tank man – Techdirt (original) (raw)
Content Moderation Case Study: Bing Search Results Erases Images Of 'Tank Man' On Anniversary Of Tiananmen Square Crackdown (2021)
from the tank-man's-gone-missing dept
Summary: On the 32nd anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests, internet users noticed Microsoft’s Bing search engine was producing some interesting results. Or, rather, it wasn’t producing expected search results for some possibly interesting reasons.
Users searching for the most iconic image of the protests — that of the unidentified person known only as “Tank Man” — were coming up empty. It appeared that Microsoft’s search engine was blocking results for an image that often serves as shorthand for rebellion against the Chinese government.
As was reported by several web users, followed by several news outlets, the apparent blocking of search results could be observed in both the United States and the United Kingdom, leaving users with the impression the Chinese government had pressured Microsoft to moderate search results for “tank man” in hopes of reducing any remembrance of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, which resulted in the deaths of 2,500-3,500 protesters.
The apparent censorship was blamed on Microsoft’s close relationship with the Chinese government, which allowed its search engine to be accessed by Chinese residents in exchange for complying with government censorship requests.
This led to Microsoft being criticized by prominent politicians for apparently allowing the Chinese government to dictate what users around the world could access in relation to the Tiananmen Square protests.
Company Considerations:
- When complying to one government’s interests, how can Microsoft ensure these considerations don’t affect users located elsewhere in the world?
- How can compliance departments assist in handling edge cases and/or overly-broad moderation demands?
- What are the tradeoffs for content providers when weighing offended users against offended governments?
- What ethical concerns should be taken into consideration when entering markets controlled by oppressive governments? Is there a line companies should not be willing to cross when seeking to expand their user base so as not to offend or alienate the user base they already have?
Issue Considerations:
- What options can companies pursue when seeking to do business in countries with historically-censorial/repressive regimes to prevent collateral moderation damage to users located elsewhere?
- What sort of cost/benefit analysis, both human and fiscal, should take place before offering a product in countries with known human rights issues?
Resolution: Shortly after the apparent censorship of the iconic “Tank Man” image was reported, Microsoft claimed the very timely removal of relevant search results was the byproduct of “accidental human error.”
However, the company refused to offer any additional explanation. And, while searching the term “Tank Man” produced search results in Bing, it did not generate the expected results.
Several hours after the first “fix,” things returned to normal, with “Tank Man” searches bringing up the actual Tank Man, rather than just tanks or tanks with men near or on the tanks.
More clarification and comment was sought, but Microsoft apparently had nothing more to say about this “human error” and its conspicuous timing. Nor did it offer any details on whether or not this “human error” originated with its Beijing team. It also didn’t explain why the first fix resulted in images very few people would associate with the term “Tank Man.”
Originally posted to the Trust & Safety Foundation website.
Filed Under: bing, china, content moderation, search, search results, tank man, tiananmen square
Companies: microsoft
Baidu Pushes Back On Chinese Gov't Investigation By Freeing Up Images Related To Tiananmen Square
from the power-play dept
So we’ve talked a lot about the Great Firewall of China and how it works. Contrary to what many believe, it’s not just a giant government bureaucracy blacklisting content, but a huge ecosystem that partially relies on unpredictability and the lack of intermediary liability protections online. That is, rather than directly say “this and that are blocked,” the Chinese government will often just let companies know when they’ve failed to properly block content and threaten them with serious consequences. Because of this, you get a culture of overblocking, to avoid running afoul of the demands. This is one of the reasons why we believe that strong intermediary liability protections are so important. Without them, you’re basically begging for widespread censorship to avoid legal consequences.
And, in many ways, it works quite well in China. Yes, sophisticated users know how to use VPNs and proxies and to get around the blocks, but many people do not. But something interesting is happening in China right now, as one of the largest and most successful internet companies there appears to be challenging the censorship regime. First, it’s important to recognize that in China, one subject that is absolutely, without question, censored, is anything relating to the Tiananmen Square protests and crackdown of 1989. On the internet in China, it’s as if the event never happened. People have tried workarounds, using euphemisms and wordplay, but eventually those get disappeared down the memory hole too. There was even that time the censors banned the term “big yellow duck,” after people replaced the famous tanks in the “tank man” photo with giant rubber ducks:
But something odd happened yesterday. Suddenly, on Baidu (which is like the Google of China), searches related to the tank man and other symbols of the Tiananmen Square protests were showing up on Baidu. Clay Shirky, who has been living in China recently, posted details on his Twitter feed, which is well worth reading:
China's https://t.co/G1q2OYdfSV unblocks search results for ????? (known to us as tank man, from Tiananmen massacre) pic.twitter.com/DU2X3RZnWv
— Clay Shirky (@cshirky) May 6, 2016
It appears that this is something of a reaction to the Chinese government announcing that it will be investigating Baidu’s advertising practices, following the death of a young man from cancer, who had kicked up quite a lot of attention after he had tried an “experimental” cancer treatment he discovered via an ad on Baidu. When it didn’t work, he blamed Baidu for allowing the ad, and when he passed away there was a public outcry. In response, the government announced plans to investigate Baidu’s ad practices. It appears that Baidu loosening the padlocks on Tiananmen Square might be a response to that, which lots of people seem to think is playing with a fire in a manner that will almost certainly leave the company burned.
This is a direct & blatant refusal to play by the rules. Baidu has a lot of power behind the scenes, but even then, this looks like treason.
— Clay Shirky (@cshirky) May 6, 2016
This will probably end soon – hearing from friends in Beijing that some searches are censored again – but it will cause months of trouble.
— Clay Shirky (@cshirky) May 6, 2016
Young, educated Chinese are so used to cat and mouse censorship that when they see something like this, they screenshot immediately.
— Clay Shirky (@cshirky) May 6, 2016
At a conservative guess, there've been a billion screenshots taken of various banned images, jokes, and memes during the last day.
— Clay Shirky (@cshirky) May 6, 2016
Shirky has a lot more to say, including some further speculation that perhaps there was growing tension from last year, after the Chinese government basically made use of Baidu to fire a denial of service at GitHub. The fact that the packets came via Baidu was, as Shirky notes, a PR blackeye for Baidu at a time when the company wants to expand beyond China. Shirky also deleted a tweet that originally said “this has to backfire,” noting how central media and internet censorship is to the current regime.
The brief dropping of the censorship appears to be (again, Shirky notes no one knows for sure — but many people seem to believe) Baidu trying to let the Chinese government know that it has become powerful enough to make trouble for the government, so it’s not just a one way street in terms of who holds the power. Of course, that seems like an incredibly risky move to make if you really don’t have enough power to stand up to the government.
We may never know all the details of what’s going on, but it’s a brief, if fascinating, view into some of what’s going on in China today with the Great Firewall, and the increasing power of some of its most successful companies. But it’s also a reminder of why we should be so thankful for strong intermediary liability protections in the US, and how not having such protections is a sure path to censorship.
Filed Under: ads, censorship, china, clay shirky, great firewall, intermediary liability, investigations, power, search, tank man
Companies: baidu