Autocensor

Fix'd.

The censoring has always been eye-roll worhty. I routinely use common words at work with my managers that would get censored and get me a warning here.
On the Age of Empires Heaven forums, one user, and major mod and scenario contributor to AoE3, got permanently banned almost entirely on, "repeatedly circumventing the language filter by conspicuous mispellings," (although using the name of an adherent of a particular sect of Islam for the, "s-word," may have been the biggest contributor, I suspect)..
 
I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but I seem to have stumbled on one of these when I mentioned I was "kookoo for Cocoa Puffs" but used the actual name of the bird (also a type of clock). I thought it was kinda hilarious actually. And yes, I know the reference dates me terribly. :)
 
I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but I seem to have stumbled on one of these when I mentioned I was "kookoo for Cocoa Puffs" but used the actual name of the bird (also a type of clock). I thought it was kinda hilarious actually. And yes, I know the reference dates me terribly. :)

Collins Dictionary said:
A [REDACTED] is a man whose wife is having an affair with another man.
 
I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but I seem to have stumbled on one of these when I mentioned I was "kookoo for Cocoa Puffs" but used the actual name of the bird (also a type of clock). I thought it was kinda hilarious actually. And yes, I know the reference dates me terribly. :)
The question is, are you being censored for an insensitive reference to the mentally ill, or an infamous reference to a form of adultery (exacerbated to an attack on someone's manhood).

Edit: Just saw Boneyduck had said the same thing, paraphrased.
 
I think I was censored because someone is a Lucky Charms fan. 🤣

I'm pretty sure it was the adultery one. As someone who suffered from panic attacks when I was younger (and this was before Prozac had come into wide usage), the parent of a kiddo on the autistic spectrum, and a wife institutionalized due to severe depression, I'm not one to take mental illness lightly, though I find humor to be a good coping mechanism. It's a brutal world out there.
 
Last edited:
I think I was censored because someone is a Lucky Charms fan. 🤣
Doesn't one mean Coco Puffs. Lucky Charms are, "magically delicious," and a bad stereotype to those of Irish decent rather than the mentally ill. Both have negative ratings in being nutritious.
 
The autofilter on here is too wide, it uses a blocks of words that aren't even swears. I understand not wanting profanity, but it should be reserved for swears on the level of the F-bomb.
 
***** and Kiwi Farms Sue the UK Over its Age Verification Law Avoiding paywall and auto censor

***** and Kiwi Farms sued the United Kingdom’s Office of Communications (Ofcom) over its age verification law in U.S. federal court Wednesday, fulfilling a promise it announced on August 23. In the lawsuit, ***** and Kiwi Farms claim that threats and fines they have received from Ofcom “constitute foreign judgments that would restrict speech under U.S. law.”

Both entities say in the lawsuit that they are wholly based in the U.S. and that they do not have any operations in the United Kingdom and are therefore not subject to local laws. Ofcom’s attempts to fine and block ***** and Kiwi Farms, and the lawsuit against Ofcom, highlight the messiness involved with trying to restrict access to specific websites or to force companies to comply with age verification laws.

The lawsuit calls Ofcom an “industry-funded global censorship bureau.”

“Ofcom’s ambitions are to regulate Internet communications for the entire world, regardless of where these websites are based or whether they have any connection to the UK,” the lawsuit states. “On its website, Ofcom states that ‘over 100,000 online services are likely to be in scope of the Online Safety Act—from the largest social media platforms to the smallest community forum.’”

Both ***** and Kiwi Farms are notorious online communities that are infamous for their largely anything-goes attitude. Users of both forums have been tied to various doxing and harassment campaigns over the years. Still, they have now become the entities fighting the hardest against the UK’s disastrous Online Safety Act, which requires websites and social media platforms to perform invasive age verification checks on their users, which often requires people to upload an ID or otherwise give away their personal information in order to access large portions of the internet. Sites that do not comply are subject to huge fines, regardless of where they are based. The law has resulted in an internet where users need to provide scans of their faces in order to access, for example, certain music videos on Spotify.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has said the Online Safety Act “is a threat to the privacy of users, restricts free expression by arbitrating speech online, exposes users to algorithmic discrimination through face checks, and leaves millions of people without a personal device or form of ID excluded from accessing the internet.”

Ofcom began investigating ***** over alleged violations of the Online Safety Act in June. On August 13, it announced a provisional decision and stated that ***** had “contravened its duties” and then began to charge the site a penalty of £20,000 (roughly $26,000) a day. Kiwi Farms has also been threatened with fines, the lawsuit states.

"American citizens do not surrender our constitutional rights just because Ofcom sends us an e-mail. In the face of these foreign demands, our clients have bravely chosen to assert their constitutional rights," Preston Byrne, one of the lawyers representing ***** and Kiwi Farms, told 404 Media.

"We are aware of the lawsuit," an Ofcom spokesperson told 404 Media. "Under the Online Safety Act, any service that has links with the UK now has duties to protect UK users, no matter where in the world it is based. The Act does not, however, require them to protect users based anywhere else in the world.”

Auto-filtering the name of a website is dumb.
My case in point.
 
My case in point.
That particular website name was censored as a means of preventing links to it being posted. At the specific time it was happening, links were being posted to kiddie porn by people creating whack-a-mole accounts from VPNs with dynamic IP addresses. IIRC.
 
That particular website name was censored as a means of preventing links to it being posted. At the specific time it was happening, links were being posted to kiddie porn by people creating whack-a-mole accounts from VPNs with dynamic IP addresses. IIRC.
Not surprised considering the site in question. In that case, we seem to have circled back to the issue of the auto-filter being rather primitive, in that it mistakes mentioning the name of a malicious site for an actual link. The auto-filter seems rather primitives, is there a way to upgrade it somehow?
 
No, not really, I'm afraid.
Is there someway you can provide feedback to Xenforo regarding customization of things like that? I'm kinda surprised to hear there aren't already tools like that.
ALso not sure if we really have a need to talk about that site :think:.
I can appreciate the principle of not wanting to give them the attention, but I don't think Sampson did anything wrong by simply posting an article that happens to feature them to a relevant news thread.
 
I agree, but it has to be said that we currently are not treating all triggerings of the autocensor as a rule violation ;).
That's good.

Like I mentioned earlier, do you think you could mention something about the autofilter to Xenforo?
 
Not surprised considering the site in question. In that case, we seem to have circled back to the issue of the auto-filter being rather primitive, in that it mistakes mentioning the name of a malicious site for an actual link. The auto-filter seems rather primitives, is there a way to upgrade it somehow?
This 'block' was implemented way back when the forums were on vBulletin 3. I was just providing an explanation for why that site was added to the autofilter, not meaning to explain the limitations (or otherwise) of the xenforo software. However, as I see it, the Xenforo autocensor is reasonably flexible and configurable. {shrug}.
 
This 'block' was implemented way back when the forums were on vBulletin 3. I was just providing an explanation for why that site was added to the autofilter, not meaning to explain the limitations (or otherwise) of the xenforo software. However, as I see it, the Xenforo autocensor is reasonably flexible and configurable. {shrug}.
Thanks for the clarification!

To censor a word or a word fragment, enter your term in an empty Words to censor box. You may use a * wildcard character to match any text:


  • dog matches dog only
  • dog* matches dog, dogs and dogmatic etc.
  • d*g matches dog and dug etc.
  • d*g* matches dog, dug, dogs, dogmatic and duggery etc.
Hmm. So for cases where it picks up a swear in the middle of an unrelated word, the filter can be changed from method 2 to method 1. You'd also have to censor common variants individually, but it's doable.

Links are a little trickier, but perhaps the domain instead of just the name ("malicioussite.com" instead of "malicioussite") using method 2 would work?
 
This 'block' was implemented way back when the forums were on vBulletin 3. I was just providing an explanation for why that site was added to the autofilter, not meaning to explain the limitations (or otherwise) of the xenforo software. However, as I see it, the Xenforo autocensor is reasonably flexible and configurable. {shrug}.
You're still here! :love:
 
And, is he an Administrator or a Moderator? His avatar is giving mixed signals. ;P
Yes, he is both and can act as either; beware his evil eye.....
 
Back
Top Bottom