Hacker News Reader

Comment by kisamoto | Hacker News Reader

Ahh unchecked websites in print. Two of my favourites are:

- The recent (Nov '24) mishap from Mattel printing a p*rn site on their Wicked dolls: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gz91pp5llo

- Or the numerous 'Click Here' or unreasonable long (e.g. https://example.gov.uk/some/sub/site/dGhlbi9hL3JlYWxseS9sb25...) that have appeared in UK government or NHS leaflets.

View on HN

> p*rn

Who are you doing this for? All the small children on HN who will be scandalized reading the word "porn" but are safe so long as the "o" is censored with an asterisk?

Why do you follow your question by a refutation of the supposed response ? They probably doing it for themselves like people saying « gosh ». If you find that ridicule fine, but no need to strawman their intentions. You chances to get an honest, non defensive response are pretty low.

> They probably doing it for themselves like people saying « gosh ».

Surely you mean g*sh?

The obvious answer is that this user likely also comments on other platforms that do not allow using the word openly and instead of the mental overload of constantly deciding which site does and doesn’t allow spelling out the word they choose the safer option in every case.

Or their autocorrect has now learnt to respell it anyways.

Or, they didn’t really spend hours debating the pros and cons of using either spelling and just went with whatever felt ok at the time.

But why choose generosity when one can choose snarky ass instead.

I don't think bhaney was being snarky. Censoring words that don't need censoring seems to me to be a recent phenomena. I'm glad there is push back.

Language evolves over time as a result of societal pressures. That’s what we are seeing here, and it has been happening since before recorded time.

pressures, like this thread debating the use of letter censorship

Exactly. I'm applying societal pressure in the form of bullying in order to discourage language from being shaped by the profit motives of advertising agencies that push these puritanical cancers into the public lexicon.

I have no issue with the youth coming up with new slang or changing the definitions of words that are no longer as relevant as they once were. As you say, language evolves like that. But when the changes to language are being top-down forced by megacorps so they can more effectively target ads to children, that's when I want them burned in fire. I'm honestly surprised at just how justified I feel in being mean to the people who propagate this bullshit.

Have you considered that your outrage (justified or not) may be damaging to your own well being? I do believe that in some causes this is an acceptable trade but i also try to be accepting of things that don’t seem to cause (too much) harm. For me, this is one of them.

Aside, do you also get angry about the use of the words coke, hoover, sellotape, etc?

> Have you considered that your outrage (justified or not) may be damaging to your own well being?

Yes. I've considered that and decided it isn't.

> do you also get angry about the use of the words coke, hoover, sellotape, etc?

No.

Interesting. There was adhesive tape before sellotape captured its place in the general lexicon, i guess the difference is that it’s use was not hard forced (censoring) and instead soft forced (advertising)?

Those are actual words though, not self-censorship because certain words are not allowed on certain (corporate) social networks.

You can say "porn" on HN, more so when the linked BBC article itself is titled "Mattel 'deeply regrets' porn site misprint on Wicked dolls".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com