You must log in or register to comment.

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

It seems at least worthwhile that people are told in the error message which words are not going through. Otherwise a person can type out a long post and have no idea where they are coming short. u/emma, what do you think?


emma wrote (edited )

It can be done, but it's more of a question of should it be done, because I think it undermines spam prevention efforts.

I implemented the filter primarily to ban spam URLs, but a lot of the entries are slurs, obfuscated slurs, phrases about hating marginalised people, phrases that appear in spam (like "easter gift") that have a high chance of appearing in regular text, etc.

The problem is the filter cannot interpret context, there's an unlimited amount of ways to obfuscate hate, and spammers have no problem changing their marketing pitch, so all of these cause more problems than they're worth.

Thus, I propose non-URLs are removed from the filter, and the only time a phrase is banned is if it's repeatedly used in actual spam, not merely when it appears in some salty reactionary's posts.

Addendum: we could also restrict the whitelist to non-whitelisted users only, but I deliberately chose not to so admins would know if the filter had any negative impact through their own participation. Maybe we should log instances when the filter hits instead.


Majrelende wrote

Perhaps it could be helpful if the list of phrases were given by request in some pinned thread— users who just joined and wanted the spam filters might not receive them, but users who seem not to be spam could be given the link.


kore wrote

yeah theres also maybe the possibility of allowing whitelisted users to see the page