Insensitive Software

Search technology is big business. And the ins and outs, the hows and whys, the subtleties of each search engine are the margin at which it competes with its rivals. Such software has grown complex, powerful, and very, very good at what it does.

It's hardly a secret that all such programs "learn" by keeping track of what searchers do, so that when other customers input a similar search, results found useful by prior users get priority. And the algorithms use built-in "knowledge," such as proper English spelling, to help steer users toward what they really want, and away from meaningless nonsense.

Thus, at Amazon.com, whose business model obviously depends heavily on their search engine, the software has noted that the words "abortion" and "adoption" have similar spellings, sharing many letters. Not only that, but Big Brother has tallied many searches for "adoption" by users who have also searched the word "abortion." (No so much the other way around. Think about it.)

As a consequence, if one searched Amazon's bottomless library with the term "abortion," the software kicked out its best try at matches, but also prompted the user, "Did you mean adoption?"

Not content with lamenting the insufficiency of abortions in the United States (as we noted HERE), the ever-vigilant and never bashful pro-abortion lobby is "worried" about this. Apparently unaware that machines don't have political or moral views, the Rev. James Lewis, a retired Episcopalian minister (I know, I know) in Charleston, W.Va., has gone so far as to conclude: "I thought it was offensive."

The Church Bulletin of the Pro-Abortion Lobby, The New York Times, is (SURPRISE!) all over this story. Having noted Amazon's statement that this has an entirely neutral, apolitical, technical explanation, their article goes on:

Still, the Rev. Jeff Briere, a minister with the Unitarian Universalist Church in Chattanooga, Tenn., and a member of the abortion rights coalition, said he was worried about an anti-abortion slant in the books Amazon recommended and in the "pro-life" and "adoption" related topic links.

"The search engine results I am presented with, their suggestions, seem to be pro-life in orientation," Mr. Briere said. He also said he objected to a Yellow Pages advertisement for an anti-abortion organization in his city that appeared next to the search results, apparently linked by his address.

That is, the good "reverend" not only is scared by the facts, but he also finds advertisements for a view in competition with his to be objectionable, as well. Such internet ads, of course, appear on your screen when their controlling software "sees" the juxtaposition of those words or phrases the advertiser has paid to find, and pitch to.

Let's be very clear with exactly what is being found offensive and objectionable: A connection between the words -- let alone the concepts -- of "abortion" and "adoption," coupled with worry and heightened vigilance, lest someone seeking information about abortion is exposed to information regarding adoption. Abortion propaganda must be protected from competing ideas, lest some women take it into their pretty little heads not to slaughter their own children.

This sort of thing should lay to rest the notion that the "pro-choice" crowd adheres to some moral or philosophical principle of privacy or personal decision. These folks think abortion is a good idea, and they think that alternatives are a bad idea. The National Rifle Association seems all cooperative and squishy by comparison.

Amazon.com, fearful of the wrath of the all-powerful Orthodox Church of Secular Humanism, has hacked its own software so as to eliminate the politically incorrect result.

But you already knew that was where we were going, didn't you?