On Site Censorship

Ian.

By way of a demonstration, would you accept a telephone call from me on the number I've just found whilst you are still composing your reply?

Whilst I was replying, your post vanished. Here's my reply anyway to your criticsism of the anonymity aspect, I hope you find it a satisfactory explanation of that policy.

Ian. Prohibiting people from using their real names or supplying other personally identifying information, perhaps is less "patronising" than it is a realistic safety measure.  

The internet allows all of us to become "public figures" or "broadcasters".

You'll note that pretty much all public figures have to take basic security measures, to protect their privacy against fans (so they can have some time to themselves) and also against the insane individuals who might for unfathomable reasons develop a harmful fixation against them.   

Most of us members of the public are naive to the dangers inherent in public speaking, and untrained in our presentation skills, and more likely statistically to fall found of some random nutter who will also know we are a much "softer" target for their rage. 

I personally was exposed to someone who aggregated all the information I'd provided on a website over some years (name, occupation, approximate location) and published a comprehensive "doxxing" of what he thought was my C.V.including photo. At this point, my having a VERY common name and NO published C.V. or any other real "social media" prescence made him look a fool, as he'd "doxxed" some other poor guy... 

It was a teachable moment for me and confirmation, that what some people might call paranoia (or in this case patronising) is in fact just sensible precautions. 

Also, allowing people to hide behnd anonymity tends to allow them to "drop the mask" and speak their truth without fear of consequence. As a result we do get a better picture of how people really feel and think. Unlike face to face verbal conflict there is virtually no chance of it escalating into dangerous physical confromtation, which preserves peoples physical safety.

My response has also been "botted". I don't know why I donate to this organisation.

Does the bot still object to a steel producing town in North Lincolnshire or the full name of a parish near Cheltenham in Gloucestershire, or has AI improved?  I think bots have learnt that a football team known as the Gunners is OK, despite its rectal beginning.

And what is wrong with an English donkey, even if Americans use that spelling to signify one's gluteal region and associated fundamental orifice?

I wonder how many of the moderators and managers are themselves neurodivergent? This whole chat board is patronising - e.g. not allowing posters to use their real names or personal information, random censorship, not just of "dubious" words.  I have had a few posts "botted" which have been then been accepted, unedited, on appeal, and I can't see what their rejection criteria are. The moderators' motto seems to be " never explain, never apologise " 

In one post that was "botted" I advised against the misuse of non-prescription street drugs to treat mental health conditions - the original post tacitly supporting self-medication with controlled (illegal) substances was allowed to stand.  I am sure the thought police - sorry, moderators and their cyber-bots - mean well, but as you say, it is infantilising.

Bunny said:

Keep in mind that this is not an adults-only community - the rules allow members from age 16

16 is adult.

You are old enough to get married (up until 2022 that is), have sex and have kids so I if this is allowed by law then I believe they can be exposed to a few swear words.

The law in the UK prevents you from purchasing alcohol, watching an 18 rated film or driving a car, but lets you create sentient life and go through the bloodbath of childbirth.

Swearing seems kind of trivial by comparison.

I think it would be a rare 16 year old that hasn't heard far worse than some of the normal words that get censored on here.

Heee heee very very funny!

I see it happen but there are ways of escaping the algorithm as people have replied below.  I do see that it can be triggering in the respect that many of us have been told to "act in appropriate ways" and use language that is not considered offensive.  This is frustrating as I see forum members have a somewhat sick sense of humour that connects us but isn't allowed because of the forum rules.  That said, text can be misconstrued so maybe that's why the site has the censorship as some people can feel upset or offended? D a m n e d if you do and d a m n e d if you don't.....

Keep in mind that this is not an adults-only community - the rules allow members from age 16.

Got it.  I was slow yesterday. But it illustrates an important point.  At interviews I realise hours later what I should have said.

Which makes any discussion of how the Netherlands expanded it's territory almost impossible!

For those of us who can access archive videos - from whatever platform - I would direct you to our Naughtius Maximus and Biggus Dickus.  "The Life of Brian" is an exemplar of English humour - of a particular time - and it is evoked in my mind by these exchanges.

The pen is mightier than the sword (of any meat or metal type) .... when wielded with skill.....and a pen driven by a sentient human (of any type) is much, much mightier than "tech-auto-tune/censorship."  Long may this be the case....although it will not be on these Godforsaken digital moots.

*** van ***.

Two innocent words automatically censored.

D I C K.  Van.  D Y K E.

Once again the system has automatically censored me.

I will try again. Years ago this failed.

Today:  *** Van ***.

You could have said Richard VD.

Oh, hang on...

TEST:

pork sword, clunge, ballbag, minge, knob, spasm chasm, fanny, winkle, punani, chod, gash, winkle, furry clam, one eyed trouseer snake, beaver.

What censorship?