| More robo-flagging of human interaction based on the faulty axiom that you are somehow in control of how someone else perceives something. They even admit that malice isn't intended. > The problem is the tone the reader experiences. Most of the time, it doesn’t appear that commenters are actively trying to make their comment condescending, dismissive, or any of the other subtle variations of unwelcoming we see. These are people earnestly trying to help others, even if their tone is off. What tone the reader experiences and how they deal with it is entirely up to them. I am fine with on a site that abusive language is flagged, but something that is perceived to be unfriendly by a robot. This is just folly. I certainly won't be contributing anymore. I don't want to be on a site that has a robot flagging human interaction. EDIT: Abusive language filters usually don't work that well. I put in someone's real name into a system and the system flagged it for "abuse" their surname was "Cummings". Also the term "faggots" (which in the UK is a meal you can buy in the supermarket) has been censored on social platforms. https://www.rt.com/uk/468436-google-censors-faggots-peas/ Because guess what the context in which you are using a word is important. So most of theses places can't get abusive filtering right. They won't get this right either. |