Turn it off completely. I opened a thread about it a while back when I tried to recommend WGM Jennifer Shahade's memoir "Chess Bi tch" and both the title and link got censored. I could bypass the text censorship but the link was harder. Not good. We aren't kids here and if something needs removal, leave it to human mods and reports.

I would argue more generally that censoring words like this is unhelpful and counterproductive.

As seen in the link in the post body, not only can it inhibit clear communication, but anyone actually using the slur would be more clearly identified if the slur remained - thus allowing the mods to definitively identify the user as bigoted and banning them. Replacing it with 'removed' creates ambiguity in combating bigotry as well as edge cases and discussions of words - as in the linked case.

All of them.

Censorship, if ever truly necessary, should be reactive not proactive. Humans simply cannot correctly foretell the possible scenarios where an otherwise unacceptable word or term needs to be written down and discussed. A million correct removals do not justify killing even one meaningful discussion. That’s the nature of free speech.

You would think that now, more than ever, we (especially we here) would understand how important that freedom is and how inherently destructive any attempt at “pre-crime” always turns out to be.

Should this censoring be pushed to the client side? That way users can choose what they want filtered.

hunter2