Re:Are popular toxicity models simply profanity detectors?
by OJFord on Tuesday January 25, 2022 @07:23AM
(#30070987)
I'm not sure if it's an example (surely it's used in AmE too?) but in a spectacularly dumb one, I felt, Amazon recently discarded (completely! no possibility to edit it!) my lengthy & detailed & photograph-laden review, because I commented on the quality of the 'knob'.
Re:Are popular toxicity models simply profanity detectors?
by gs17 on Tuesday January 25, 2022 @09:58AM
(#30072452)
Yes, in American English we have non-genital knobs as well. Very bizarre they would take down a review for that.
Re:Are popular toxicity models simply profanity detectors?
by OJFord on Tuesday January 25, 2022 @11:41AM
(#30073972)
Didn't even accept it in the first place. I would have reworded it happily of course - but it really annoyed me and put me off ever bothering to review anything that it just completely destroyed it; I could start again from scratch but all my effort was wasted so just abandoned it at that point.
Re:Are popular toxicity models simply profanity detectors?
by xdennis on Tuesday January 25, 2022 @07:42AM
(#30071131)
Apparently it's been renamed "spotted richard" in parliament[1].
[1]: https://news.sky.com/story/spotted-dick-renamed-spotted-rich...
Another example: faggots are a traditional meatball dish from parts of England and Wales-the term has nothing to do with anyone’s sexuality. And yet, American social media companies have repeatedly blocked British users for posting about the dish.
There is also a British pudding called “spotted dick” - in this context, “dick” is a dialectical term for “pudding”, no known connection with genitalia.
A friend of my wife recently had her Facebook account restricted for making a post about cooking jerk chicken for dinner. Facebook claimed she was using “abusive language”