www.newscientist.com
Josie FordFeedback is New Scientists popular sideways look at the latest science and technology news. You can submit items you believe may amuse readers to Feedback by emailing feedback@newscientist.com Streisand strikes againSome things are sadly inevitable: death, taxes, another Coldplay album. One such inevitability, long since proved beyond any reasonable doubt, is that if you try to suppress an embarrassing story, you will only draw more attention to it.This phenomenon is called the Streisand Effect, after an incident in 2003 when Barbra Streisand sued to have an aerial photograph taken off the internet. The shot was part of a series documenting coastal erosion in California, but identified her cliff-top mansion. She lost, and in the process drew public attention to the photo. Having previously been downloaded six times (twice by her lawyers) it was then accessed hundreds of thousands of times.AdvertisementAnd so, with weary inevitability, we come yet again to Meta, Mark Zuckerbergs personal empire encompassing Facebook, Instagram, Threads, WhatsApp and a sizeable chunk of Hawaii. In March, Sarah Wynn-Williams Facebooks former director of public policy put out a memoir of her time at the company, which has the Gatsby-esque title Careless People. Feedback isnt going to repeat the specific allegations in it, because Meta has very high-powered libel lawyers and we dont want to be responsible for New Scientists in-house lawyers all dropping dead of heart attacks. Suffice it to say, it is a real page-turner.Meta responded by taking legal action. By leveraging a non-disclosure agreement Wynn-Williams had signed when she left the company, Meta prevented her from promoting Careless People. Any interviews you may have seen with her were conducted before Meta obtained the injunction.The result? The book has become a global bestseller, and you just read about it in the silly bit at the back of New Scientist.Offensive ParidaeFeedback recently told the story of researcher Nicolas Guguen, who has had some of his papers retracted including one about the advantages of having large breasts while hitchhiking as the result of investigations by data sleuths Nick Brown and James Heathers (15 March).So we were naturally intrigued to get an email from Brown, who came across our coverage because he has a Google alert set up for Nicolas Guguen'. We wondered if we might have got a detail wrong, or otherwise bungled the story.However, he was writing in response to another item in the same column. This related to the perennial Scunthorpe problem: the fact that completely innocent words can contain letter strings that are offensive in isolation, so the automated systems that block questionable words often catch harmless ones in their nets.Before I became a scientist I worked in IT, explains Brown. Maybe around 1999, someone came to me with a question. Her email to the Royal Bank of Scotland had bounced, and the rejection notice literally said this: Reason: Dirty Word: TITS.Readers: take a moment to recover from the shock. We too were stunned that the automated system used the phrase dirty word: we didnt realise RBSs systems were based on primary school behaviour guidance.Brown examined the message, which was entirely innocuous and contained no reference to birds of the Paridae family. Then he used a text editor to look at the email header, and there he found the dirty word.We were in France and used names from the Asterix comics for our servers, says Brown. One of the mail servers that the message had passed through was named Petitsuix. This is an innkeeper who appears in three Asterix volumes: his name is a parody of petit-suisse cheese, if you didnt get that. So, says Brown, the email header contained something like Via:Petitsuix.domain.com, thus bumping up against the Scunthorpe problem.This led Brown to wonder what might have happened if, by some infernal coincidence, his employers had been using the same anti-spam software. Would our spam filter server have replied with You said tits, and then they would have come back with No, you said tits, and so on for ever?So what happened next? I remember saying at the time, Well, clearly that bank is going to go bust, says Brown. He had to wait until 2008 and legally Feedback has to say that despite the glory of Browns pun, that didnt happen: the government bailed the bank out.Queued upSometimes, Feedback comes across a solution to a problem that is simultaneously brilliant and rock-stupid. Such a solution was brought to our attention by reporter Matthew Sparkes.Three researchers were trying to make queueing less deadly dull, so they developed a robot for people in queues to play with. As they explained, the robot is called Social Queue. It is a robotic stanchion pole with a responsive tentacle on top that interact[s] with people through three modes of interaction, Attracting, Escaping, and Friendly. Apparently, this enhanced peoples enjoyment.Feedback isnt a roboticist: not out of an utter lack of technical ability perish the thought it is just that we saw Battlestar Galactica and decided not to be complicit in the robot apocalypse. Still, this sounds like a feat of engineering.But we did wonder why anyone would go to the bother of designing a queue robot, when you could just set up a timed-entry system and eliminate the queue.Got a story for Feedback?You can send stories to Feedback by email at feedback@newscientist.com. Please include your home address. This weeks and past Feedbacks can be seen on our website.