Comment on I propose a rule change
Spotted_Lady@wolfballs.com 2 years agoDead people? I guess you mean gore and "snuff films" (videos of murder, war, tragic accidents, and suicides).
I don't think, if a user dies, that their account should be removed, though, it probably should be locked and marked as a tribute page or whatever. I'd say to lock it unless a family member wants to resume it, for security reasons. They won't be able to update their password or look for account tampering.
As for bots, Reddit allows purpose-driven bots that don't otherwise break the rules. Some of those are helpful. Users can summon them via keywords or actions. Like the N-word counter bot, profanity counter bot, Bible quote bot, Churchill quote bot, etc. Some bots are not as useful such as a bot that tells you how much battery life the phone that took the photo had left. If the bot can "see" that in the image to report that, then so can the users.
And Reddit had a problem with annoying bots. And then folks who tired of the bots made bots to retaliate against the other bots. So a user might make one typo and a dozen bots reply to them, with most of the bots attacking each other. When I encountered that as a mod, I just banned the involved bots from my subs.
masterofballs@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
Yeah I mean like dead people photos, videos of people being eaten, people having sex with dead people that kinda stuff.
goldenballs@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
Have you got a list, or are you still indexing your hard drive?
(Do we need a tag for jokes, to protect the sensitive?)
Spotted_Lady@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
I didn't even think of necrophilia and cannibalism.
I don't see what would be wrong with non-disturbing photos of the dead. For instance, in the old days, photography was so expensive that oftentimes, the only photos that folks had of them were when they were dead. We consider that creepy today, but they'd dress them up, pose with them, etc., since they'd never have that opportunity again.
masterofballs@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
I mean news worthy or historical photos should be allowed but at the end of the day that is a fussy line and a admin or mod will have to make a gut decision on it.
I just wouldn't want actual necrophiliacs to take over the site. There is a dark part of the internet that is into that kinda stuff I don't want to be anywhere near.
Spotted_Lady@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
I get you on that.
And what about cartoon nudity? Still NSFW, right? That said, Wikipedia uses such images to depict the topics. Like if you look up fellatio. That has a cartoon image depicting it. They've mulled over ways to detect IPs in certain places and hide the images by default for them.
goldenballs@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
How do you define "non-disturbing"? There are some pretty challenging red sites on the dark web. You can watch videos of pretty serious crimes. Surely the point is context and relevance...
I mean what is "wolfballs" for? What is the manifesto?
Spotted_Lady@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
You knew what I meant. It is much like the Supreme Court justice who said, "I can't tell you what pornography is, but I know it when I see it."
So a non-disturbing photo of a dead person would be like someone who just peacefully died, like photos from a funeral service. Disturbing would be things like blood, brains, and protruding bones.