The true mildly infuriating is the comments. Whether this is rage bait or not, we should all be about to agree on some basic things:
Domestic violence sucks regardless of who the victim is and who the perpetrator is.
Helping one group of victims, like males, does not have to and should not take away from helping another group.
The number of victims should not be the deciding factor on whether victims deserve empathy and support.
People in here are going out of their way to defend what is clearly a biased oversight, treating women like an automatic victim and treating men like an automatic perpetrator. Why? Just acknowledge that it’s dumb, shows bias, and move on.
All I’ve got to say is that I might begin to take female domestic abuse victims with a grain of salt if I’ve any suspicion they would treat male victims similarly. Because to many victims, it is obvious that it can happen to anyone and be perpetrated by anyone, regardless of gender of either. But if they say men can’t be abused, that just tells me that they have never experienced abuse and removes any credibility from anything they could possibly say about the subject.
There’s a difference between thinking that male victims of domestic abuse don’t deserve sympathy or support, and thinking that it’s okay for “useful search results” to vary according to gender.
The results are biased because the danger is biased.
It’s an unfortunate reality that information about domestic violence is more likely to be useful to a woman concerned about an angry male partner than the opposite.
That doesn’t minimize the suffering of men who do need support, it’s just putting information more likely to be useful first.
The domestic abuse hotline is the second result, and the first one also affirms that everyone deserves to feel safe in their relationships, and to calm the hotline if you don’t.
“My wife/husband hit me” both yield the same results, which makes sense.
It’s also more likely that you’ll get to the store and back without an automobile accident, but you still wear the seatbelt for that 1/10,000 chance. Because the one time out of 10,000 that you get in an accident, you need the seatbelt no matter how rare a situation it is.
So, do you think we should put that information at the top of every search result?
Putting it on every search result is obviously extreme. There has to be a cutoff where you think that it’s probably not helpful to show someone the information so you don’t.
As long as there’s a difference in rate of different genders being the perpetrator of domestic violence, then you’re going to have a difference in when you hit that threshold for it becoming helpful, and you’ll get things like this where “man yelling” vs “woman yelling” land on different sides of that cutoff.
We can lower the threshold, and then you’ll get it for “man seems upset” vs “woman seems upset”.
Also, the connotation of “yelling” can differ by gender. I had male classmates in high school talk about parents “yelling” at them when there was no raised voice, just a discussion of how the child had failed to meet expectations. When men say a female partner is “yelling” they often mean “nagging” or “bothering.” Conversely, when women say a male partner is “yelling” they typically mean “using a raised voice in anger.”
When men say a female partner is “yelling” they often mean “nagging” or “bothering.”
I have a 60 minute recording of my ex-partner yelling at me. The yelling session didn’t last for only 60 minutes though. It was just 60 minutes after the point I realized I should be recording it.
And yes, I know how to accurately use the word “yell”. I know what yelling is. It’s what drill sargeants do when they’re an inch from a recruit’s face in the movies. That’s what I mean when I say “yelling”.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. One result affirms that you should feel safe and provides a hotline, the other starts with outright victim-blaming. The second result under “Maybe it’s your fault for not listening?” is not a hotline, at least for me.
My point is that if they just made the result the same then it would not detract from women, nor would it hurt the men who don’t need the advice. You’re going out of your way to defend an unnecessary bias by claiming it’s more relevant, but that’s not the point. They could choose to just not have the bias, and it would be a win while hurting no one.
My point is that it’s not an unnecessary bias, it’s different results for different queries.
Yes, I am going out of my way to say that treating an issue with a 1 in 3 incidence rate the same as one with a 1 in 10 incidence rate isn’t a necessary outcome to ensure an automated system has.
Providing relevant information is literally their reason for existence, so I’m not sure that I agree that it’s not the point. There isn’t some person auditing the results; the system sees the query and then sees what content people who make the query engage with.
I don’t see the system recognizing that a threshold of people with queries similar to one engage with domestic abuse resources and tripping a condition that gives them special highlighting, and a people with queries similar to another engaging with dysfunctional relationship resources more often is a difference that needs correction.
I’m not sure what to tell you about different results. I searched logged out, incognito, and in Firefox.
So you’re saying it’s the google algorithm trying to put stuff up that’s most often the final destination for those search terms.
That makes sense.
That aside, do you think that, if a human were to consciously decide what goes at the top for these searches, that the man should receive a little lecture on empathy while a woman should be presented with a hotline to get help?
Those top bar things… are literally audited answers from Google. They’re outside the normal search results and moves the actual result completely in the UI. Someone at google literally hard coded that anything returning results relating to womens domestic violence should present that banner.
That’s not how it works. They code a confidence threshold that the relevant result will have to do with domestic violence in general. That’s why it provides the same banner when the result is more unambiguously relevant to domestic violence.
None of this is the same as a person auditing the results.
That a random worker at Google would not only see this, but also make changes based on it. That kind of stuff only happens with indie devs and open source projects. Plenty of companies take things like this into consideration but workers aren’t going solo.
Would be irresponsible not to be tracking keywords ‘round the web… imagine if this discussion were “new Google Search CSAM exploit”! But I do expect some level of engagement really helps the odds of discussions being raised to a company’s attention, so you’re right it’s not a guarantee.
The true mildly infuriating is the comments. Whether this is rage bait or not, we should all be about to agree on some basic things:
Domestic violence sucks regardless of who the victim is and who the perpetrator is.
Helping one group of victims, like males, does not have to and should not take away from helping another group.
The number of victims should not be the deciding factor on whether victims deserve empathy and support.
People in here are going out of their way to defend what is clearly a biased oversight, treating women like an automatic victim and treating men like an automatic perpetrator. Why? Just acknowledge that it’s dumb, shows bias, and move on.
All I’ve got to say is that I might begin to take female domestic abuse victims with a grain of salt if I’ve any suspicion they would treat male victims similarly. Because to many victims, it is obvious that it can happen to anyone and be perpetrated by anyone, regardless of gender of either. But if they say men can’t be abused, that just tells me that they have never experienced abuse and removes any credibility from anything they could possibly say about the subject.
There’s a difference between thinking that male victims of domestic abuse don’t deserve sympathy or support, and thinking that it’s okay for “useful search results” to vary according to gender.
The results are biased because the danger is biased.
It’s an unfortunate reality that information about domestic violence is more likely to be useful to a woman concerned about an angry male partner than the opposite.
That doesn’t minimize the suffering of men who do need support, it’s just putting information more likely to be useful first.
The domestic abuse hotline is the second result, and the first one also affirms that everyone deserves to feel safe in their relationships, and to calm the hotline if you don’t.
“My wife/husband hit me” both yield the same results, which makes sense.
It’s also more likely that you’ll get to the store and back without an automobile accident, but you still wear the seatbelt for that 1/10,000 chance. Because the one time out of 10,000 that you get in an accident, you need the seatbelt no matter how rare a situation it is.
So, do you think we should put that information at the top of every search result?
Putting it on every search result is obviously extreme. There has to be a cutoff where you think that it’s probably not helpful to show someone the information so you don’t.
As long as there’s a difference in rate of different genders being the perpetrator of domestic violence, then you’re going to have a difference in when you hit that threshold for it becoming helpful, and you’ll get things like this where “man yelling” vs “woman yelling” land on different sides of that cutoff.
We can lower the threshold, and then you’ll get it for “man seems upset” vs “woman seems upset”.
Also, the connotation of “yelling” can differ by gender. I had male classmates in high school talk about parents “yelling” at them when there was no raised voice, just a discussion of how the child had failed to meet expectations. When men say a female partner is “yelling” they often mean “nagging” or “bothering.” Conversely, when women say a male partner is “yelling” they typically mean “using a raised voice in anger.”
I have a 60 minute recording of my ex-partner yelling at me. The yelling session didn’t last for only 60 minutes though. It was just 60 minutes after the point I realized I should be recording it.
And yes, I know how to accurately use the word “yell”. I know what yelling is. It’s what drill sargeants do when they’re an inch from a recruit’s face in the movies. That’s what I mean when I say “yelling”.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. One result affirms that you should feel safe and provides a hotline, the other starts with outright victim-blaming. The second result under “Maybe it’s your fault for not listening?” is not a hotline, at least for me.
My point is that if they just made the result the same then it would not detract from women, nor would it hurt the men who don’t need the advice. You’re going out of your way to defend an unnecessary bias by claiming it’s more relevant, but that’s not the point. They could choose to just not have the bias, and it would be a win while hurting no one.
My point is that it’s not an unnecessary bias, it’s different results for different queries.
Yes, I am going out of my way to say that treating an issue with a 1 in 3 incidence rate the same as one with a 1 in 10 incidence rate isn’t a necessary outcome to ensure an automated system has.
Providing relevant information is literally their reason for existence, so I’m not sure that I agree that it’s not the point. There isn’t some person auditing the results; the system sees the query and then sees what content people who make the query engage with.
I don’t see the system recognizing that a threshold of people with queries similar to one engage with domestic abuse resources and tripping a condition that gives them special highlighting, and a people with queries similar to another engaging with dysfunctional relationship resources more often is a difference that needs correction.
I’m not sure what to tell you about different results. I searched logged out, incognito, and in Firefox.
So you’re saying it’s the google algorithm trying to put stuff up that’s most often the final destination for those search terms.
That makes sense.
That aside, do you think that, if a human were to consciously decide what goes at the top for these searches, that the man should receive a little lecture on empathy while a woman should be presented with a hotline to get help?
Those top bar things… are literally audited answers from Google. They’re outside the normal search results and moves the actual result completely in the UI. Someone at google literally hard coded that anything returning results relating to womens domestic violence should present that banner.
That’s not how it works. They code a confidence threshold that the relevant result will have to do with domestic violence in general. That’s why it provides the same banner when the result is more unambiguously relevant to domestic violence.
None of this is the same as a person auditing the results.
Can we just agree whatever metric they choosed is biased?
This isn’t rage bait. There are a lot of tech workers on Lemmy and it’s likely that someone that works at Google could see this and fix the issue.
Agree with everything you said btw
Lol
What’s funny?
That a random worker at Google would not only see this, but also make changes based on it. That kind of stuff only happens with indie devs and open source projects. Plenty of companies take things like this into consideration but workers aren’t going solo.
I’m all ears if you have a better idea
Try the feedback buttons under the hotline & the snippet, respectively.
The big adtech company is very active and sometimes quite responsive on the egotistical billionaire’s dying communications platform.
Twitter.com/SearchLiaison
BTW, complaints on the same site helped trigger a response RE: their language model yesterday.
Find the nearest organization or shelter offering support for male abuse victims and help out.
Also, you know, get as much of you own shit in order so that a man needs help, you have capacity to help him.
Also join a men’s group so you can practice being supportive of other men.
Use a different search engine?
Google used to give their devs incredible leeway. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/the-wadsworth-constant
>not rage bait
>likely that someone that works at Google could see this
> and fix the issue.
Your statements are
Aren’t they likely to see brand mentions?
Same principle:
Would be irresponsible not to be tracking keywords ‘round the web… imagine if this discussion were “new Google Search CSAM exploit”! But I do expect some level of engagement really helps the odds of discussions being raised to a company’s attention, so you’re right it’s not a guarantee.
Can you please point me to where I should cross post it then?
“you have to have a better idea then mine in order to show that me saying something is not ragebait and is LIKELY is wrong”
No
Nah, it’s shown up on reddit for years on many reposts. Google just doesn’t care.