My first thought was "Oh, I wonder if that means the spellcheck on my smartphone will stop substituting 'duck' when I meant to type something more profane." But after reading the article, I guess not.
Here's a simple example of a case where profanity filtering is almost certainly a good thing: say you have a voice transcription program (which Google makes available as part of Android). Voice transcription is an error-prone process. Wouldn't it be good to be able to avoid returning bad words that the voice transcription program mistakenly thought were there?
What the {"response": "true"} is this {"response": "true"} thing? A {"response": "true"} cache page? Are you {"response": "true"} {"response": "true"} me?! Do you really need a {"response": "true"} JSON API to do the work of a stupid {"response": "true"} array lookup? {"response": "true"}!!!
23 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 24.0 ms ] threadhttps://github.com/mogade/badwords/blob/master/en.txt
http://search.cpan.org/~abigail/Regexp-Common-2011041701/lib...
My stepfather would be most displeased if he couldn't use his name.
I assume that must be a requirement of some ad networks
see: http://www.wdyl.com/profanity?q=balls
> http://www.wdyl.com/profanity?q=tennis%20balls
> {"response": "true"}