Slashdot Mirror


Instagram Rolls Out 'Keyword Moderation Tool' That Will Filter Out Offensive Comments (macrumors.com)

In an effort to "promote a culture where everyone feels safe to be themselves without criticism or harassment," Instagram has introduced today a "keyword moderation tool" that anyone can use to block offensive or inappropriate words. Mac Rumors reports: Referred to as a "keyword moderation tool," the feature will let each user type in words they find to be offensive, effectively hiding any mention of them in the comment section of their posts. The comments containing the harsh language will still be available for other Instagram users, but the company believes that allowing each user to determine which words to hide from their personal collection of photos will cultivate a "positive and safe" environment. To deal with abusive accounts, Instagram already lets users swipe to delete comments, report inappropriate comments and block accounts.

220 comments

  1. Belgium by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sounds like all this will do is allow the Instagram users to wrap a virtual towel around their heads.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Belgium by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's a good thing though, right? I mean, what else are you supposed to do if you run into a virtual Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal?

    2. Re:Belgium by ganjadude · · Score: 2, Informative

      which is the better way to go

      lets face it, people are offended by stupid shit these days, and instead of reporting others because they said a word that hurt your little feelings, just....block those words from getting to you. live in your safe space bubble, and let the rest of the world act like adults in peace

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    3. Re:Belgium by Cruciform · · Score: 2

      And you read the Slashdot comments with no moderation?

    4. Re:Belgium by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Funny

      Post Vogon poetry on Instagram, ofcourse!

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    5. Re:Belgium by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      And you read the Slashdot comments with no moderation?

      In general no, but that is not because I am worried about being offended by what exists at -1. More so that I come back to conversations later and pick out the +4 and +5 comments to get exposed to ideas that the people have deemed good.

      And on occasion I do read at -1 (especially when I am back tracking to find out why someone replied like they did)

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    6. Re:Belgium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you read the Slashdot comments with no moderation?

      Sometimes there's juicy bits down low.

    7. Re:Belgium by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the person has to enter those nasty words in to their profile. Now, not only do they have to think and type these offensive words, they will have to see them whenever they view their profile!

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    8. Re:Belgium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have peril-sensitive sunglasses.

    9. Re:Belgium by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Won't someone PLEASE protect the children from criticism!

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    10. Re: Belgium by BlytheBowman · · Score: 1

      And God will punish them and send them to hell for harboring those words in a place they control. Sometimes you just can't win :}

    11. Re:Belgium by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      To be fair, Instagram is a place to share pictures with people who like to see them, not a place to present new theses on good government.

      In other words, it's designed to be a nice warm towel room.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:Belgium by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      Sometimes there's juicy bits down low.

      She said

    13. Re:Belgium by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Sounds like all this will do is allow the Instagram users to wrap a virtual towel around their heads.

      You say that like it's a bad thing. We all know there are idiots out there. But life is much more pleasant if you don't have to see them. It's almost like the freeze-peach advocates here seem to believe it's the god given right of idiots to turn everything with a hint of public writability into a torrent of utter shit and somehow people who don't want to listen to that are stupid or evil.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    14. Re:Belgium by epyT-R · · Score: 2

      I read at -1. It's really not that bad. Here are the steps:

      1. use the scroll wheel/bars to move past posts that are obvious spam (there usually aren't that many of those)
      2. choose whether to moderate or participate
      3. benefit from considering opinions that don't jive with groupthink. it's ok to consider ideas without accepting them or taking them personally
      4. don't take the internet so seriously.

    15. Re:Belgium by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      That position leaves you blind to groupthink. Curation doesn't work well with controversial topics.

    16. Re:Belgium by wafflemonger · · Score: 1

      I'm adding gruntbuggly and turlingdrome to my list of words I don't want to see.

    17. Re:Belgium by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      That position leaves you blind to groupthink. Curation doesn't work well with controversial topics.

      Thats why I go back and see what prompted the groupthink decision.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    18. Re:Belgium by David+W.+Campbell · · Score: 2

      Better block Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings of Sussex whilst you are at it. Just to be safe.

    19. Re:Belgium by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I read at -1. It's really not that bad. Here are the steps:

      1. use the scroll wheel/bars to move past posts that are obvious spam (there usually aren't that many of those) 2. choose whether to moderate or participate 3. benefit from considering opinions that don't jive with groupthink. it's ok to consider ideas without accepting them or taking them personally 4. don't take the internet so seriously.

      I mostly browse at -1. For the same reasons as you. If I do change, it's because of irrelevant noise. Otherwise, I enjoy the chatter.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  2. Bubble boys and girls by John+Jorsett · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've already noticed on other forums a tendency to construct a cocoon where nothing disagreeable gets in, but the people try to do it by driving out or shutting up anyone with a contrary opinion. This tool will allow them to create their own little universe without having to eject or muzzle the meanies who insist on saying things they don't like. Everyone can now have their own customized online "safe room".

    1. Re:Bubble boys and girls by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oddly, though, those exact same people will have NO qualms, zero, none at all, to try to destroy their "opponents" mentally, financially and if at all possible physically.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Bubble boys and girls by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Basically Instagram is dragging itself screaming and kicking back to the nineties :|

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    3. Re:Bubble boys and girls by NotInHere · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, everyone who voices disagreement online is automatically a stalking asshole, just as every black person is a criminal.

    4. Re:Bubble boys and girls by ganjadude · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      For example I have been repeatedly moderated down for stating the simple, obvious fact that most Trump supporters are racists.

      not sure why im bothering with an AC, slow work day maybe, but the reason you get modded down for saying that is because unlike your assertion, it is in fact, not a fact. its not true, in the slightest. and only an idiot would think as such (the same could be said for those who think most "insert any candidate here" are retarded.... you might feel that to be true, but its not

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re:Bubble boys and girls by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, but people who dox others and send lies to their employers in an attempt to get them fired are. Or at the very least, they should be considered that.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Bubble boys and girls by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 0

      There's actually a Change.org petition demanding Instagram give all users the ability to disable comments "to stop bullying." I've considered finding the user's Instagram and creating several sock puppet accounts, then using them to post content (with comments disabled) bullying the user, with no recourse to defend themselves. I can get past libel by just heavily-criticizing them on factual things--like their idiotic demands to restrict people's speech and give them no recourse to comment on images which assault their character.

    7. Re:Bubble boys and girls by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0, Troll

      not sure why im bothering with an AC, slow work day maybe, but the reason you get modded down for saying that is because unlike your assertion, it is in fact, not a fact. its not true, in the slightest. and only an idiot would think as such

      According to a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll, in fact the assertion that "most Trump supporters are racist" is actually true (at least if you consider "holding racist views" the same as being racist). And it's true by a wide margin. There have been other polls showing the same result, and if you want I can point them out to you.

      http://www.vox.com/2016/9/12/1...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:Bubble boys and girls by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Informative

      The findings suggest a great majority of Trump supporters hold unfavorable views of Muslims and support a policy that bans Muslims from entering the US. Most of them support proposals that stifle immigration from Mexico, and they agree with Trump’s comments that Mexican immigrants are criminals. And many — but not a majority — say that black people are less intelligent and more violent than their white peers.

      the muslim and mexican thing, really isnt racist. nationalist perhaps, but not racist. As for the black folks, DOJ statistics are also not racist. I mean the findings dont support the idea that trump supporters are racist, they just show that pollsters know how to work a poll to show what they want it to show

      SOME trump supporters are in fact racist, so are SOME hillary supporters, SOME johnson supporters and SOME stein supporters (if she has any left after the fact that she has an arrest warrant out for her)

      wanting to protect the borders however is in no way racist no matter how hard some people try and make it out to be so

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    9. Re: Bubble boys and girls by BlytheBowman · · Score: 2

      And this is why millenials are such pansies"oh no, someone hurt my wittle fewlings!" Millenials need to grow the fuck up, and realize the world is a nasty place, and you can't jump down a hidey-hole everytime something you don't like happens (I grew up in the 1980s and I am transgender to boot! There were no "safe spaces" back then)

    10. Re:Bubble boys and girls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...so like the suburbs.

    11. Re:Bubble boys and girls by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Snowflakes are very fragile and melt easily. They must be carefully protected to ensure that they're never exposed to anyone who might do something offensive or abusive, like disagreeing with them.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    12. Re:Bubble boys and girls by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the muslim and mexican thing, really isnt racist. nationalist perhaps, but not racist.

      Haven't you heard? In modern SJW world, nationalism *IS* racism.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    13. Re: Bubble boys and girls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why we can't have nice things.

    14. Re:Bubble boys and girls by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      Filtering some keywords on Instagram is not tantamount to allowing people to create their own little universe. I dunno, unless you have some other meaning of universe than I do.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    15. Re: Bubble boys and girls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And this is why millenials are such pansies"oh no, someone hurt my wittle fewlings!" Millenials need to grow the fuck up, and realize the world is a nasty place, and you can't jump down a hidey-hole everytime something you don't like happens

      As a fellow GenXer let me just say...shut the fuck up you useless twat.

      Every generation talks this stupid shit about the one that follows it. Every generation is wrong. Your grandparents were full of shit when they said it about your parents, your parents were full of shit when they said it about you, and now you're the one who's full of shit. But I guess you can comfort yourself with the knowledge that the millenials will be full of just as much shit when they inevitably start whining about the [whatever cutesy name the next generation gets].

    16. Re:Bubble boys and girls by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      OK, so you believe the polls are skewed and Trump supporters are not really mostly racist.

      http://www.publicpolicypolling...

      Please try to spin that poll as not showing racism.

      Ultimately, the concern people have is not what percentage of Trump supporters are racists, Nazis, KKK or unhinged bigots. It's that the rest of them don't have any problem with it.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    17. Re:Bubble boys and girls by ultranova · · Score: 2

      There's actually a Change.org petition demanding Instagram give all users the ability to disable comments "to stop bullying." I've considered finding the user's Instagram and creating several sock puppet accounts, then using them to post content (with comments disabled) bullying the user, with no recourse to defend themselves.

      So basically your plan to shut up someone asking for anti-bully feature on Instagram is to give them plenty of examples of bullying conveniently located where Instagram not only sees them but also cannot avoid taking a position.

      I can get past libel by just heavily-criticizing them on factual things--like their idiotic demands to restrict people's speech and give them no recourse to comment on images which assault their character.

      You're going to get past libel because nobody cares how buthurt a pseudonymous Instagram account is about another such account's feature requests.

      Also, they have the recourse of telling Instagram a stalker is making sock puppet accounts for the sole purpose of attacking them. Instagram, not being the government, can then completely ignore how carefully you skirted the edge of law and simply permaban you. Or, if they're feeling nasty, sue you for using their system in breach of the user agreement, which forbids harassment.

      But, hey, who knows? Maybe companies forcing good behaviour online for business reasons will end up teaching the next generation to debate without resolting to volume or insults, thus saving our democracies. It's a longshot, but any port in a storm.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    18. Re:Bubble boys and girls by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Informative
      well yeah, because thought police. I didnt spin anything, i found fault with your previous poll and thats all i was going off of. I really dont care if some fringe number of people who are actually racist agree with me on some things, nore should anyone the entire concept of groupthink, everyone who agrees with X must also agree with Y is completely insane.

      Some people would argue that BLM is a racist group, yet they get major love from their chosen side. All I can do is worry about me not being an asshole.

      as for your new link, again you are wrong

      Our new poll finds that Trump is benefiting from a GOP electorate that thinks Barack Obama is a Muslim and was born in another country, and that immigrant children should be deported. 66% of Trump's supporters believe that Obama is a Muslim to just 12% that grant he's a Christian. 61% think Obama was not born in the United States to only 21% who accept that he was. And 63% want to amend the Constitution to eliminate birthright citizenship, to only 20% who want to keep things the way they are.

      NONE of any of what this poll is asking says ANYTHING about race! its about religion! i mean do you even know what the word means??? or like most americans does it simply means "things i dont like " these days???

      2 up, 2 shot down, have a nice dat

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    19. Re:Bubble boys and girls by serviscope_minor · · Score: 0

      Oddly, though, those exact same people will have NO qualms...

      Funny that you complain about people having no qualms when you're gleefully propagating lies about Sarkeesian commiting fraud:

      https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...
      https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...

      Here are the 17 videos you claim don't exist:

      https://www.youtube.com/playli...
      https://www.youtube.com/playli...

      It's truly entertaining to see you work yourself up into a lather about these evil people while you lie and libel in other threads to try to prove some point or other.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    20. Re: Bubble boys and girls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you waited until the perfect time to post that. You stalked this mans post and was waiting for him to slip up. We get it. You have a hard on for Sarkeesian. Give it up bro, you are just another nerd, like the rest of us.

    21. Re:Bubble boys and girls by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      You'd be surprised how well that doesn't work in practice. I've got pictures of Stepford families holding their kids and posing for the nice middle-class family angle with vile captions attacking the poor and misfortunate, simply because they gave me a good quote to highlight their entitled delusions and complete lack of compassion for other human beings. I bring those pictures out regularly when those people bother me with their privilege and their attacks on the less-fortunate, and they can't seem to do a damned thing about it.

      You open yourself up for the Streissand effect and for some extreme criticism when you do shit like this. People will find a way to speak out if they disagree with you; and if you demand the ability to censor others and cultivate a carefully-protected world view free of criticism for your behavior, you get to be the subject of political cartoons and other lampooning. You can bitch about it all you want, but it's still going to happen. The punchline here is that someone is bitching about wanting to censor others for "bullying", and their protests in their own defense can be UTTERLY SILENCED as we demolish them for being completely fucking stupid if they get their way.

      I wonder if they'd understand the weapon they handed over after the fact, or if they'd just cry that it's not fair and someone should do something. Unintended consequences don't seem to enter the human consciousness very often, even when they clock you over the head.

    22. Re:Bubble boys and girls by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      Damn it, I can never keep track. Who are we talking about now, the SJWs, the anti-SJWs, the feminists, the anti-feminists, the alt right, Trump supporters, amimojo, man babies, Free Speech Warriors, GamerGaters, Thunderf00t, Bernie Bros (are they still a thing?)... They all get accused of the same stuff, so it's very hard to infer who you are talking about any more.

      Maybe there are just asshats, and maybe for some people everyone who disagrees with them is an asshat. Or something.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    23. Re:Bubble boys and girls by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      NONE of any of what this poll is asking says ANYTHING about race! its about religion!

      It's completely about race. They respondents who said Barack Obama was born in another country are reacting to his color, nothing else. You can pretend otherwise, but they had to make him "other" because they just could not wrap their heads around a president with black skin.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    24. Re:Bubble boys and girls by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Ultimately, the concern people have is not what percentage of Trump supporters are racists, Nazis, KKK or unhinged bigots. It's that the rest of them don't have any problem with it.

      So, if I denounce the bad Trump supporters, will you vote for Trump now?

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    25. Re:Bubble boys and girls by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      So, if I denounce the bad Trump supporters, will you vote for Trump now?

      You are one of the bad Trump supporters, so no. I will only vote for Trump if all his supporters denounce Pepe the Frog.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    26. Re:Bubble boys and girls by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Why are all you Hillary supporters racist against frogs? #GreenLivesMatter #PepeDinduNuffin

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    27. Re:Bubble boys and girls by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Why are all you Hillary supporters racist against frogs?

      We're not. We completely support Kermit, because he is an SJW and a cuck.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    28. Re:Bubble boys and girls by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      We completely support Kermit, because he is an SJW and a cuck.

      Kermit's a cuck? That must mean Miss Piggy is getting it on with someone else. It's Rizzo the Rat isn't it. 'll bet it's Rizzo.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    29. Re:Bubble boys and girls by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      no YOU are making assumptions about people unfoundedly based on their opinion. thats mighty bigoted of you.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    30. Re:Bubble boys and girls by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Ordinarily I don't care about race mixing, but I've got to draw the line at frog/pig hybrids.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    31. Re:Bubble boys and girls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hokum. Sarkeesian took the money and ran. Nothing happened until after the situation blew up and people started calling her out, finding past posts of hers saying she hates videogames, etc.
      Then we got fed a cock and bull story about how it's taking a lot longer because the scope had changed, yadda yadda yadda, videos are coming later, etc.
      Then she pivoted into being a professional victim while bullying and attacking anyone who called her on her bullshit.
      Then the shit videos (and they are shit) finally started trickling out. Yes, videos eventually came out. But that was long after the whole fraudulent rigmarole.

      If someone rightfully accuses you of fraud for not having done the thing you paid them to do, you can't slap some shit together an eon after the accusation and say "See? I did it! STOP HARASSING ME!!".

    32. Re:Bubble boys and girls by NotInHere · · Score: 1

      No, but people who dox others and send lies to their employers in an attempt to get them fired are. Or at the very least, they should be considered that.

      Never disputed that. This behaviour is criminal in my eyes as well. But there is a difference between an online comment which voices disagreement with the feminist ideology and such a criminal action. Both get censored though out of the same reason.

    33. Re:Bubble boys and girls by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Kermit's a cuck? That must mean Miss Piggy is getting it on with someone else.

      Here is a screenshot from one of the many Miss Piggy/Kermit cuckold videos on pornhub.

      http://images.dailystar.co.uk/...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    34. Re:Bubble boys and girls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      story about the start of birther movement.

      Sounds like Clinton supporters started it. You wiling to take claim you are a racist because you and others like you who support Clinton are racist? OR now you have facts you realize that maybe it isn't the case.

      The claim is Clinton herself started the birther movement, I have yet to see it disproven. What is proven is Clinton supporters were the original ones passing it around in 2008 during the primaries, Clinton never told them to stop. If birther = racist, then Clinton = racist, and you = racist.

    35. Re:Bubble boys and girls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nationalism may not be racism, as such. But it IS bigotry, so at best it's a cousin of racism.

      Note that this is a separate thing from patriotism. Anyone who claims they're the same thing is gravely mistaken - or lying - about at least one of them.

    36. Re:Bubble boys and girls by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Oddly, though, those exact same people will have NO qualms, zero, none at all, to try to destroy their "opponents" mentally, financially and if at all possible physically.

      Yeah. Pretty much just like every person, family, tribe, group, clan, village, city, region, state, and nation in the world.

      We are all guilty of "cocooning" to some extent. Territoriality and fear of others goes way back in human lineage, apparently even before we split off from the chimps.

      Anyways, not disagreeing, not agreeing, just observing.

      #exit soapbox

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    37. Re:Bubble boys and girls by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Somebody mod this clown down.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    38. Re: Bubble boys and girls by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      ...

      Every generation talks this stupid shit about the one that follows it. Every generation is wrong. Your grandparents were full of shit when they said it about your parents, your parents were full of shit when they said it about you, and now you're the one who's full of shit. But I guess you can comfort yourself with the knowledge that the millenials will be full of just as much shit when they inevitably start whining about the [whatever cutesy name the next generation gets].

      Plato, is that you?

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    39. Re:Bubble boys and girls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Boys and girls (and attack helicopters), what you see here is an obfuscation trick by AmiMojo. It's an old persuasion trick, but it works on the unprepared.

      Instead of addressing the point that there are people who do downright criminal acts, AmiMojo obfuscates into silliness,and inject identity politics by naming various groups who might or might not be engaging in such acts. Instead of focusing on what a horrible problem that is and how we should address it, AmiMojo attempts to reframe the discussion to who is doing it, where people can play the blame game on which groups is more guilty of the act, and no actual discussion on solutions take place.

    40. Re:Bubble boys and girls by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      learn to reply to the right thread guy.... i dont support clinton

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    41. Re:Bubble boys and girls by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Sounds like Clinton supporters started it. You wiling to take claim you are a racist because you and others like you who support Clinton are racist? OR now you have facts you realize that maybe it isn't the case.

      I don't "support Clinton" and yes her 2008 campaign's birther stuff was racist.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    42. Re:Bubble boys and girls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation needed.

      Not that some people do the things you describe, but that they're "the exact same people" who are cocooned in the way the GP describes.

    43. Re:Bubble boys and girls by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's a shame Instagram is the only site in the internet. Wouldn't it be great if over site offered a nice warm towel room for posting your stupid selfies, and then another offered more rigourous debate. Then you could choose which one you wanted at any given time.

      Not everything has to be a Free Speech Warrior soapbox.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    44. Re:Bubble boys and girls by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I take it from your last statement that you consider someone disagreeing with you is on the same level as someone trying to dox you and get you fired. Did I get that right, yes?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    45. Re:Bubble boys and girls by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I would offer you an answer, but then again, why repeat what has already been said?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    46. Re:Bubble boys and girls by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I would offer you an answer,

      You mean an answer other than you being an outright liar or, generously that you were mistaken and didn't bother to find out the facts before repeating them. Face it: you claimed she grossly underdelivered. She has in fact over delivered. Your claims of fraud are lies.

      I note however that in not one of the answers you claim to have offered have you ever admitted that your claims were false, despite the facts being exceptionally plain.

      But suuurrre it's the evil SJWs who are evil, not honest upstanding liars like yourself.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    47. Re:Bubble boys and girls by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      No, that's insane. Where do you get these crazy ideas?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    48. Re:Bubble boys and girls by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      From the statement: "Maybe there are just asshats, and maybe for some people everyone who disagrees with them is an asshat. Or something."

      Considering that the first statement refers to people who dox others and try to ruin their lives and likening them to asshats, and the second statement stating that people consider others asshats that disagree with them. By applying A=B && A=C ==> B=C the logical conclusion is that either you equate them or that you postulate that such people exist. Since the second would be pretty much a non-sequitur considering that such a proposition has not been made yet, and I would assume that such a proposition would be made more directly, if this was the goal, my assumption is that the first application is to be used.

      Were you rather inferring that there are people who equate people who disagree with them to people who dox others and ruin their lives? If so, my question would be why you bring it up, I don't see the connection to the preceding discussion.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    49. Re:Bubble boys and girls by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      She delivered after people asked where the fuck the promised videos are. And not without asking for yet more money to make them.

      But hey, it ain't my money, and if you're happy what you got for your dough...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    50. Re:Bubble boys and girls by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I was being sarcastic. That's what the "or something" indicated. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    51. Re:Bubble boys and girls by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but Poe's Law is very strong in any discussion around that subject, there's far too many really, really insane creatures (on both sides of the fence) that an outlandish claim or demand could be identified easily as sarcasm or a joke...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    52. Re:Bubble boys and girls by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      No problem. I just get a bit fed up with people making ridiculous assumptions and can't always tell if they just genuinely didn't get the tone I was aiming for.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    53. Re:Bubble boys and girls by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      She delivered after people asked where the fuck the promised videos are

      So let me get this straight:

      So after a completely unexpected and scope changing event, a video series was a bit slow delivering for your liking even there was no promised schedule, ultimately overdelivered and is still continuing to deliver now and that is somehow fraudulent?

      ooookayyy.

      But hey, it ain't my money, and if you're happy what you got for your dough...

      Oh so you didn't fund it? That means you're getting outraged on behalf of a bunch of other people, none of whom actually appear care. That's... wow. Perpetual victim or what!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    54. Re:Bubble boys and girls by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Look, I ain't really affected by cryptolocker trojans or CEO mail fraud either, so that means I cannot think such actions are despicable?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    55. Re:Bubble boys and girls by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      so that means I cannot think such actions are despicable?

      So you're claiming that her overdelivering but a little bit later than you, a non funder, wanted is despicable? Even there was no schedule promised?

      You're being offended on behalf of a bunch of people who (unlike in your silly examples) don't care.

      Oh hey aren't you one of the people who claims SJW are perpetually offended? Does this mean you're an SJW? I think it might very well do!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    56. Re:Bubble boys and girls by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, I can't help but it really feels like you're trying to ride out this "offense" long after the horse has been shot and buried.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    57. Re:Bubble boys and girls by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      You've turned completely inconherent.

      LEt me set this out in plain terms:

      You lied about fraud.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    58. Re:Bubble boys and girls by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I am sorry, my English is probably not good enough, what's the correct term for collecting money, promising to deliver something, then only doing so after getting more money on top of that?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    59. Re:Bubble boys and girls by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      what's the correct term for collecting money, promising to deliver something, then only doing so after getting more money on top of that?

      What on earth are you talking about. She ran a kickstarter, got an ass load of funding, then delivered more than was promised.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    60. Re:Bubble boys and girls by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Then let's say the delay between the promise and the delivery with the rather suspicious lack of any kind of communication until delivery and that the delivery happened after a lot of people complained about the lack of delivery or communication does not look too good.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    61. Re:Bubble boys and girls by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Firstly, that's not fraud.

      Secondly, that's not a failure to deliver what she promised.

      Now be honest and retract the claims you made.

      blah blah I'm suspicious blah blah

      You know she actually made the videos right? At most you were suspicious. Then she delivered. Now you have no grounds to be suspicious.

      blah blah complaints blah

      Do you have a record of any of the backers actually complaining? I know a lot of misogynerds did, but I don't recall any backers actually doing so.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    62. Re:Bubble boys and girls by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      How is that any different than a site like slashdot where thin skinned idiots just moderate down politically incorrect opinions? For example I have been repeatedly moderated down for stating the simple, obvious fact that most Trump supporters are racists.

      Because your version of censorship means you can say what you want, but no one is allowed to disagree.

      Sorry, that isn't how it works at all. Your post is still there for everyone to read. If its at -1, well that just means a few people disagree.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  3. Well, Frack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And other substitute bad words that were used on TV before it became accepted.

    1. Re:Well, Frack by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Pretty much this.

      Humans have been quite inventive, during the ages, at coming up with substitutes for taboo words. It's still possible to insult someone as long as everyone involved knows what's meant. "You N-Word" will simply be the new racist slur, everyone knows what's meant, and as a "bonus" the racist even gets to mock the politically correctness.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Well, Frack by shortscruffydave · · Score: 1

      Indeed...bunch of over-sensitive melon farmers

    3. Re:Well, Frack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently /. won't link to imgur, but found the relevant Bloom County comic here.

    4. Re: Well, Frack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intellectually deprived noir epidermissed bundle of sticks = stupid nigger faggot.

    5. Re:Well, Frack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're remarkably aware of the inevitable futilities inherent to thought policing something fluid as culture...

      ...newfriend :^)

    6. Re:Well, Frack by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Censorship has been around in various forms.

      1. Ultima Online
      Origin Systems had a list of "bad word" which included "ass".
      Unfortunately, they had a bug -- they checked substrings instead of only checking whole words.
      So if you said the word "assassin" it got translated as "*****in*"

      Simple solution: use spaces or a separator such as dots.
      a.s.s.a.s.s.i.n.

      2. Steam censors the word "retarded" and replaces them with hearts.
      WTF.
      Again simple work-around:
      Steam censorship is r.e.t.a.r.d.e.d.

    7. Re:Well, Frack by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      I ran a game for a while that developed something of a meme with people saying they were kicking one of the other players. I don't think he cared, but over time it got kind of heavy and seemed a little aggressive, so I put in a snippet of code so that any time someone said "kicks playerx" it would say "hugs playerx". There were workarounds, of course, like the punctuation above, but the first few times someone new stumbled one it and caught themselves hugging instead of kicking, it was pretty funny. Eventually I changed it back, once enough people had gotten the point, and the meme sort of dried up.

    8. Re:Well, Frack by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, they had a bug -- they checked substrings instead of only checking whole words.

      Ah, the Scunthorpe effect.

      When substituting, it can lead to hilarious results, like Svaginahorpe, buttbuttination and leahomosexuale.
      Penis Vanlesbian is a clbuttic example.

    9. Re:Well, Frack by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Ah, so there is a name for that phenomena.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      LOL -- those are awesome examples BTW !

    10. Re:Well, Frack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could use the Puzzle Pirates method of changing "bad" words into something "pirate" Note that this game was aimed at being at least somewhat "safe for children".

      "OMG" became "Billions of blue blistering barnacles".
      "ass" -> "booty"
      "asshole" -> "barrelstopper"

      Use of such words could still be reported, should things get out of hand.

  4. Ah, "inappropriate" words... by argStyopa · · Score: 2

    ...like Niggardly? ...or Pussy (as in pusillanimous)?

    Because nobody's ever figured out how to get around filters before.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Ah, "inappropriate" words... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Just wait 'til crappy "inappropriate word" filters start hitting other languages. A certain popular fantasy MMO censored the word "König" (German for king) because of that evil combination of N, I and G.

      Could anyone see how this could lead to people having to turn OFF that crappy filter in a FANTASY game so they can sensibly play it or at least understand what the damn quests are about?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Ah, "inappropriate" words... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      context means nothing to these people, I am recently serving a week long ban on facebook for saying "faggot", referring to a bundle of sticks and a camp fire i was having, hell, i even explained the context so idiots wouldnt freak out but it didnt matter, week ban

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    3. Re:Ah, "inappropriate" words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That word no longer means bundle of sticks, it is now an insult towards homosxual men. Best to just stop using it, sad as that may be. If you are trying to recover the word that's admirable, but a lost cause at this point.

    4. Re:Ah, "inappropriate" words... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      it also means cigarette, words can and do have multiple meanings. just because it also means a homosexual person doesnt change that it also means other things

      same with "retarded" that term gets used alot in the garages around here for one example when doing timing on the engine. words are not bad things, they are not good things, they are just things used to convey a point. Context matters

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re:Ah, "inappropriate" words... by MrLint · · Score: 1

      How to fail at substring searches in 1 easy step.

    6. Re:Ah, "inappropriate" words... by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      If that were true, than people should stock censoring the word "Fucking", because it is never used to mean "having intercourse" any more and has basically become synonymous with "very much so".

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    7. Re:Ah, "inappropriate" words... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      To be fair, it is an anachronism.

      That ban is dumb, anyway.

    8. Re:Ah, "inappropriate" words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Mr Brain's Pork Faggots" are sold in every UK supermarket.

      Old advert for Mr Brain's Pork Faggots

      Wikipedia explains:

      Faggot

    9. Re:Ah, "inappropriate" words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like your logic. And since people have gotten around laws before, we should do away with all of them. Genius!

    10. Re:Ah, "inappropriate" words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always thought that it would be interesting to try and start a new meaning for a word /meme that was the name of a company. Something like facebook - a derogatory term for people with peanut allergies because their face swells to the point where they show up in medical books. Put it on urban dictionary and get a few blogs to use it in that context.

    11. Re: Ah, "inappropriate" words... by BlytheBowman · · Score: 1

      Funny, i can always get around filters by typing things like f uck, sh|t, c0ck, etc....

    12. Re:Ah, "inappropriate" words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That word no longer means bundle of sticks, it is now an insult towards homosxual men.

      Nah, it's an insult towards Harley riders.

      Gays against fags!

    13. Re: Ah, "inappropriate" words... by BlytheBowman · · Score: 1

      Whats intetesting is that real CURSE words like damn and hell are seen as mild and are routinely heard on broadcast tv in the US scince at least the 1970s, yet NON CURSE words like shit and fuck are seen as superbad and grounds to fine or pull the license of any OTA station caught broadcasting them Gotta love the warped puritanical senses of American culture (oh, boobs arebad, but violence, bloo, and gore is just fine)

    14. Re:Ah, "inappropriate" words... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2

      I remember one website that wouldn't let us talk about the Vice President, **** Cheny.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    15. Re: Ah, "inappropriate" words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. Let me guess, you're comment was along the lines of 'ha ha burning some faggots! Jk, it's a british idiom' like everybody doesn't fucking know that.

      The fact you put in a disclaimer is proof you knew the connotation of the word and chose it specifically because you thought it was funny. You intentionally provoked a reaction so you could cry victim. Fuck you.

    16. Re: Ah, "inappropriate" words... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      i was testing whether or not the filter facebook uses understands context. My comment was something along the lines of "im having a party tonight come on over and watch the faggot burn ,we got alot of sticks so it will be a huge burning faggot"

      i in no way am trying to play the victim, as i frankly dont care that much, but i learned that the facebook filter does not understand context

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    17. Re: Ah, "inappropriate" words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People on facebook don't understand context. Are you sure that somebody didn't report your comment?

    18. Re:Ah, "inappropriate" words... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Facebook is censoring now based on keywords?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    19. Re: Ah, "inappropriate" words... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      if it was reported id like to think that it would be reviewed by a person, who would in fact have gotten the context. i went out of my way to make sure the context was correct, it was a test after all

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    20. Re: Ah, "inappropriate" words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is why Blythe Bowman is such a pansy. "Oh no, someone hurt my wittle fewlings!" Blythe Bowman needs to grow the fuck up and realize the world is a nasty place, and you can't jump down a hidey-hole everytime American culture has warped puritanical views. I grew up in the 1980s, and I'm a cis-male hetero shitlord to boot! There are no "safe spaces" for people who dislike American puritanical mores.)

    21. Re: Ah, "inappropriate" words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ??? You realize he is agreeing that this censorship of curse words is dumb and ineffective right? I don't think he is campaigning for them to keep at it.

    22. Re: Ah, "inappropriate" words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking a boys, fucking a.

    23. Re:Ah, "inappropriate" words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen games with Assassin as a playable class, where the word would be censored for containing "Ass".

    24. Re: Ah, "inappropriate" words... by GodelEscherBlecch · · Score: 1

      The context in this case is that you used the word explicitly because you knew it would be interpreted in that way, so the filter and/or reviewer would in fact be correct. You are not British, and it is not a part of your standard lexicon. 'Context' involves the presence of subtlety, and there is none to be had here.

      Sailing right past the slur, really the most offensive part of this is just the fact that you thought it was somehow clever or funny. Oh no I get it, you were doing 'research'. I look forward to your thesis on the blatantly obvious effects of being an infantile twat online.

    25. Re: Ah, "inappropriate" words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Based on that, a bundle of sticks is smarter than you. Why would you expect no one to be offended by that? That's a very odd usage of the archaic word, very likely to offend someone. "Watch the faggot burn"... sure, that's not ever offensive if you include the right context.

      Reason you only got a week ban, is the context you used it in. I could easily see longer bans if you actually meant gay person.

    26. Re: Ah, "inappropriate" words... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you were being a plonker and got your ass banned for a week. The only people who use gait
      "Faggot" to refer to a bundle of sticks are those who are trying to make a stupid point about an insult to gay people. From the context it's abundantly clear you were trying to be a dickhead. And the human in the loop could tell.

      If you're going to use it in a context it's still used then have some faggots and gravy for dinner. And you smoke fags, not faggots.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    27. Re:Ah, "inappropriate" words... by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      ...like Niggardly? ...or Pussy (as in pusillanimous)?

      Because nobody's ever figured out how to get around filters before.

      A few years ago, a primary-school teacher was fired for using the word "niggardly", despite using it in its original, antediluvian context – while reading aloud a passage from a book!

      Oh, those pernicious books!

  5. don't bow down to communist gov blocks by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    don't bow down to communist gov blocks.

    1. Re:don't bow down to communist gov blocks by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      don't bow down to communist...

      Also, avoid fluoridation. I hear it's bad for you and your precious bodily fluid.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  6. Beware! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The hypersensitives seem to be encroaching on the internet at an ever-increasing rate.

    1. Re:Beware! by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      They're not just encroaching on the internet. They're encroaching on everything.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re: Beware! by BlytheBowman · · Score: 1

      You hurt my feelings! But if you pay me $1,000, I'll just pretend nothing happened

  7. Such a great addition! by Revarg · · Score: 1

    I would love to have it filter out all prepositions to see what it comes up with.

  8. in b4 a hundred "poor little angels" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look, you dumb bastards, humans have always chosen "safe spaces" in the sense that they have elected to join social groups that gel with them and exclude people who act in a way they consider to be cuntish.

    The Internet has simply given a global audience to things that previously were wayyyy more restricted in view / opportunity to give your thoughts.

    The ability to ignore others hasn't caught up with the ability for others to spew their boring crap. All that's happening is that this is being corrected for.

    (This is a little bit similar but not the same as the "safe space" thing in colleges, which is a rather different thing stemming from the fact that colleges used to be places for a liberal elite minority, but opening them up to a much wider proportion of the population has seen many different cultures throws into the melting pot - people again, people just still want their safe spaces. Unfortunately, the extremists at both ends are - as always - simultaneously the loudest and most unhelpful contributions to the debate.)

    1. Re:in b4 a hundred "poor little angels" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Choose your safe space and get lost. But leave me alone. I, and only I, should be the person deciding what I want to see and what I do not want to see. It's not your prerogative to tell me what I may or may not see, and sure as FUCK it ain't yours to say what I may or may not say!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:in b4 a hundred "poor little angels" by famebait · · Score: 1

      They are leaving you alone. Noone is forcing you to use instagram. If instagram wants to be a safe place for their chosen audience, that is their choice.
      It's a photo sharing service, for chrissakes. Not a debating forum central to the survival of democracy. Not a bullying-deathmatch server. Not your soapbox.
      If you don't like it, find or make one that does what you want.

      Your freedom of speech grants you the right to post what you like on _your_ site.
      Noone else is obliged to host your whiny rants, listen to them, respect them, or respect you.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    3. Re:in b4 a hundred "poor little angels" by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That's less of a concern, more Instagram is putting themselves into hot water if they start to policy speech on their site, they automatically forfeit any claim to being a common carrier.

      In a nutshell, once you start to censor, you have to continue.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:in b4 a hundred "poor little angels" by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Actually, you can still post your rantings on Instragram. But other people may choose to ignore your rantings.

      It's exactly like freedom of speech; you can say whatever you want, but you can't force me to listen to it.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    5. Re:in b4 a hundred "poor little angels" by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      I don't think most people will care if anyone wants to go off and create their own little space where they set the rules and can exclude those they do not wish to permit entry to and I expect that most people do this to some limited degree. The issue is when these people suddenly insist on their space being all-encompassing and wanting everyone to follow their rules, while not respecting the rules of anyone else. It's happened historically with religions, social groups, political movements, and many other areas.

      We're better off teaching people that it's better to face those things which they find disagreeable instead of blocking them out, and that even if something is found to be utterly detestable to tolerate it to the extent that basic civility is maintained.

    6. Re:in b4 a hundred "poor little angels" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1. Slashdot has such a tradition of misunderstanding what a common carrier is. Instagram don't have common carrier status and aren't about to lose it by "policing speech".

      2. This is individual users getting to hide certain messages based on their choice of free-input keywords, which is quite the opposite of a sitewide censorship policy.

      The problem with the "safe space" rhetoric is that it suggests some new concept rather than one that has existed since the dawn of private property. Think of a "safe space" as analogous to your ability to stop people from using your stereo amp to e.g. announce that your mother is a fat cunt while they're visiting your house, because that's all it is.

    7. Re:in b4 a hundred "poor little angels" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they automatically forfeit any claim to being a common carrier.

      In what way have they EVER, in ANY WAY, claimed to be - or been called by anybody - a "common carrier"? Do you understand what that term means?

      In fact, Instagram has never, ever, in its entire existence, claimed to be providing service to the general public without restriction or discrimination. In fact, their terms of service are HIGHLY discriminatory in terms of what "acceptable use" of their service entails, and plenty of people have been suspended or banned for the content of their photographs.

      In summary: You're a fucking idiot if you think that "common carrier" status is a driving factor in any decision Instagram, Facebook, and other social media sites make today, have ever made in the past, and will ever make in the future. They are not common carriers, they have never pretended to be common carriers, they have never been common carriers, and they have never expressed an interest in BEING common carriers. So as far as your censorship concerns go, I think they're pretty unconcerned.

  9. I don't really see an issue by sunking2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's instagram. The idea is for 99% of people to post garbage pictures of themselves for fun. It's not about learning some life lesson about dealing with a world full of anonymous assholes who now can say what they want without looking someone in the face to do so.

    1. Re:I don't really see an issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh, Slashdot, without the picture bit.

  10. Ah yes, user-selected hugboxes. . . by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

    . . . at no extra charge.

    Somebody explain to me, just when words, of and by themselves. became objectionable and people started claiming trauma for just SEEING them ?

    The Internet was SUPPOSED to bring free and unlimited communications and information to all. Instead, it's becoming a psychological minefield with individually-set DMZs.

    The Sweet Meteor of Death can't come soon enough. . .

    1. Re:Ah yes, user-selected hugboxes. . . by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      As long as it's individually set DMZs, I'm fine with this. What bothers me is that more and more some entitled little assholes think they may decide what everyone else may or may not see, and of course may or may not say.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Ah yes, user-selected hugboxes. . . by lxs · · Score: 1

      Wordfilters really do make a difference.

      When I say: "You're a fucking genius!" my comment will be flagged as bad.
      When I say: "Every night, your mother sells her services down by the docks" my good intentions are immediately clear.

    3. Re:Ah yes, user-selected hugboxes. . . by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      User-selected hugboxes

      I really don't see what the big deal is, and why so many people are up in arms over this? The user is able to filter words from their "feed" (or whateverthefuck Instagram uses) that they find objectionable. Maybe I just don't like word "bae", and I immediately discount the intelligence of someone that uses it. It's a free world, and I'm free to choose whether or not I want such ignorance in my world. Me blocking that word doesn't really affect anybody else in any way, does it?

    4. Re:Ah yes, user-selected hugboxes. . . by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      Wordfilters really do make a difference.

      What's the problem? Maybe I just don't like the word "fuck", and don't care to see it. Maybe I don't like the word "nigger" either. What's the problem if I want to block them from my news feed?

    5. Re:Ah yes, user-selected hugboxes. . . by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Blasphemy has been around for ages, and really it's the same concept. You can't say that for it has offended the great spirit. Does it really matter what the reason is for trying to control people's words and minds are when the result is the same?

    6. Re:Ah yes, user-selected hugboxes. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is it blocks the entire article, not just the word. But maybe that is ok for you. Maybe you feel that people using those words tells you that they personally are not worth listening to, but you will gladly listen to someone else saying the exact same thing, but without those words.

      Personally, I feel the same way about anyone using the -gate suffix. If you do that, you are telling me that you feel that your side cannot stand on its own merits, and thus I will not listen to your message. But I will gladly listen to other people from your side who refrain from using -gate.

      However, I would never use an automated blocking of anything with -gate, too many false-positives. For example, it'd block this post, even those it isn't talking about any particular issue.

    7. Re:Ah yes, user-selected hugboxes. . . by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      The Internet was SUPPOSED to bring free and unlimited communications and information to all.

      No, the internet was never intended to allow you to metaphorically shit all over someone's front lawn. If you want to spew crap, then do it on your own space. Don't expect everyone else to host you for free because you're too lazy to get your own space.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  11. What? That is not enough! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    It isn't enough that I can decide what I can see, I want to decide what everyone can see! *TANTRUM*

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:What? That is not enough! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 0

      I can't help feeling that the reason you object to people having control over their own feed is that you keep getting blocked for acting like an idiot.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:What? That is not enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, now show us where anybody's argued that this system should be a way for everyone to control everyone else's feeds, or admit that you're combining reductio ad absurdam, a strawman, and a red herring, to make yourself look like a vapid cunt, you shit-stained taint scabie.

      For somebody who wants to be seen as a strong proponent of free speech, you seem to have a hard time with reading comprehension.

    3. Re:What? That is not enough! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If people stop at wanting control over their own feed, I have exactly zero problem with it, quite the opposite, I would pretty much expect such a feature to exist. Freedom of speech does not include the right to demand being listened to.

      I might not want to hear you call me an asshole, but I do want you to be able to call me one, so others can decide whether you're right or whether you're the asshole. And I do expect them to have the right to make that decision and voice their opinion.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:What? That is not enough! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Let me bookmark this and let's get back to it in a few weeks, shall we?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:What? That is not enough! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Then what on earth are you so worked up about? This entire article is about people filtering their own feeds. Did you mis read the article or are you just working yourself up into some sort of moral panic again because not everyone seems to agree that being an asshat online is the same as exchanging opinions.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:What? That is not enough! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'll get back to you in a month or two, give it time.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  12. Day to day by BringsApples · · Score: 1

    I don't use twitter, but I'm sitting here trying to imagine some words that I'd never want to read, and I can't think of any. Maybe today I'm not feeling like hearing "Donald Trump" or "Hillary Clinton" or "Politics", but then maybe tomorrow I will want to hear a bit.

    I know there are words that others find vulgar or offensive, but I don't care about words, I care about ideas. And how the hell do you filter out ideas? For an example, I don't care about any of these words: "I can't wait to shred your daughter's vagina", but when put in that order, I do. Another example: "Black lives matter".

    Or are other people's lives so simple that they merely excluding certain words makes the pain go away? I'm interested to know which words people find, under all circumstances, offensive.

    --
    Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    1. Re:Day to day by Buchenskjoll · · Score: 1

      I don't use twitter...

      Nice post on an article about Instagram.

      --
      -- Make America hate again!
    2. Re:Day to day by laie_techie · · Score: 1

      I know there are words that others find vulgar or offensive, but I don't care about words, I care about ideas. And how the hell do you filter out ideas? For an example, I don't care about any of these words: "I can't wait to shred your daughter's vagina", but when put in that order, I do. Another example: "Black lives matter".

      What gets me is that most swears have legitimate uses, but I don't want to be bombarded by gratuitous vulgarities. I doubt a computer would ever be smart enough to block what I find offensive without a ton of false positives. Sometimes someone is so emotionally charged that only a vulgarity conveys all that emotion, but I dislike vulgarity to compensate for a small vocabulary.

      Or are other people's lives so simple that they merely excluding certain words makes the pain go away? I'm interested to know which words people find, under all circumstances, offensive.

      I find the F-bomb offensive, but if I mentally filter it out if it's not used with abandon. I've walked out of movies for hearing the F-bomb 10 times in the first 5 minutes. Even more offensive to me is to hear people profane the name of Deity, but computers will never be smart enough to parse context.

    3. Re:Day to day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most swears have legitimate uses

      Name some

    4. Re:Day to day by laie_techie · · Score: 1

      most swears have legitimate uses

      Name some

      Hell refers to the abode of the dead. Damn means condemn. Bush is a similar to a shrub.

    5. Re:Day to day by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      Thanks for correcting.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    6. Re:Day to day by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      All of these. If they have no use, then they'd never have been invented.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
  13. It is still free by aepervius · · Score: 1

    It is not a government imposed censure, but a company which decided on their private turf to censure it (as an aside I think personally that that argument misses that some speech will be censored by most if not all private company and the effect is as good as government censorship).

    In the very end this is a private entity which can do whatever on their turf, including censoring swear word, sex stuff, certain political parties, or heck any instagram not starting by a vowel.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:It is still free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not a government imposed censure, but a company which decided on their private turf to censure it (as an aside I think personally that that argument misses that some speech will be censored by most if not all private company and the effect is as good as government censorship).

      As another aside, I think personally that mentioning that government censorship and private censorship are two different things, when no one was claiming a 1st Amendment violation, misses that the concept of free speech exists separately from the 1st Amendment.

    2. Re:It is still free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah good, the plan to require companies to censor people for us is working!

      -- the government.

  14. Muh feelings by cosm · · Score: 1

    ****triggered****

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
  15. I'm pussytive by Buchenskjoll · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can compile my own dicktionary. Please cuntinue the good work.

    --
    -- Make America hate again!
    1. Re:I'm pussytive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can compile my own dicktionary. Please cuntinue the good work.

      Twat? I cunt quite hear you.

  16. Icon? by acoustix · · Score: 1

    Why does this censorship article use the censorship icon, while the previous Facebook censorship article uses the facebook icon? Why not use the censorship icon for both?

    --
    "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
  17. Nice feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's nice, now we can comment on and discuss people's images in private among ourselves, without them seeing our comments.
    All we need to find out is what offends them.

  18. I'm all for this concept by GatorSnake · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While I am in the camp of those who would never filter out anything, I am not offended easily, I see this as the best possible solution to let those who find certain words or concepts "offensive" to opt out and stop trying to force their values on the rest of us. Putting the onus on the individual rather than the company to decide what she/he sees has to be the way forward if we are going to protect freedom of expression.

    While I agree this may cause "bubble" syndrome and allow for self-imposed isolation of various groups from each other, I think it could also provide some interesting life lessons. Think of a person who does a heavy self-censor without realizing the consequences, then hearing from friends that she missed out on a fun post because of it. Might cause people to start to question why they don't want to hear certain things or think certain thoughts.

    I can see the next big celebrity/athlete protest of intentionally using hashtags of broadly censored words just to draw attention to the fact that people shouldn't hide from realities they may disagree with or find scary.

  19. Amusing reactions by Cruciform · · Score: 1

    The same people that will get up in arms about their "freedom of speech" to show up and call someone faggot/nigger/etc will also get up in arms about other people's freedom to ignore them.

    If you show up at someone's house and shit on their rug, they're not infringing on your freedom if they start locking the door.

    1. Re: Amusing reactions by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      The whole thing is stupid. Someone posts nasty stuff in response to you, you don't see it but everyone else does and since you left it there,looks like tacit approval. And you can't delete what you can't even see. Trolls are going to just love this

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  20. No critisism by Trenjeska · · Score: 1

    A world without critisism is a world without meaning.

    1. Re: No critisism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't even write "criticism" right and we should hear your platitudes? Go back to school, kid, and learn that the world is more complex than your kindergarten view.

    2. Re: No critisism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your reading comprehension is worse than his spelling, so feel free to take your own advice.

  21. Neither news nor censorship by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    The summary says that the tool doesn't prevent the posts from being made, it just prevents the user who started the discussion from seeing them. It's no different from a user-adjustable spam filter, really.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  22. Re:Uh-oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quite the contrary. See my other reply a bit further down ("Nice feature").

  23. If you ask me by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    This idea is ing stupid.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  24. kardashian! and by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for starters block.
    kardashian, west, jenner, swift, spears, grande and.......

    1. Re:kardashian! and by Atrox+Canis · · Score: 1

      for starters block.
      kardashian, west, jenner, swift, spears, grande and.......

      Don't forget to add "Anonymous Coward" to the list.

      --
      Charter Member of The Committee Group For The Elimination And Eradication Of Repetitive Redundancy
  25. onde esse merdinha do kiko troca de carro? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    essa merdinha da helena não quero nem pelada na minha frente.

  26. Slashdot by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 2
    If we do this for slashdot, I expect the flameword list to contain the following words within an hour:
    • Microsoft
    • Apple
    • Republican
    • Democrat
    • Climate change
    • Systemd
    • IoT
    • cow
    • moo

    I think it would get very quiet here...

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    1. Re:Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      goatse
      Yoda
      apps!!
      hostfile

    2. Re:Slashdot by crtreece · · Score: 1
      vim

      emacs

      --
      file: .signature not found
    3. Re:Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      apps
      hosts

    4. Re:Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So GNAA, nigger and goatse are allowed?

    5. Re:Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least we'll always agree on hot grits

  27. Feminazi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like you're describing a feminazi.... the distorted version of feminism (pride in your female gender) that's blames every failing on men (a despising the opposite gender), usually with a lot of hitting and screaming. One is a positive trait, the other is a negative one.

    The word pretty much sums up the issue with its contraction of feminism and nazi. Is is the meaning that's a problem or the word itself? Is it (the word 'feminazi') a magic spell that I am casting or is it an unpleasant truth that some people disagree with?

    Because here they're banning words, not banning meaning. As though words ARE meaning not describe meaning.

    Perhaps people who say things, so get a thicker skin, and perhaps the way they get a thicker skin is to get a few insults thrown at them and learn to shake it off.

  28. I couldn't give a fuck what those cunts do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    at Instagram.

  29. Censorship Running Amok! by Zurkeyon3733 · · Score: 0

    Censorship is running wild across the Earth... Those participating in it, are PC Control Freak, ANTI-Freedom, NAZIS! If your "Poor Wittle Feewings" get hurt by some stuff some jacka$$ typed on the internet about you, and want to /wrists... DO IT! Don't Hesitate! :-D F-u-c-k Censorship!

  30. Re:Uh-oh by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Now how do I know that's your reply? You could just be saying that it's yours while you're really complaining that allowing Instagram to filter is another example of the SJWs being out of control.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  31. A change welcomed throughout the land... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...from Scunthorpe to Penistone, and Arsenal to Cockfosters...

  32. So much for the 'age of information' by kheldan · · Score: 1

    Welcome, citizens, to the Age of Mass Censorship! Are you triggered constantly by rude, boorish people on the Internet who post rude, boorish things about politics, race, and religion? Does getting all stirred up and being so thoughtlessly yanked out of your comfort zone just plain ruin your endlessly happy, unnaturally positive, SSRI-induced mood? Is hearing about people all over the world and just down the street from you being oppressed, harassed, beaten, cheated, and killed just too much of a downer for you, and curdle the milk in your tea? Well fear not, citizens, now you can just block out all that nasty thought-provoking content with the click of a mouse button! Imagine the serenity of never having to deal with the Real World ever again! Refugees? Deleted! Protestors? Deleted! Terrorism? Deleted! Mass shootings? Deleted! Race-related police shootings? Deleted! Oppressive regimes bombing their own citizens? Deleted! Injustice in your own back yard? Deleted!

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  33. Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck that

  34. Good bye free speech; nice knowing ya. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good bye free speech; nice knowing ya.

  35. Motherfucker, PLEASE ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whatever happened to people who had the courage to deal with the world as it IS ?

    Of course instagram, Twitter, and Facebook are all used by idiots, so I reckon
    it all makes sense in a sort of twisted and ironic way.

  36. Slashdot needs that too by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    Kill files based on keywords and users would be a boon. It's not so much about being "offended", it's more about killing a lot of crap.

    1. Re:Slashdot needs that too by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      Kill files based on keywords and users would be a boon. It's not so much about being "offended", it's more about killing a lot of crap.

      This. I want to kill file , for starters, any mention of Trump, Clinton, anyone associated however remotely with the Kardumassians, football, and celebrity gossip.

  37. A happy medium by inhuman_4 · · Score: 1

    I'm fine with this. The idea of freedom of speech is about allowing people say what they think, even if it is unpopular. However, there is no mandate that people have to listen to you. Creating tools to help people filter out speech they aren't interested in hearing in such a way that it only affects the listener is a great idea. If some people want live in their own little bubble /safe-space let them, it doesn't hurt anyone else. This is a much better solution than other sites (cough twitter cough) use that would remove the post altogether. A mechanism we've seen abused again and again to stifle speech that is unpopular.

    1. Re:A happy medium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only problem is what happens when that user, who is so used to his safe space bubble, attempts to leave that bubble for new territory and expects the new place to be as accommodating? We either see:

      1. His demands are not given into because he's being a whiny bitch who needs to learn to grow some thicker skin and the rest of the world doesn't owe him a safe space
      2. His demands are given into and the rest of the users end up bearing the burden of more policed speech because their rights end where his feelings begin

      Sadly, we see far too much of the latter, and it will pave the way for more comprehensive censorship.

  38. Feeling safe to be myself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if being critical and harassing others is what makes me feel safe to be myself? /s

  39. A clbuttic mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is a clbuttic mistake that a lot of people buttume will improve things, but when the people from Slabiamajorishorpe, England try to use their service, things tend to go haywire. And heaven help you if you play a buttbuttin in a game and get asked to buttbuttinate your target.

    1. Re:A clbuttic mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That looks like something Chuck Tingle might include in his next book. "Buttbuttinated by My Text Filter"

  40. It worked for Dan Savage. Just ask Rick Santorum.. by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1
    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  41. Priveledge by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1
    Probably white as well.

    This tool will allow them to create their own little universe without having to eject or muzzle the meanies who insist on saying things they don't like.

    But more importantly, I'm betting John has never been threatened with and felt the very real fear of rape and murder for the crime of being a woman on the Internet.

  42. No different to Usenet kill files by mccalli · · Score: 1

    This doesn't look much different to business as usual to me - can't see where the outrage is coming from.

    Honestly, this looks no different to Usenet kill files, which I personally have been (lightly) using for around twenty-five years. On Reddit I've also got a fairly extensive kill file-alike set up, via RES and the Alien Blue app. Really don't see the issue in them introducing this, sounds more like a nice-to-have feature that some people will use, some people won't.

  43. Muwahahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FTFA:

    Referred to as a "keyword moderation tool," the feature will let each user type in words they find to be offensive, effectively hiding any mention of them in the comment section of their posts.

    The comments containing the harsh language will still be available for other Instagram users

    A few thoughts.

    First, Instagram wants a list of each users "triggers", presumably for marketing purposes. They want to know how to avoid offending the user, but also want to know how to provoke the user. This seems dangerous.

    Second, Imagine a word so offensive you feel it should never be used. Words like "nigger" or "faggot" are commonly held in this regard. In order to tell Instagram you don't want to see $TRIGGER in any comments, you first have to send the $TRIGGER to Instagram. The user is required to explicitly invoke the terms he never wants to see, hear, or use.

    And in the end, they're not going to block users from using $TRIGGER in comments on your photos. They will just block you from seeing the comment, forcing anyone who wants to call you $TRIGGER to do so behind your back. Everyone will know who called you a $TRIGGER, except for you.

    Will the user still see sub-comments, or will it censor the whole thread? Will Joe User see comments like "What a vile and contemptuous thing to say about Joe User! What did he ever do to you?" without knowing what they're talking about?

    What happens if you use $TRIGGER in your own comments? Will it hide your own words from yourself? Will it de-list $TRIGGER?

    However, in spite of these concerns, I recognize the need for something like this. Personally, I use Facebook, but always with FBPurity. I make use of its filtering feature to censor terms like "buzzfeed.com" and "game of thrones" from my news feed because I don't want to see clickbait or spoilers. I don't think users should be blocked from spreading clickbait or talking about GoT, I just don't want to see it. I have recently added "kaepernick" and "pipeline" to my blocked terms list. While I think these are important issues which merit spirited discussion, I've grown tired of reading all the vitriolic, uninformed bullshit that FB users have to say about them.

  44. assholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    shit piss fuck cunt

  45. Right to ignore by jeoin · · Score: 1

    I believe this is a fundamental Internet right and that it should extend to Web pages and advertising and products as well

    We should be able to share our block list with each other. This is how markets work, with our focus and attention as currency

    --
    Jeoin
  46. Emojis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if I used Instagram, I'd be able to block anything with emojis? Cool. No more vapid bullshit from women and children.

  47. #Skate4 by kmg90 · · Score: 1

    Will be the first thing the people at EA will type into the the tool.

  48. What is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... "keyword moderation tool" ...

    Who decides what is offensive? In 2012, the DHS released a "trigger" words list for identifying 'dangerous' people. The list didn't contain the words, 'gun', 'pistol', 'revolver', 'knife' or 'kill' but did include words that detected when the DHS was being criticized.

    We don't need to stop people calling you a slut or misogynist. We do need to stop people promising to kill or rape you, or even identifying your workplace and home address. Censorship doesn't achieve this.

  49. Language Evolves. by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

    Language evolves. Those internet keyword-searching algorithms will be out-of date within hours of a new version being published.

    Fsck, how do "educated" people remain so gullible?

  50. triggered by Veritas1980 · · Score: 0

    Can I filter out anything with the word "triggered" in it so I don't have to look at all the stupidity?

  51. Racist! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the hell do middle easterners have to do with this? You'll use any subject to criticize Muslims, won't you?

  52. Go USA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if the German gov knows that here in America Konig wheels are a favorite amongst minority compact car enthusiasts?

  53. Twat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Twat did you say? I cunt hear you! I have a ear infucktion. Tits ok. The Dicktor said everything would cum out fine. He gave me peniscillan....