On Site Censorship

Yep, that's how it goes.

You wait and see what happens when you actually upset the more malignant posters, just loads of them black signs!

I finally tried it out myself last momth and anyone can just flag an account for spam/abuse without having to give any reason, whcih gives the poor mods a little conundrum to solve every time I upset someone, and if I upset a group, suddenly they really get to do some unravelling!

You the "defendent" do have to give suplememntal info, so each comaplint makes a lot of minor work for two people and the complaint enjoys complete anonymity. I can understand the police acting like that as complaints in their world can easily lead to "snitches get stitches" but here we are already anonymised I.D.'s and I think teh recipient f a comlaint and particualrly a series of failed complainst ought to to have the rightt to know and respond to their accusers here in the open. 

Maybe in a separte section that the gentler, less combative people can easily avoid... 

"Your appeal ... has been accepted."   No explanation. No apology. Thank you.

Sage advice. Noted, thank you 

Even some adults might find a post a turn off, and if persisted in, they may avoid reading another member's post entirely, expecting a certain tone they don't like. 

this I do. The forum is like a smorgasbord. Some dishes I know I will not like and so I pass them by without reading them at all. 

If it's important to the spirit of a post that one use a very specific word that others might find distracting, at best, and personally offensive and even triggering at worst, - no matter what age they are - , then the poster may wish to examine their motives in using that word at all. I

Here's a fantastic online thesaurus

https://www.powerthesaurus.org/dickhead/synonyms

Bunny nothing you said is triggering to me, but the whole thing about not being able to use certain words in case someone is offended is, like my example above, 'stop male chicken', honestly does that not bug you too? Being unable to describe something that every house has and that you need to know where it is so as you can turn your water off in an emergency or for repairs is ridiculous!

Whilst online fora are quite happy to mess about with things like this they seem quite happy to allow online grooming for sexual exploitation and terrorism etc, but stopping some one from using an object or a persons proper name makes them able to say they take safe guarding seriously. It just as bad out there in the offline world too, should we stop young people from learning proper words or life skills because someone somewhere might get offended? That's where I think people need to get real and get a grip.

Iain said:

Thank you for making this clear. I respect your viewpoint but find it inconsistent with the rest of the country.

Iain said:

I will not try to change your mind

You seem intent on continuing to misrepresent my opinion. As I have tried very hard to explain clearly, my "viewpoint" is that I do not have one on the subject.

I do not feel that - if this is actually what is happening - censoring certain words on this forum in order to protect 16 and 17 years olds would be appropriate / good. Nor do I feel that doing so would be unnecessary / bad / amount to infantilising them. I literally have no opinion on it either way.

I'm not sure when or how you found the time and resources to canvas "the rest of the country" in order to be able to state that my non-existent viewpoint is different to theirs.

If I had to bet, then I'd guess that most of the rest of the country also don't care either way on the hypothetical subject. But that would be a total guess.

Iain said:

With all the above we still don't consider them able to be exposed to some bad words.

As I flagged previously, you are also assuming that the presence here of some children is the NAS's reason for censoring certain words. That may not be the case at all. To repeat from my earlier post: 

Bunny said:

Perhaps the current word censorship rules are there (whether in whole, primarily or in part) for child protection purposes, but - equally - perhaps not. They might, for example, instead and/or also be intended to help foster a more positive, respectful and polite general tone of discussion here than might otherwise be the case if people could (subject to any later moderation) instead use such words freely and without limitation.

Bunny said:

I didn’t join this forum in order to add this kind of unwanted, additional stress to my considerable existing struggles.

HEAR, HEAR! 

I've been working this problem hard for my own selfish benefit primarily, and I'm happily aware that what helps me in this case, will also help others. 

It's a two part problem, my friends (And adversaries, we are ALL suffering together in this) comprising of YOUR attitude and THEIR attitude. 

We all need to work towards a similar goal that of being able to tolerate each other!! 

I've been lightly exploring Marcus Aurelieus's writings about "Stoicism" and note that some of my most effective "coping strategies" are laid out in there. 

I once worked in a working environment chock full of "happy autists" so I know it is possible for us to actually get along, but the one thing about that environment was that none of them were poorly paid at work, so they were highly motivated to get along because that co-operation made the rest of thier lives vastly more comfortable than they would other wise be!

When escalating an argument about politics can make you lose a nice comfortable life, people suddenly seem to lose that pugilistic instict and start CO-OPERATING for the common good. 

Because people are in the main primarily these days motivated by MONEY (If they were not, why else would monetary "fines" be the primary societal sanction for smaller transgressions against the social order?) and there is no gain or real sanction here of that kind, they tend to fall back on pursuing their own individual ideological motivations, whereas I'd suggest we'd all actually better off working towards the common goal of being able to find more effectve ways to deal with people we find "offensive", without becoming "disabled" by the situation.  

Bunny said:

Consequently, if you / anyone else want(s) to debate with someone in order to argue the case for the censorship being relaxed, then I'm afraid I am the least suitable candidate for that discussion. I simply don’t care

Thank you for making this clear. I respect your viewpoint but find it inconsistent with the rest of the country.

I will not try to change your mind, but for the rest of the forum I propose we look at how we treat those on the 16-17 age group:

1 - they can work in full time employment with all the stresses and responsibilities this involves

2 - until 2 years ago they could marry

3 - they can have consexual sex (of whatever flavour), get pregnant and have a child

4 - they can drive a moped at 16 and car at 17 - effectively a deadly weapon in the wrong hands

5 - they can consume alcohol with a meal (with an adult present)

With all the above we still don't consider them able to be exposed to some bad words.

Is this not infantalising them? It certainly seems so to me.

Iain said:

I realise we do not agree but you provide a balance that is important here and I for one value your input.

On the subject of your point, have you considered it may be too inflexible to consider in in the way you are?

Thank you for your encouragement to stay - I appreciate it.

In respect of the censorship issue, we do not disagree - because it's not possible for us to be doing so. With respect, whatever view you are inviting me to consider being more flexible about is just a figment of your imagination.

All that I did was to flag, for the potential benefit of others, that membership of this forum includes children. I checked and then posted about it only because I had initially wondered about whether a) children were allowed to join and b) if so, that factor might have been considered relevant by the NAS when setting the rules.

Perhaps the current word censorship rules are there (whether in whole, primarily or in part) for child protection purposes, but - equally - perhaps not. They might, for example, instead and/or also be intended to help foster a more positive, respectful and polite general tone of discussion here than might otherwise be the case if people could (subject to any later moderation) instead use such words freely and without limitation.

I am very literal in my style of communication: I mean what I say (and should not be assumed to have meant anything else) and I always strive to use words that are accurate in their meaning.

If I had meant to say “in my view, the current automatic word censorship rules are a good thing, because children aged 16 and 17 (who can join this forum) need to be protected from words like that” then that is exactly what I would have said. 

I didn't say that - because I don’t personally care whether or not certain words are automatically censored. I don’t have a view on whether any or all of them should or should not remain censored. I literally could not care less - it would be impossible. I hold no related view about which I could be “more flexible”.

Consequently, if you / anyone else want(s) to debate with someone in order to argue the case for the censorship being relaxed, then I'm afraid I am the least suitable candidate for that discussion. I simply don’t care: I don’t have an opinion and I have no interest in developing one. 

In return for offering a factual reminder (of something that others might not yet have considered when shaping and expressing their own opinions) I have experienced both a groundless argument and a hyperbolic attack (including with the "FFS get a grip" comment seemingly encompassing me).

I didn’t join this forum in order to add this kind of unwanted, additional stress to my considerable existing struggles.

Iain said:

Please do not leave. I realise we do not agree but you provide a balance that is important here and I for one value your input.

Very good point. 

We need to tolerate some diversity of opinion and all that otherwise we might as well all be clones.

(What comes in vanilla vanilla and vanilla flavour? - Ice cream clones! And of course, "you're never alone with a clone"...)  

I have noted, from various discourses on this forum, that autistic reality is sometimes misperceived as confected argumentatism.

Pausing to reflect on the possible realities of EACH OTHERS lives AND the probable misperceptions that we are known to suffer, will lead to a happier and more stable community of autists here.

This thought is a generalised one that is not directed nor delivered for, nor at, anyone here in particular.

This is simply my "thought of the day" that I felt I wanted to share.

Number.

Bunny said:

The age of majority in the UK is 18.

I just read that it was only 2 years ago that the govenment further infantalised the population by changing the age at which they could marry:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-61228240

The legal age of marriage and civil partnerships has been raised to 18 in England and Wales.

This does change my previous response - I had not realised this law had come in as I had left the UK when it was passed. Apologies for the out of date facts.

It is funny that the law does not take into account the circumstances and even notes that the person may be demonstrating all the characteristics of an adult but they cannot be considered as much because Big Brother knows better.

When I was 17 I was living on my own, supporting myself with a job and puting myself through uni and I would have been appalled to hear that I was still considered a child.

It is clear that this law is unsuitable for all and is infantalising for many.

Bunny said:

My point was simple, neutral, and factual.

Perhaps it’s time for me to leave this community

Please do not leave. I realise we do not agree but you provide a balance that is important here and I for one value your input.

On the subject of your point, have you considered it may be too inflexible to consider in in the way you are? Rules are applied with a broad brush and many who should not be covered by it often find themselves suffocating under its coat of paint.

Your examples seem hyperbolic to me.

I’m not sure what I said that was so triggering. My point was simple, neutral, and factual.

Perhaps it’s time for me to leave this community. Confected arguments aren’t what I came here for. 

So presumably an under 18 wouldn't be able to watch something like Escape to the Chateau, because the chateau owners are D1ck and Angel Strawbridge? They wouldn't be able to learn basic home maintainance because they'd have to learn where the stop *** is for the water supply. Honestly I think a lot of this safe guarding has gone way to far, we risk infantilising generations over normal words that some might think rude or offensive and yet we don't protect the really vulnerable being exploited by gangs of predators, FFS get a grip world!

Iain said:

16 is adult.

Good grief! It demonstrably isn't. 

The age of majority in the UK is 18.

I'm not suggesting that most 16 year olds aren't familiar with words that may be censored here. I was simply reminding folks that members of this forum do include children.  

Just in case you're minded to continue arguing:

"Definitions of a child

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) defines a child as everyone under 18 unless, "under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier".

England

In England, a child is defined as anyone who has not yet reached their 18th birthday. Child protection guidance points out that even if a child has reached 16 years of age and is:

living independently
in further education
a member of the armed forces
in hospital; or
in custody in the secure estate

they are still legally children and should be given the same protection and entitlements as any other child (Department for Education, 2023)."

https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/child-protection-system/children-the-law#skip-to-content

Protection of children is also why Ofcom prohibits swearing (among other things) on TV before the 9pm watershed. 

  .

The Gods alone know how bots would deal with a lot of English village names? Some of them sound quite rude even when they're not. I'm not surprised that the bots cant' handle the name of that football club, but do they not also recognise it as a term for a munitions store, which was what it was originally named after or is it just the first four letters it dosen't like?

Gladly. Did you search the NAS service providers' directory? Yes, I am listed there, but not allowed to use my name in the forum.

I agree that anonymity should be an option, and I completely respect the right to post anonymously if one wishes. What I find patronising is that the NAS assumes that I am incapable of doing a risk assessment and making my own decision. As a regulated professional my details are out there already - my company is registered at Companies House, my personal details are on the professional register at Social Work England, the charity I am associated with is listed with the Charities Commission, I have a presence on some social media, although I have tightly locked-down profiles. With my full name, you can check my credentials. If I call myself " Expert 123" I could also claim to be a professor of psychiatry, a King's Counsel and a Papal Knight - I am none of those - BUT if I did so claim, there is no way anybody could prove otherwise.

I choose what information to post. Caveat scriptor - let the writer beware. I got my first death threat a few months into my first job as a social worker. My client (who I suspected was neurodivergent but undiagnosed)  had solved an interpersonal problem with a peer using two billiard balls in a sock, and when arrested he had a knife on him. He blamed me for the fact that he was having a holiday at Her Majesty's expense. It sort of goes with the territory. So yes, I take precautions, both online and in my working life.

My counter-argument is that on this forum we have individuals who claim to be "experts"  who are nothing of the sort. We have barrack-room lawyers who clearly have no idea what they are talking about.  Someone expressed an opinion (carefully not framed as advice in line with the rules) about the Mental Capacity Act. I posted a refutation.  The difference was that I am a registered social worker, and a Best Interests Assessor, and my opinion is based on seven years of postgraduate training and twenty-five years of experience. I quoted the legislation, and could, if challenged, back it up with caselaw. The refutation was "botted" for some reason, but was later reinstated, unedited. The misinformation was allowed to stay.