft-bing-censors-middle-east
======
ManFromUranus
If they censor too much it's "problematic" because they're overreaching and
deciding for the people. If they don't censor enough then it's "problematic"
because they're culturally insensitive to the local sense of decency, they're
imposing western standards or somesuch. They're damned if they do, damned if
they don't.

~~~
thinkpad20
I think that's BS. They're an American company, providing a product that
people can feel free not to use if they're so inclined. They're not imposing
western standards; that's like saying McDonald's is "imposing" a western diet
by selling hamburgers in Riyadh.

~~~
pyrophane
McDonald's customizes their menu in many parts of the world. I'm pretty sure
they still don't serve beef or pork anywhere in India.

~~~
nacs
Correct:

    
    
      India is the first country in the world where McDonald's
      does not offer any beef or pork items. McDonald's has 
      developed a menu especially for India with vegetarian 
      selections to suit the Indian palate, and has also re-
      engineered its operations to address the special 
      requirements of vegetarians. Special care is taken to 
      ensure that all vegetable products are prepared 
      separately, using dedicated equipment and utensils.
    

\-
[http://www.mcdonaldsindia.com/aboutus.html](http://www.mcdonaldsindia.com/aboutus.html)

They do serve serve chicken though.

~~~
mirimir
What about lamb and goat?

~~~
webignition
In 1999 I ate a mutton burger in McDonald's in New Delhi. Not lamb but pretty
close.

------
kazinator
> _There is absolutely no excuse for a company—particularly one that has made
> commitments to free expression by being a founding member of the Global
> Network Initiative—to regulate speech beyond that which is required._

Absolutely is a big word. Here is a technical excuse: the search index is
collected and classified by algorithms. The algorithms are not perfect in
their classification, and so there has to be a margin for error.

> _Neither Egypt nor Lebanon, for example, block most sexual content or
> require intermediaries to do so._

See, weasel word: _most_. So they do block _some_ sexual content? If you want
a fine-grained filter to just block that particular sexual content, you have
to improve the robots. That costs time and money, and creates risk. Maybe it's
easier and legally safer to just block all sexual content and be done with it.
In other words, over-zealous filtering, or at least some of it, could be the
consequence of cool pragmatism and nothing more deeply sinister.

~~~
killwhitey
Bing (and Google) block some sexual content everywhere. Try searching for
child porn and tell me what come up.

~~~
throw7
Yes, the default is "SafeSearch" enabled. Bing and Google filter for
everyone... it's not opt-in. You opt-out, as would people living in "strict
markets".

I don't believe bing/google are required by law in the U.S. to do this
(correct me if I'm wrong)... so the e.f.f. arguments are a bit hypocritical by
not including, essentially, the rest of the world.

~~~
kazinator
But in some of these regions, you _cannot_ opt out. Safe search upholds
censorship laws.

------
anigbrowl
_There is absolutely no excuse for a company—particularly one that has made
commitments to free expression by being a founding member of the Global
Network Initiative—to regulate speech beyond that which is required._

Your search results aren't speech. While I am opposed to almost all
censorship, I can't get too worked up about this, because Microsoft
understandably doesn't want to get prosecuted/ sued/ protested against in
countries with much more conservative social norms. Of course, Bing is just a
delivery service for information about what sort of things exist on the
internet, but given the well-known human proclivity to 'blame the messenger'
and Microsoft's global reach caution is understandable.

~~~
makmanalp
Maybe this points to a larger problem - the primary way to navigate the web
today is centralized search engines. So much so that when you disable the
address bar search features in browsers, people stumble quickly. While search
results aren't speech, they are how people get to speech.

~~~
sliverstorm
_While search results aren 't speech, they are how people get to speech._

At least in the USA -

You aren't guaranteed a platform for your speech, and you aren't guaranteed
other people will listen to you. All you are guaranteed is that the government
won't persecute you for saying it.

So a private company that does not promote your speech, is not a violation of
the 1st Amendment.

~~~
Houshalter
Literally no one is saying that it is.

------
joshuaheard
A lot of websites are censored around the world, and it's not just from search
results: you can't access the actual sites. In the middle east, it's porn. In
China, no Facebook. In France, it's Netflix. I see no reason why this is on
Microsoft.

~~~
it_learnses
the problem though is that they use strict Saudi Wahabi standards for
relatively liberal countries like Lebanon and Egypt.

Microsoft is going above and beyond what is required of them in terms of
censorship.

~~~
Lorento
Don't dating sites have an 18 year age limit despite different states having
different ages of consent, etc? It's just easier than making a fine grained
filter.

~~~
it_learnses
Not sure. Although I have seen many sites and companies have contests where
it's not applicable to certain provinces or states. Also I think states vs
countries is a bit different. Why not then just apply the saudi standards to
our content as well?

------
616c
True of all the big players in the region, at least the Gulf.

Source: someone who spends far too much time there.

~~~
zodiakzz
I find that hard to believe. Doesn't Google take a hard stance on freedom of
speech issues?

~~~
partiallypro
Short answer: No. Long Answer: Not really, no.

------
TheWoodsy
If you want to come into my house and use the internet, that's fine. But you
will do so through my firewall. If the EFF then writes an article about my
'restrictive' firewall. I'll tell them to politely fsck off.

I am not condoning the filtering of search results, and never will. In the
grand picture we all know that this censoring gig never works. But where does
the EFF get this idea that they have the right to berate a company and
insinuate that they disobey a governments rules/laws/standards in their own
country? It's a bit much 'aint it?

~~~
sangnoir
>"There is absolutely no excuse for a company—particularly one that has made
commitments to free expression by being a founding member of the Global
Network Initiative— _to regulate speech beyond that which is required "_ .

You are misunderstanding the EFF - they are not asking Microsoft to disobey
the government but for Microsoft to not go overboard with the censoring.
Currently they are censoring more than they are being asked to ('beyond that
which is required' bit).

It's like they are adding more restrictions to your already restrictive
firewall - restrictions that you didn't ask for. To answer your question: no,
it's not a bit much.

------
mahouse
They should have used the word "problematic" in the first paragraph so I could
have closed the tab sooner.

------
partiallypro
If they don't censor countries will just block them, it's the same fiasco
Google had with Google years ago. Frankly I think it's better to censor and be
there than to not be there at all. At least then people can maybe find ways
around the filters to get the information they deserve to have unfettered
access to.

~~~
leavjenn
I think what you mean is "Google with China"?

~~~
partiallypro
You are correct, I can't fix the typo now. Too much time has passed, I guess.

------
blfr
During the Reddit debacle many people were pointing out that private companies
are free to remove anything they want and it doesn't constitute censorship. So
this is certainly not a free speech issue if MS goes above the bare legal
requirements, right? They're just removing/hiding objectionable content.

~~~
theseatoms
It's not a _legal_ free speech issue, but it is a free speech issue for those
of us who like free speech.

------
veddox
Seriously, pornography counts as "free speech" now? Please guys, can't we
fight for something worthwhile?

If I had to give my opinion, I'd say that I actually find it quite laudable
that Microsoft bothers to heed local values. It shows respect (and a good
sense for business), kinda like not selling pork in the UAE...

~~~
seanmcdirmid
I live in a harmonized country where we get to use a harmonized version of
bing. It filters out many legitimate search requests, not just porn. You might
search for something completely innocuous that happens to have the word girl
in it (e.g. the TV series golden girls from the 80s), and it will be
harmonized, I mean censored.

The filters are necessarily inaccurate and will affect legitimate search
queries. You probably wouldn't use them in your western country even if you
were a conservative Puritan.

~~~
veddox
I understand that it can be a pain for the users - but unless the filter out a
lot more than the original article says, I find the label of "censorship" and
"free speech impediment" highly exaggerated.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
About 5% of my searches are blocked based on keywords alone, and none of those
are meant to be pornographic. I believe, and have found from my own
experience, that censorship is impossible without collateral damage. It is
unavoidable.

------
lucd
surprised ?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2138565](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2138565)

