Haven't seen anythng about one but, is there any sort of prohibited word list option on Groups.io that can be set up and turned on? Something that could maybe be set to automatically edit curse words to an ersatz word.

Just wondering since such an option could be useful to have on any groups where youngsters may visit.

Paul M.
CostaRicaLiving
/g/CostaRicaLiving
==

开云体育

--

---

/g/GroupManagersForum/wiki

/static/help
More help: use the search button at the top of the Messages list.

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 06:26 PM, Epicatt2 wrote:

Just wondering since such an option could be useful to have on any groups where youngsters may visit.

In a way the option does already exist, and it's called a Moderator.

In a (mainly?) moderated group a moderator can and must stop any inappropriate material in its tracks and prevent it ever reaching other members either via the web UI or by email, and IMHO "stopping" means rejecting the message out of hand, not sanitising it. The rejection should (must?) include a clear message back to the originator stating in no uncertain terms why the message was rejected, with an unambiguous warning that any attempt to repeat the sending of unacceptable content will result in removal from the group.

If a group is unmoderated (or the member concerned is unmoderated) then putting them on moderation has to be the first step. Again IMHO having an entire group, or just some members unmoderated does not absolve an owner or moderator from the responsibility of ensuring that members are behaving themselves and that the group is being properly run. Once the individual is on moderation then the "rule" in the paragraph above can apply.

Bear in mind the Terms of Service that Frances linked.? I don't think an owner of moderator can or should try to weasel their way out of trouble by saying "it's nothing to do with me" or some variant thereof. I suspect that if Groups.io (i.e. Mark) realised that any given group was allowing material that was verboten to appear he would be within his rights to simply close it down.

Owners and Moderators must consider the possible impact of their failing to perform due diligence on a group and its members. Do you really want to compromise an entire group by overlooking unacceptable behaviour on the part of a single member, or a small group of members?

Chris

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 05:10 PM, Chris Jones wrote:

Do you really want to compromise an entire group by overlooking unacceptable behaviour on the part of a single member, or a small group of members?

I doubt that anyone wants this.? ?That being said, on really high traffic groups that are unmoderated (and my that I mean that they're not reviewed on a message by message basis like this one is) it is very easy for something to slip through.

Elsewhere where I am a moderator there is both a "spambot" that scans for spam, and where phrases can be added, and I think that already exists in some form here when I look at the activity log on the groups I moderate here and the lack of spam.? In addition, though, there is a "nasty word" filter that every message is passed through and that sanitizes same which, while convenient, I really don't support because what the person who set it up considers "nasty" is far more restrictive than what I think should be allowed in discussions among adults.

As to the old, "But what about the children?!!," plaint, my response is, "But where are the parents who should be carefully monitoring the amount of time their child(ren) can spend online and exactly what they've been looking at and are allowed to look at."? ?Yes, it's a pain to do, but raising children involves all sorts of things that are pains to do.

I also think it's laughable what many people sincerely believe children have never heard.? I can tell you that even in the 1970s I heard language used on the school bus that never exited the lips of my parents, and the fact that it didn't exit their lips told me all I needed to know about it's appropriateness in mixed company.? I think I can count on less than two hands the times I ever heard my father utter the F-word, and it was usually in response to an injury such as hitting a finger with a hammer (and where it's entirely appropriate, in my opinion.? No one said it better than Mark Twain:? "Under certain circumstances, urgent circumstances, desperate circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer.")

None of the above is meant, nor should be taken as, an attempt to justify gratuitous profanity on public forms (or elsewhere, for that matter).
?
--
Brian

? ?Some questions don't have answers, which is a terribly difficult lesson to learn.

? ? ? ? ? ?~ Katharine Graham

On 7 Jun 2019 at 14:47, Brian Vogel wrote:

Elsewhere where I am a moderator there is both a "spambot" that scans for spam,
and where phrases can be added, and I think that already exists in some form
here when I look at the activity log on the groups I moderate here and the lack
of spam.? In addition, though, there is a "nasty word" filter that every
message is passed through and that sanitizes same which, while convenient, I
really don't support because what the person who set it up considers "nasty" is
far more restrictive than what I think should be allowed in discussions among
adults.

I agree 100% with you on everything you said in this message Brian. If I were
setting up such a file of "bad" words it would be completely empty. I don't
believe there are such things as bad words, just bad use of words, and you
would need a very good AI system to weed that out.

As to the old, "But what about the children?!!," plaint, my response is, "But
where are the parents who should be carefully monitoring the amount of time
their child(ren) can spend online and exactly what they've been looking at and
are allowed to look at."? ?Yes, it's a pain to do, but raising children
involves all sorts of things that are pains to do.

If the children are properly educated they will have been taught what use of
words is unacceptable and why, so censorship of that kind is then irrelevant.
As you say, it's up to the parents to take responsibility for such things, not
to expect software to do it for them. Monitoring of everything they see
on-line, though, is not possible these days, because parents have no control
over what they might be shown on other children's phones when in school or
playing together.

Jim--
- My thoughts on freedom (needs updating)
- political snippets, especially economic policy
- misc. snippets, some political, some not
Forget Google! I search with which doesn't spy on you

Just a point - the originator of the thread thought that it could optional and turned on by the group owner if necessary. I do agree that there are problems with such a list - could be too strict. But I can see that it might be useful for an unmoderated group that attracts an audience that would be offended by some language.

Frances
--

---

/g/GroupManagersForum/wiki

/static/help
More help: use the search button at the top of the Messages list.

On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 03:22 PM, Brian Vogel wrote:

That being said, on really high traffic groups that are unmoderated (and my that I mean that they're not reviewed on a message by message basis like this one is) it is very easy for something to slip through.

That is certainly true, but while not commenting on whether a Profanity Stopper might or might not be useful or practicable, and accepting that responsibility for what children can see is in the first instance down to parents, I still don't think that group owners and moderators can slope shoulders and deny any responsibility for maintaining proper conduct of their group's members; while they won't be able to stop individuals originating inappropriate material they are in a postion to do something about it, even if that something has to be after something nasty has been sent out and either spotted by themselves or on the basis of a complaint from another member or several.

It is worth remembering that "profanity" is but one of a number of things that are not allowed under the Terms of Service, and as yet no AI is going to stop them!

At the risk of repeating myself from my previous post IMHO owners and moderators have to be the first line of defence against inappropriate material being posted, and that must apply even on unmoderated groups.

Chris

It is worth remembering that "profanity" is but one of a number of things that are not allowed under the Terms of Service, and as yet no AI is going to stop them!

Even profanity can't be completely stopped by blacklists and the like, in part because different people legitimately have a different sense of what profane is. I was once in the baggage claim of BMI and speaking to my wife said, "What the hell..." and a nearby woman said, "Excuse you." Apparently, that was sufficient to offend her. I'm personally at the other extreme: no words are profane to me. People can hurt each other perfectly well without profanity and not hurt people when using them. Intent, not verbiage, matters to me. And there is no blacklist in the world that can filter on intent.

Best,

Glenn

On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 10:03 AM, Glenn Glazer wrote:

Even profanity can't be completely stopped by blacklists and the like, in part because different people legitimately have a different sense

And one persons 'profanity' is anothers name__? refer .

The answer is no. And 'moderation is the answer. Intervention and education is a form of control.
Given admin/ Mods/ owners do nothing but complain about their members activities- removing the offending terms from the site is also a requirement.
cheers
davew

Paul M,

Haven't seen anythng about one but, is there any sort of prohibited
word list option on Groups.io that can be set up and turned on?

Nope. But I think there have been suggestions along those lines.

Something that could maybe be set to automatically edit curse words to
an ersatz word.

I think the suggestion was more along the line of causing those messages to be automatically held for moderation (in an unmoderated group, or where otherwise the message would not have required moderation). That way the group moderators can decide whether the usage is appropriate or not; and if not what to do about it.

Shal




--
Help: /static/help
More Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Even More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list

Thanx to all who replied to my original question. Those replying have offered some sensible and varied suggestions which were useful points of view for me to consider.

Even so it seems to me that an optional profanity filter which would be editable based upon one's group and it's thrust could still be useful. That of course presumes that a group's moderating team well understands both their group's intent and its membership.

I'm sure not everyone will agree with me here, but that's what makes for diversity.

Much Appreciated!

Paul M.
CostaRicaLiving
/g/CostaRicaLiving
==

On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 12:19 PM, Epicatt2 wrote:

Even so it seems to me that an optional profanity filter which would be editable based upon one's group and it's thrust could still be useful.

I doubt that anyone could argue this.? Optional being the key word, and editable based upon the standards of a given venue.

Those who want it can use it, and those who don't, don't have to.
?
--
Brian

? ?Some questions don't have answers, which is a terribly difficult lesson to learn.

? ? ? ? ? ?~ Katharine Graham

On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 05:19 PM, Epicatt2 wrote:

I'm sure not everyone will agree with me here, but that's what makes for diversity.

Well I don't for one, not least because on an intellectual level it can be argued that a society that includes boy racers, road ragers, graffiti artists, muggers, internet trolls and so on is "better" because without them that society would be less diverse.

Chris