fdreerf wrote:

ResExsention wrote:

Exactly. But you won't be “banned from life” if you violate said guidelines, right?

Being respectful is a nice trait to have.

Tee hee

Oh okay, I concede. Regardless, I don't think disrespect will land you in prison In most cases. Did you mean slander/defamation?

64lu wrote:

ResExsention wrote:

64lu wrote:

ResExsention wrote:

64lu wrote:

ResExsention wrote:

64lu wrote:

ResExsention wrote:

No!

Why should you forbid others from experimenting? Let them get the project back, but also don't let them reupload it.

have you read the conversation? this is removing projects that break the community guidelines

Indeed I have read the suggestion.

Remember, the CG apply only to Scratch; by signing up you do not consent to abide by the same rules at home.

considering all ways for them to get the project back include them downloading it, and the fact that importing and exporting projects is a fixture of scratch. there is virtually no way to “Let them get the project back, but also don't let them reupload it.”

The entirety of the whole wide Internet works like this. Once something is uploaded, good luck keeping 100% control of it.

Might as well not try at all and favour education and experimentation.

you seem to be suggesting that the community guidelines only apply to scratch and you don't have to go by them in the real world.

consider this. many of the community guidelines can be used in places other than scratch

Exactly. But you won't be “banned from life” if you violate said guidelines, right?

Literally. Why restrict this? There might be someone who wants to learn from it, and I'm sure it's not illegal to look (you have eyes).

name an example where they would be learning

Name an example where it wouldn't be learning.

Perhaps it might be an interesting block sequence, or a creative asset that you might wish to derive from.

There's always something to learn – those who think otherwise are fools.

ResExsention wrote:

fdreerf wrote:

ResExsention wrote:

Exactly. But you won't be “banned from life” if you violate said guidelines, right?

Being respectful is a nice trait to have.

Tee hee

Oh okay, I concede. Regardless, I don't think disrespect will land you in prison In most cases. Did you mean slander/defamation?

if you disrespect someone's right to not be dead, you will go there

ResExsention wrote:

64lu wrote:

ResExsention wrote:

64lu wrote:

ResExsention wrote:

64lu wrote:

ResExsention wrote:

64lu wrote:

ResExsention wrote:

No!

Why should you forbid others from experimenting? Let them get the project back, but also don't let them reupload it.

have you read the conversation? this is removing projects that break the community guidelines

Indeed I have read the suggestion.

Remember, the CG apply only to Scratch; by signing up you do not consent to abide by the same rules at home.

considering all ways for them to get the project back include them downloading it, and the fact that importing and exporting projects is a fixture of scratch. there is virtually no way to “Let them get the project back, but also don't let them reupload it.”

The entirety of the whole wide Internet works like this. Once something is uploaded, good luck keeping 100% control of it.

Might as well not try at all and favour education and experimentation.

you seem to be suggesting that the community guidelines only apply to scratch and you don't have to go by them in the real world.

consider this. many of the community guidelines can be used in places other than scratch

Exactly. But you won't be “banned from life” if you violate said guidelines, right?

Literally. Why restrict this? There might be someone who wants to learn from it, and I'm sure it's not illegal to look (you have eyes).

name an example where they would be learning

Name an example where it wouldn't be learning.

Perhaps it might be an interesting block sequence, or a creative asset that you might wish to derive from.

There's always something to learn – those who think otherwise are fools.

let's say there was a project with just an inappropriate image in it. nothing else. what would you learn from that?

64lu wrote:

let's say there was a project with just an inappropriate image in it. nothing else. what would you learn from that?

You'd learn that it is an NSFW image, so that you wouldn't repost it carelessly (hopefully not at all)

If you already knew it was bad, it would also serve as a reminder of its existence, and to be careful.

Plus, I don't think anybody would have a reason to need such a project anyway. They would be mostly focusing on the interesting, actually unique ones.

fdreerf wrote:

ResExsention wrote:

fdreerf wrote:

ResExsention wrote:

Exactly. But you won't be “banned from life” if you violate said guidelines, right?

Being respectful is a nice trait to have.

Tee hee

Oh okay, I concede. Regardless, I don't think disrespect will land you in prison In most cases. Did you mean slander/defamation?

if you disrespect someone's right to not be dead, you will go there

Threat of murder?

Hi, I'd like to address this and say this is something that should be done. A while back (would be over a year now) I reported two projects via Contact Us due to them being very inappropriate in nature, to the point the user's entire account was blocked (over what I can tell was just two projects). These projects are still accessible via tools like phosphorous and forkphorous.

Now whilst a lot of the content removed by the ST is rather benign in the grand scheme of things, I feel in cases where entire accounts are blocked, access to projects should at least be restricted.

Since the project page unto itself is no longer accessible, and the API for receiving project resources are via the project ID too, I don't believe it'd be a stretch to restrict access to raw resources for blocked and/or unshared projects via the same 404 and 403 mechanisms used for project pages.

I also have a question for any ST members that may be reading this: the ToS licenses content uploaded under CC BY SA 2.0, but does this also apply to Unshared Projects? I remember previous discourse where it was said if you didn't want people being able to freely use your project, you should unshare it, but if content is accessible anyhow, it kinda defeats the purpose of unsharing what was once already shared, once a known ID is found, all later versions can be downloaded.

While this isn't the biggest issue of all time, it'd be nice if unsharing was more effective than using the beta version (?) of Scratch 3.0 GUI on GitHub to grab the project.

ElsieBreeze wrote:

I also have a question for any ST members that may be reading this: the ToS licenses content uploaded under CC BY SA 2.0, but does this also apply to Unshared Projects?

Yes, it does. I asked the same question a couple months ago and yes, SINCE the project remains on the cloud it still is CC BY SA.

ResExsention wrote:

ElsieBreeze wrote:

I also have a question for any ST members that may be reading this: the ToS licenses content uploaded under CC BY SA 2.0, but does this also apply to Unshared Projects?

Yes, it does. I asked the same question a couple months ago and yes, SINCE the project remains on the cloud it still is CC BY SA.

Ah, alright then. At least that avoids any potential cases where a disgruntled user could copystrike Scratch due to this, which leaves this mainly with being an issue with inappropriate content still being accessible via 3rd party services if you have the link, which isn't a major issue, but would be a nice thing to block anyhow.

ElsieBreeze wrote:

ResExsention wrote:

ElsieBreeze wrote:

I also have a question for any ST members that may be reading this: the ToS licenses content uploaded under CC BY SA 2.0, but does this also apply to Unshared Projects?

Yes, it does. I asked the same question a couple months ago and yes, SINCE the project remains on the cloud it still is CC BY SA.

Ah, alright then. At least that avoids any potential cases where a disgruntled user could copystrike Scratch due to this, which leaves this mainly with being an issue with inappropriate content still being accessible via 3rd party services if you have the link, which isn't a major issue, but would be a nice thing to block anyhow.

What's the concern with accessing a taken-down NSFW project from outside Scratch? Tbh it makes no sense.

I agree with this suggestion. Projects get taken down by the Scratch Team for a reason. There should not be a workaround to reshare them.

ResExsention wrote:

ElsieBreeze wrote:

ResExsention wrote:

ElsieBreeze wrote:

I also have a question for any ST members that may be reading this: the ToS licenses content uploaded under CC BY SA 2.0, but does this also apply to Unshared Projects?

Yes, it does. I asked the same question a couple months ago and yes, SINCE the project remains on the cloud it still is CC BY SA.

Ah, alright then. At least that avoids any potential cases where a disgruntled user could copystrike Scratch due to this, which leaves this mainly with being an issue with inappropriate content still being accessible via 3rd party services if you have the link, which isn't a major issue, but would be a nice thing to block anyhow.

What's the concern with accessing a taken-down NSFW project from outside Scratch? Tbh it makes no sense.

because a user could re-upload it to scratch.
edit: example: the remix blocker in the OP

ResExsention wrote:

What's the concern with accessing a taken-down NSFW project from outside Scratch? Tbh it makes no sense.

To be quite honest, when I use more than half a brain cell, the significance of such being possible drops very quickly to insignificant.

I imagine there's a reason the ST don't block assets from being accessed.

ResExsention wrote:

-snip-

What's the concern with accessing a taken-down NSFW project from outside Scratch? Tbh it makes no sense.

Since it's still on the Scratch servers, it stiil technically is subject to the Scratch ToS.

(Kumquat Protecter v0.1)

By third party websites do you mean all websites not including “scratch.mit.edu” or websites not owned by the Scratch Team / Foundation?

CrytogramUser101 wrote:

ResExsention wrote:

-snip-

What's the concern with accessing a taken-down NSFW project from outside Scratch? Tbh it makes no sense.

Since it's still on the Scratch servers, it stiil technically is subject to the Scratch ToS.

The only points I can think of is #3.1, which tells you what kind of content isn't allowed on Scratch; and #3.5, which stops you from impeding others' use of Scratch.

The thing here is that said project is unshared. The terms state that you may not use the service to promote bad things, but how are you promoting anything if nobody but you can see the project (and those who manage to retrieve the project via a third party, but the Scratch ToS don't apply)? What we should be more concerned about is people resharing the project, and I think the most effective way to do that would be to add a key to a deleted project, which the website would recognise and forbid the attempted resharing, since #4..4 states that you cannot upload a project to Scratch unless it was made by an unmodified copy of the editor (and by extension, the project file itself). Rip mods.

64lu wrote:

ResExsention wrote:

-snip-

let's say there was a project with just an inappropriate image in it. nothing else. what would you learn from that?

You'd learn that there exist people who broke the Community Guidelines and didn't get reported yet.
By reporting them, you'll learn how to become a hero.

xXRedTheCoderXx wrote:

By third party websites do you mean all websites not including “scratch.mit.edu” or websites not owned by the Scratch Team / Foundation?

Websites not owned by the Scratch Team / Foundation.

(Kumquat Protecter v0.1)

CrytogramUser101 wrote:

xXRedTheCoderXx wrote:

By third party websites do you mean all websites not including “scratch.mit.edu” or websites not owned by the Scratch Team / Foundation?

Websites not owned by the Scratch Team / Foundation.

Okay then.

So, does this link count as owned by the Scratch Team / Foundation?

Spaceflyer234 wrote:

xXRedTheCoderXx wrote:

CrytogramUser101 wrote:

xXRedTheCoderXx wrote:

By third party websites do you mean all websites not including “scratch.mit.edu” or websites not owned by the Scratch Team / Foundation?

Websites not owned by the Scratch Team / Foundation.

Okay then.

So, does this link count as owned by the Scratch Team / Foundation?

Yes.

In that case…

No support. This wouldn't solve anything, because even if this was implemented you would still be able to view unshared and deleted projects using the link below, since apparently it's owned by Scratch and is not third party.

https://llk.github.io/scratch-gui/master/#[INSERT PROJECT ID HERE]

Support: Reason of post

-Woo, page 5!

AidyGamer60 wrote:

-Woo, page 5!

Bruh. I mean bump.