Originally posted by ytzi13
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.
devtrackers.gg
