devtrackers.gg
I don’t get how the word “Epstein” can be censored on here but “I throw rocks at fat chicks” can be somebody’s rocket id. Any ideas?
External link →I don’t get how the word “Epstein” can be censored on here but “I throw rocks at fat chicks” can be somebody’s rocket id. Any ideas?
External link →So is "Karen" I tried saying "respect the drip Karen" in game the other day and it was censored for some reason.
Depending on where you messaged this, we won't have any influence over the filtering. If this was in Party Chat, it looks like it shouldn't be filtered at all as neither "Karen" nor "respect the drip Karen" bring up any flags.
We have seen that Epstein has been used in various inappropriate cases, and that usage heavily leans toward content that should be filtered. Because of this and recent events, we decided to use preventative measures to keep players from abusing "Epstein."
You guys are censoring names now? Okay.
We have been filtering usernames, among other text, for over a year.
I’m aware of that, and of all of the strange behavior it’s experienced since then (I’m sure you guys use some sort of open source filtering system), but I don’t remember any cases where you intentionally filtered a last name, regardless of the current drama. I mean, if you’re going to censor “Epstein” then you might as well censor other last names that could offend people and be used inappropriately for whatever reason, like “Trump” or “Clinton” or whoever else is a source of drama in the world.
Sources of drama like those do not match nearly the same level as child prostitution, and from what we have analyzed, filtering "Epstein" is a calculated decision to prevent further obscenities.
We take these instances on a case-by-case basis and each decision is taken very seriously.
I’m pretty sure that people commonly associate the names I listed with things like murder and rape, amongst other things, and I listed them in this case specifically because of their friendly relationship with Epstein. But that second part is irrelevant. The point is that people are supposedly using the name inappropriately, which can be said of these other names as well. Are you censoring the name because of what the guy did? No. And you know that it would be overstepping to censor common names because of what one person did. You’re censoring it because of how people are using his name. So, your argument doesn’t actually make sense. And suddenly you’re asking to put all of the world’s sins on a scale that you can be judge and juror for. Either way, you’re censoring a last name because of what people are potentially saying with it rather than punishing contextually? Well, then... you should really get your argument straight.
You're making a lot of conjecture without seeing data, and really that's the best you can do so I don't blame you for that. The context is taken care of in many cases but I won't go and say that our usage of natural language processing is perfect; it will never be perfect. When keeping the context in mind, we look at many different levels of risk with topics like radicalization, child grooming, vulgarity, sexual content, etc. So yeah context is definitely part of the mix, and none of this is black and white which also means that current events are taken into consideration.