In response to Mustang Sally.
She was actually banned, thanks for your concern!
05:47 PM - Feb 19, 2023
In response to Jexy Fenix.
If this site ends up being ad-driven, it will end up being bad in all of the ways Twitter is.
04:35 PM - Feb 19, 2023
In response to Nana of the Shire.
Sorry what in this post mentioned pornographic images?
04:32 PM - Feb 19, 2023
In response to Nana of the Shire.
She reviews romance novels for the New York Times.
03:58 PM - Feb 19, 2023
In response to Richard Moon.
Also the shift from “I will listen to your concerns” to “I’m not changing a damned thing.”
03:49 PM - Feb 19, 2023
In response to Nope Nope.
Yes, "may be made" means that it's a violation unless the moderators allow it. "May be" is not the language to use here.
02:42 PM - Feb 19, 2023
In response to Casey.
The summary contains a description of explicit content that isn't in the main document. It's badly drafted.
02:41 PM - Feb 19, 2023
In response to Casey.
The language is not in the actual text of the TOS! It's only in the overall description of that portion of the TOS.
I'm not ignoring it. It's not there! Why aren't you asking why the text of the adult content policy doesn't contain this phrase instead?
I'm not ignoring it. It's not there! Why aren't you asking why the text of the adult content policy doesn't contain this phrase instead?
02:31 PM - Feb 19, 2023
In response to Courtney Milan.
That separate pages describing the policy use different language is proof that it was poorly drafted.
02:28 PM - Feb 19, 2023
In response to Casey.
Yes click "learn more" and you get a full-page description that flatly does not contain the terms you suggest.
It's badly written. That's the entire point.
It's badly written. That's the entire point.
02:28 PM - Feb 19, 2023
In response to Casey.
Here is the policy. It does not contain any of the language you state.
02:20 PM - Feb 19, 2023
In response to ميجان the Librarian.
The description of what happened is sexually explicit. It's explicitly barred by the TOS for me to link to the New Yorker article about it.
01:57 PM - Feb 19, 2023
In response to take care.
Or could be used, by an unethical moderator, to silence voices that they don’t want to hear.
01:50 PM - Feb 19, 2023
In response to Mustang Sally.
I asked for clear terms of service. The correct response is to clarify the terms of service. A response to a spout is not a modification of the terms of service.
01:49 PM - Feb 19, 2023
In response to Jeanne.
What’s the goal here, Jeanne? Do you not like when people talk about things you don’t want them to talk about? Do you feel like you need to make them stop?
01:46 PM - Feb 19, 2023
In response to Courtney Milan.
Could we talk about Deborah Ramirez’s allegations with regard to Kavanaugh here? If not, I don’t have high hopes for the platform.
01:44 PM - Feb 19, 2023
In response to Suzanne Brockmann.
And just to be clear: I think a panel of people who could come up with concrete examples from their lived experience which could be used to stress-test the TOS would be ideal.
01:38 PM - Feb 19, 2023
In response to Mustang Sally.
You’re using different language than that in the terms of service. I would prefer language like what you are using in the terms of service, as compared to the language I used, which comes from the terms of service.
01:36 PM - Feb 19, 2023
In response to Mustang Sally.
I wasn’t sure what you meant, which is why I asked for clarification. I’m glad you think it’s okay.
The TOS clearly says that sexually explicit language cannot be posted, so yes, I honestly believe that’s a violation of the TOS.
The TOS clearly says that sexually explicit language cannot be posted, so yes, I honestly believe that’s a violation of the TOS.
01:22 PM - Feb 19, 2023
In response to Mustang Sally.
I’m not sure I understand you answer.
Is it your position that you prefer that we can only post links to a 500 page deposition, and not screenshots of the two pages at issue, in the case of a testimony under perjury saying that the President of the United States committed sexual assault?
Is it your position that you prefer that we can only post links to a 500 page deposition, and not screenshots of the two pages at issue, in the case of a testimony under perjury saying that the President of the United States committed sexual assault?
01:07 PM - Feb 19, 2023
In response to Mustang Sally.
Right, set aside the assumptions and look at the question I asked, and you’ll understand why the policy is badly written.
You’re saying I can’t screenshot portions of E. Jean Carroll’s deposition where she describes being sexually assaulted in detail by Donald Trump.
You’re saying I can’t screenshot portions of E. Jean Carroll’s deposition where she describes being sexually assaulted in detail by Donald Trump.
01:03 PM - Feb 19, 2023
In response to Mimi Wells.
Right. I’m not saying that this has to become the new Pornhub. I’m just saying that the rules are unclear and I don’t think they were stress tested with concrete examples.
12:53 PM - Feb 19, 2023
In response to Mustang Sally.
So let’s imagine that someone screenshots an explicit description of a sex act.
In your view, is this always prohibited?
In your view, is this always prohibited?
12:48 PM - Feb 19, 2023
In response to Ramona Grigg.
The language *explicitly* includes romance novels.
I am not asking for a change in vibes.
I am asking for a clear, well-written policy that provides absolute exceptions for human discussions.
This policy is badly written.
I am not asking for a change in vibes.
I am asking for a clear, well-written policy that provides absolute exceptions for human discussions.
This policy is badly written.
12:46 PM - Feb 19, 2023
In response to Mustang Sally.
If you’re going to argue that it’s specific enough, please use the actual language that’s in the policy. What the hell does “sexually suggestive” mean?
And yes, that’s the point—figuring out what the hell the policy means so I can leave if necessary.
And yes, that’s the point—figuring out what the hell the policy means so I can leave if necessary.
12:19 PM - Feb 19, 2023
In response to ChingonaGordaVieja.
Can you please point to where the policy allows the things I mentioned, but disallows the advertising of sex?
12:12 PM - Feb 19, 2023
In response to Ramona Grigg.
This is a terrible answer. Why should people have to put their access to the platform at risk because the policy is vaguely written, and explicitly states that exceptions “may” be made and so there’s no direct answer?
11:57 AM - Feb 19, 2023
