(The substring part of it, not the locale-sensitive part.)

Perhaps because english is all it matters to them. Who in Europe, for example, even cares if a forum or chat has some swear words in his language?

We might be even more pissed off that we can't swear and leave the service, rather than complain about it.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x98y4u_eminem-interview-on-...

It's at 2:30 where he talks about it. And swears a "little".

When I watch Misfits (UK show) they say some things that I never hear on American shows. It only happens on shows that are after the watershed[1] though. Before then I don't know which parts are censored.

It always amuses me a little how Americans seem to be more strict than the Europeans for media censoring.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watershed_(television)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uxAofXJCh8

There's a blog post on it here: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/michkap/archive/2010/12/04/10100294....

As a result, the father of one of her students was unable to receive emails from her at his work address, due to their filters.

I'm not really sure how (or if) they solved that problem.

Maybe someone should ask Dan if we can stick them in plain text somewhere easily accessible for future projects to reference. I know we don't really need to ask, but it's polite.

We could then let the moderators of certain subreddits, or 4chan, have commit access to add new, creative terms of profanity!

I think this would be a humorous list to have around, if only to find out what people are being offended by these days. I have a feeling that, for every term, phrase or word you care to quote, there'll be someone who's offended by it.

Which brings me to the point that there has been a fair bit of debate over the use of profanity filters (a few good links at http://stackoverflow.com/questions/273516/how-do-you-impleme...) and how effective they are. One of the references in the link above is for a 14yo circumventing a profanity filter (based on a white-list) with the phrase "I want to stick my long-necked Giraffe up your fluffy white bunny."

I run a slang dictionary website where visitors can score how offensive they find the terms. The 100 most offensive are listed here:

http://onlineslangdictionary.com/lists/most-vulgar-words/

It's not multilingual and not open source, but it does capture some of the "state of the art" of dirty words.

Also, hope it's not a sore point, but are Google still being unreasonable about the citations on your site? If so, is there anyone from Google reading this that can have a look into this for him? It seems a bit unfair (to say the least) that a dictionary is penalized for citing sources, surely that's just responsible editorial! (Link with some info if you're interested http://onlineslangdictionary.com/pages/google-panda-penalty/)

Thanks!

Are you sure you wouldn't consider providing an updated 'top 100' list as a service to anyone who felt they could use them in some hitherto-unknown way?

I'd absolutely love to. But with Google penalizing the site for the majority of the past 2 years, I've become extra-sensitive about content on my site being available anywhere else on the web. In another world, I'd be ecstatic any time I came across material sourced from the site. But as it stands, I've given some thought to filing my first DMCA requests - thus becoming part of that chilling effect that gave chillingeffects.org its name.

I have put the data to some good use. http://www.offensivest.com/books/ ranks English works in the Project Gutenberg corpus by vulgarity. The site desperately needs some TLC: at the least, tweaks to the methodology and a page explaining what that methodology is.

I have more ideas for using the data, but I spend 90% of my time trying to get rid of the penalties.

So...

Also, hope it's not a sore point, but are Google still being unreasonable about the citations on your site?

Yes, very much so.

You have my promise, at least, that I won't reproduce any of your work (until you deem it good to go) except in the form of drunken pub factoids :-)

I love, for example, that the complete works of William Shakespeare is currently number 4 on the most vulgar books list!

I don't see much use in profanity filters on the net these days, but it is definitely useful for businesses working with external teams just to sanity check content before publishing :)

Compare that with the source of Win2k (http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/15/71552/7795) where there were apparently "a dozen or so "fucks" and "shits", and hundreds of "craps"."

It seems greater stability is achieved when devs are allowed to express themselves in comments.

We had to put in some filtering after a customer's order ID ended up being something along the lines of CRAP or SHIT or something.

http://www.freewebs.com/chief/forbiddenwordssecurity.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_filters

If UD doesn't have it, I'm convinced nobody has ever used the word to mean anything dirty.

I know that "88" is used as a surrogate for "Heil Hitler" in neo nazi circles (H is the 8th letter of the alphabet), but "Realist" doesn't ring any bell.

I hope 81 isn't some kind of code either :)

In human-moderated systems like XBox Live I've seen some relatively 'sophisticated' offensive names get called out and banned by the moderators.

I was wondering how username-blacklist systems worked, and how they deal with names which are obviously offensive to anyone who's dealt with the likes of Stormfront et al. before, but could theoretically be chosen by a totally innocent unfortunate.

For anyone who wants examples, reading a couple of pages of http://whywasibanned.com/category/gamertag/ should give you some examples

It is interesting to think about where the line should be drawn. Especially in human moderated cases.