FIX YOUR COMMENT CENSOR ALGORITHM
Whatever bots you use to censor comments are broken. I've been trying to post a benign comment that doesn't attack anyone, doesn't use any profanity, and doesn't use any of the other stupid words you Yahoos have deigned to censor (because you're retards, one of the words you censor). Yet you will not post it, you keep deleting the comment. It is incredibly frustrating and one of the reasons why I'm about to drop Yahoo and never visit your sites again.
mE
shared this idea
-
mE
commented
*uck you Yahoo. Today you censored this comment: "That's funny considering Cheadle's body language through the entire interview screamed "don't touch me and I don't want to be around this chick.""
Please explain how that violates your terms. Oh that's right you can't. You're just useless propagandists and liars.
-
Anonymous
commented
You use words in your titles, but if you repeat that word in a post ... it gets deleted.
-
mE
commented
*uck you Yahoo.
-
mE
commented
Got censored five times today for comments that did not violate TOS. *uck you Yahoo.
-
mE
commented
Got censored again today for a comment that does not violate TOS. **ck you Yahoo.
-
mE
commented
Back again to say **ck you Yahoo. Today you censored my comment because it contained the word "nutter." In English slang, this is a way to refer to someone as "crazy." But apparently your algorithms think the word is too close to "******" - a derogatory term for black people? That's the only reason I can fathom for you censoring my comment. **ck you again, by the way.
-
jim jimmy
commented
why are you guys so communist censoring AMERICAN COMMENTS>
-
Mean Mr Mustard .
commented
STICK YOUR COMMENT CENSORING IN YOUR ***
-
Mean Mr Mustard .
commented
Take your rediculous comment posting censorship & stick it in your ***
-
mE
commented
OK Yahoo, every time you censor one of my comments I'm coming here and just posting two words: *uck you.
-
mE
commented
Yet more censorship today you *ucking *untbags.
-
mE
commented
I'm starting to think Yahoo doesn't want me to use the word "black" for any reason whatsoever.
-
mE
commented
Seriously this is *ucking stupid now. I posted this to a story on the black hole photograph: "Not exactly HD quality, no? Folks, if you want to imagine what this black hole actually looks like, watch the movie Interstellar. The CGI representation of Gargantua, the supermassive black hole in that film, was built using the calculations of physicist Kip Thorn, who has studied black holes for something near 50 years now. In other words, it's a science-based representation of what a gigantic black whole should look like if it is still "active", that is, pulling in material (stars, planets, gases). The only reason we can "see" this black whole in M87 is because it is still pulling in matter."
So Yahoo, care to explain to me how that comment violates your terms? You useless *ucking *sshats?
-
mE
commented
******** Yahoo. ******** and die.
-
mE
commented
Just ******** Yahoo. When the revolution comes we're going to line you folks up against a wall.
-
letm_eat_cake
commented
Obviously Yahoo does not know how to train its censors, or its robots, or whatever. You can write a comment with absolutely inoffensive language in it, and it gets censored. However, Yahoo itself often posts articles with the most offensive of obscenities. Big hypocrites. And I would bet money that this issue of incompetency will never, ever be fixed by Yahoo. Apparently they LIKE to lose their users.
-
Mean Mr Mustard .
commented
Stick your hypocrite liberal censoring up your *** Yahoo
-
mE
commented
Tried to post this to an article about NASA taking a picture of a black hole, but was censored:
"Well, Gargantua was created for the film using Kip Thorn's equations, so according to the math, that's pretty much what a supermassive black hole (that is still active, i.e. still pulling in matter) should look like. If Sag A is still pulling in matter, it should look something like Gargantua."
So tell me Yahoo, WTF is wrong with my comment that you would censor it? Still waiting for an explanation from you hack *ssholes.
-
mE
commented
Posted to an article about Chicago prosecutor Foxx: "Whatever. She let Smollett go because the Obama's are promising to raise money for Foxx's re-election (and to help her politically when/if she runs for higher office, though I can't imagine that's an option anymore)."
Censored. Please explain to me how this violates your ToS?
-
Anonymous
commented
Yeah all I said was this: Obviously the connection between leggings and the issue at hand are a reach, to say the least. But to act like it's not any way related is also a reach. Side note, is it respectable when B E Y O N C E pushes her female reproductive area out towards the crowd while licking her finger? Yeah I thought so
Pretty sad that I can't make a point using words.