> Word banning is known to be a poor method. It's a "poor method" if you're seeking perfection. We don't need perfection. > You need a deeper NLP analysis

> Word banning is known to be a poor method. It's a "poor method" if you're seeking perfection. We don't need perfection. > You need a deeper NLP analysis to disambiguate. Ixnay. Only if you have zero tolerance for false positives. If users really can't understand why their website won't let them type "n-----" in a public message, even in good faith... well, I just don't know what to add. > it's pretty easy to work around it by using punctuation, > replacement characters, or other style variations to write the > word in a way that it won't be caught by the regex. Still an improvement. Easier to ID problem users. Not the only line of defense. > "booby trap". I don't need to explain. Sure. I can live with that. You realize the alternative is the Youtube comments section. I don't feel comfortable posting there ever. I can live with finding synonyms for "booby trap" etc. I might actually enjoy commenting on my favorite YouTube videos, an activity that feels utterly meaningless with the current milieu of lunatics. > networks that allow "unlimited registrations" are easy targets > for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack - One can use I imagine this could be handled much better than the social networks do now. Time-stamped accounts, data mining, user reporting. There has been ZERO incentive to rid ANY accounts till the past year, because bots, sock puppets and trolls still "help" a company's user growth, on paper. The problem isn't that solutions are hard to think of, it's that the incentives are horrible for these companies. They don't really care about anything but growth.