miss_classified
Joined 8 years ago
Karma
13
Submissions
6
Member since
Nov 25
Recent submissions
Comment · 8 years ago
Comment · 8 years ago
Just because Google results show you a thing, doesn't make that thing accurate, but merely prevalent and reduplicated in an index.
Comment · 8 years ago
By now, it should be obvious that your efforts to attenuate the duration of long-running content won't prove to cultivate an increase in the quality of participation.
There are (at least) three aspects of online community participation, that seasoned users are pretty well-versed in:
1. Archiving, mirroring and back-ups.
2. Leaked screen captures and scrapes
of private direct messaging.
3. Back-end aggregation of logs and
messages, even for supposedly private
SMS interactions.
The ones that don't? Your girlfriend just screenshots it, and and tweets it out in the open for the world to see anyway. Whoops!
There are no more online subcultures. Only distortions of perception enforced by impulsive, would-be moderators.
Comment · 8 years ago
This image is definitely safe for work:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J2YwtYzDUyK9ESdyxjaWLArws6U...
No one would get fired for that image. I could imagine it being sold as a Halloween product on Ebay or Amazon, and it should appear in normal Safe Search search results, since it is certainly a toy. It's a scary monster toy, but a toy nonetheless.
Is it safe for every context? Maybe not. There are definitely more scenarios than just being "Safe For Work" when it comes to rating content. Work is ostensibly filled with adults.
Would this image be safe for all age groups? Maybe not. Is it possible you might encounter a product like this in a department store or seasonal store? Yes. Depending on labeling, you might see it in either Spencer Gifts or Target. So, this is where parental controls come in, and MPAA or ESRB ratings are probably a better guide to moderation.
Is it rated "G" or "E for Everyone"? I'd still argue yes, and that red plastic isn't worthy of restriction unless context is explicitly demonstrating that it's an animal eating human remains somehow. If it were labeled as "Rat Eating Zombie Guts" it might be labeled "PG" or "T for Teens" but completely unlabeled, and stripped of context, or other conceptual cues lent by well-known notoriety/infamy, it's clearly just painted rubber, and a curiosity, not a psychologically damaging image.
Comment · 8 years ago
The Gore10 image isn't gore, unless there's something I don't know about going on.
It appears to be a toy cartoon pet rat situated on top of some glossy rubbery plastic red toy prop slime guts. Whatever it is, or is supposed to be, it isn't an explicit or graphic depiction of real violence.
Does that matter? I think so. Maybe it's not something to show a small child, and at a glance, one might develop the wrong impression, but it's obviously phoney nonsense, and as harmless as a red halloween Jell-o dish with rubber eyeballs suspended in the mold.
Example:
That's not what he says at the 24 second mark. If you can't get the first 30 seconds of an hour-long transcript right, why should I read on?(btw, I get that it was an automated transcript [http://temi.com], and has some OCR-like errors, which is apropos, considering the context of the speech)