No support, suppose a parent has a trans kid and wants to stop the trans kid from knowing that being trans was a valid identity. The parent could censor the word trans.

undeterministic wrote:

No support, suppose a parent has a trans kid and wants to stop the trans kid from knowing that being trans was a valid identity. The parent could censor the word trans.

Then the child should talk to the parent. This isn't Scratch's problem.

I've made a couple mockups.

han614698 wrote:

I've made a couple mockups.
-snip-

Wow, great mock-ups! Although I feel like it kind of defeats the purpose of not liking certain words if you have to type them in yourself, so I feel like a few of the most offensive-yet-still-allowed-for-some-dumb-reason words should appear as an option. I would much rather click on them then type them in.

Elijah999999 wrote:

han614698 wrote:

I've made a couple mockups.
-snip-

Wow, great mock-ups! Although I feel like it kind of defeats the purpose of not liking certain words if you have to type them in yourself, so I feel like a few of the most offensive-yet-still-allowed-for-some-dumb-reason words should appear as an option. I would much rather click on them then type them in.

That would probably not be a good idea, because some parents don't even know if those words are allowed on Scratch or not. For example, lmao, damn, frick, and crap are all allowed on Scratch, but some parents may not approve of them and want their kids to see them while setting up their account.

The average 1st grader on Scratch isn't going to ever see the word damn, so it shouldn't be a preset censor.

Also, the ST doesn't seem to think those words are bad, so they're unlikely to add them to a preset.

han614698 wrote:

snip~

I don't think add your own should be there as what if some one censored follow me, but then that same person censored it with follow me, There would be a paradox, although the same could be said for any of those options

lHatr wrote:

ConfusedBiscuit wrote:

What effect would this have exactly? The only benefit I see here is for Anti-LGBT and similar people to censor stuff like “gay”.

Bad words are already not allowed on scratch. I don’t see the need to censor anything else.

There's some bad words that aren't censored, but some still might find them offensive.
eg: dam- or hell

There's a couple I want to censor

I agree. If people want to censor words they should be able to, and if you dont like the feature you can just not use it. there is no reason not to implement this that I can see.

Just some of my responses here:
just a quick disclaimer that I support this

Elijah999999 wrote:

glitcX wrote:

If this existed i would censor “f4f” Support

But keep in mind that it wouldn't stop people from doing it, it would only cause it to appear to you as “anyone wanna ***?”

well, it has many other useful things!
there are a bunch of bad words that scratch has literally refused to censor.
I personally support F4F and FOR, but for the people that don't, they wouldn't be bothered as much. it still helps to be able to censor them!

glitcX wrote:

glitcX wrote:

If this existed i would censor “f4f” Support

It should also be that if all of your comment is censored, it doesn't show up

I think that that would be a kind of bad idea, because it would lag with people not really getting messages, but to other people they're there, and that means they're on your profile, and I think the website would end up getting really laggy.

Support, different beliefs have different trigger words, ST can't account for them all (or just might not be aware)

-OctoSquid- wrote:

Support, different beliefs have different trigger words, ST can't account for them all (or just might not be aware)

yes!
and there are some straight-up bad words that ST refuses to censor because they're “minor.”

ConfusedBiscuit wrote:

What effect would this have exactly? The only benefit I see here is for Anti-LGBT and similar people to censor stuff like “gay”.

Bad words are already not allowed on scratch. I don’t see the need to censor anything else.

I know this is an old post, but I’ll still reply to it since this is the suggestions forum.

If someone has a phobia of, let’s say, bugs, mentions of bugs/words related to bugs might trigger that phobia. However, discussions of bugs isn’t against the CGs. If they could block words like insect, spider, tarantula, mantis, etc then they wouldn’t have to read them, avoiding their phobia acting up.
I think this has niche uses, but it could be useful for people with phobias.

undeterministic wrote:

No support, suppose a parent has a trans kid and wants to stop the trans kid from knowing that being trans was a valid identity. The parent could censor the word trans.

yeah, this seems to be the biggest argument against.

But why would this be a problem for Scratch? I highly, highly doubt that a trans kid's only access to the outside world is through Scratch. There are many many MANY other ways for a kid to learn about being transgender. Plus, this is a hypothetical. How many kids do you think would be harmed by not knowing what being transgender is from ONE SPECIFIC CHILDREN'S WEBSITE versus the amount of kids that would be harmed from seeing content that could be severely offensive (i have been on the forums for a long time, stuff happens) or just plain harsh words.

ConfusedBiscuit wrote:

What effect would this have exactly? The only benefit I see here is for Anti-LGBT and similar people to censor stuff like “gay”.

Bad words are already not allowed on scratch. I don’t see the need to censor anything else.

We also have arguments like this. One question I have for this. Why the flibbity jeepers (if you don't like that then you have no choice, since no private censor list ) would that matter? If ONE person is homophobic and decides to make the PERSONAL choice of blocking a word ONLY FOR THEMSELVES, that affects absolutely nobody. I am not homophobic myself, but I do know a lot of religions have that belief, and while that isn't exactly good, a PRIVATE censor list has many more pros than cons, because for every homophobic/trans-hating parent, there is at least 10 first graders playing silly Mario games in their science class. Every single rule will have a con, but that doesn't mean you ignore all the pros of it.

Thank you for listening to my TED Talk.

Support

NanoPIex wrote:

secretagent123 wrote:

I came up this suggestion when reading TOLORS 6.7.
This would allow the user to have a list of words that would be censored when they appear.
You could not change the standard list nor see the words on it.
This would allow the site to be more friendly and usable by all.

Maybe if a parent/guardian set the words you would have to enter a password to protect children from seeing the words.

No support. This would have to do with private messaging.
Which is:

Rejected 7.1

The only way this could work is something like this:

Everyone on Scratch except A and B censored “randomword”

A and B communicate using only “randomword”.

This situation is impossible and no one can communicate using only one word.

ConfusedBiscuit wrote:

What effect would this have exactly? The only benefit I see here is for Anti-LGBT and similar people to censor stuff like “gay”.

Bad words are already not allowed on scratch. I don’t see the need to censor anything else.

How is that bad, just curious?

DAULTRAG00FBALL888 wrote:

ConfusedBiscuit wrote:

What effect would this have exactly? The only benefit I see here is for Anti-LGBT and similar people to censor stuff like “gay”.

Bad words are already not allowed on scratch. I don’t see the need to censor anything else.

How is that bad, just curious?

Are you asking how this suggestion is bad, or how anti-LGBTQ+ people are bad?

(I'm not saying necessarily that this suggestion is bad; I'm just asking what @DAULTRAG00FBALL888 meant.)

MythosLore wrote:

DAULTRAG00FBALL888 wrote:

How is that bad, just curious?

Are you asking how this suggestion is bad, or how anti-LGBTQ+ people are bad?

(I'm not saying necessarily that this suggestion is bad; I'm just asking what @DAULTRAG00FBALL888 meant.)

I think that they were asking how it's a bad thing if anti-LGBTQ+ people censor words.

People censoring words they dislike doesn't stop people from saying them, and these censorships are virtually undetectable. Censoring words that few find offensive only affects the person who censored the words.

Fear of a name only increases fear of the thing itself : Hermione Granger

MythosLore wrote:

DAULTRAG00FBALL888 wrote:

ConfusedBiscuit wrote:

What effect would this have exactly? The only benefit I see here is for Anti-LGBT and similar people to censor stuff like “gay”.

Bad words are already not allowed on scratch. I don’t see the need to censor anything else.

How is that bad, just curious?

Are you asking how this suggestion is bad, or how anti-LGBTQ+ people are bad?

(I'm not saying necessarily that this suggestion is bad; I'm just asking what @DAULTRAG00FBALL888 meant.)

How blocking off that word would be bad, just curious

asdfperson135 wrote:

If ONE person is homophobic and decides to make the PERSONAL choice of blocking a word ONLY FOR THEMSELVES, that affects absolutely nobody.

Facts.