Apparently just letting ads through now

[TheLobster]

It's possible that's how it works and TWG-Annie just got lucky, or was the final flag in a flag-counting process or something.

Even if it's the latter, it just means that malicious reporters need to put in a bit more effort to take down whatever story they want.

 

[ElectricBlue]

It's good that a Report function exists. It's not necessarily good if the report doesn't come with a presumption of innocence. I'm all in favor of people reporting stories that they find objectionable and those stories being taken down if they violate site rules or policy. It's the idea that someone can report an innocuous story for something petty, putting the onus on the story's author to justify their work, that I don't like. Ideally the reports should be reviewed by someone who then takes manual action on the story.

From what I've seen over the years, the site takes down first, investigates later. From the site's point of view, that's wise. They put the onus back to the author (same as when a story is rejected in the first place), and from reports I've read in the AH, the site uses the same set of generic rejection notices.

Reports are nearly always for under-age or excessive violence (rapist stories, for example), and often for older stories.

I've been on Lit for just over a decade, and the under-age criteria certainly tightened during the first Trump term, and would, I think, be even tighter now, given the current moral climate - and the number of countries around the world tightening up their law associated with minors and social media. Australia, for example has just announced new laws aimed at restricting kids under sixteen from social media - which is being watched by the rest of the world.

 

[Dodola]

It seems, from a recent example here in a/h, that a story can be reported simply because one disagrees politically or socially, with what they think the author's politics are. It's a form of "I don't like you", so I'm reporting your story as offensive to all. I will cancel you.
I guess it's typical to see these days, but that doesn't make it right.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

Moral

Immoral

Amoral


Eh.

 

[TheWorldBuilder]

It's not necessarily good if the report doesn't come with a presumption of innocence.

Welcome to Puritanism in 2025.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Welcome to Puritanism in 2025.

It's not really puritanism, because this same thing happens with copyright and other legal issues. It is in the site's best interest to presume guilt to protect their own interests.

"You were told this was a problem, and you didn't do anything?"
"Well, we emailed the author, we were waiting to hear back from them..."

That won't go ever well in court I suspect.

How many authors are dead, not checking their account email address.... etc...
It makes more sense to drop the hammer and put the onus on the author to act.

As mentioned, this happened to me, so I'm sympathetic and understand the inconvenience for an author. It's unfortunate that some people choose to weaponize this kind of thing, but that's a societal issue.

 

[YmaOHyd]

It's not really puritanism, because this same thing happens with copyright and other legal issues. It is in the site's best interest to presume guilt to protect their own interests.

"You were told this was a problem, and you didn't do anything?"
"Well, we emailed the author, we were waiting to hear back from them..."

That won't go ever well in court I suspect.

How many authors are dead, not checking their account email address.... etc...
It makes more sense to drop the hammer and put the onus on the author to act.

As mentioned, this happened to me, so I'm sympathetic and understand the inconvenience for an author. It's unfortunate that some people choose to weaponize this kind of thing, but that's a societal issue.

Yeah, absolutely.

Ideally I'd like a review by a person before the story gets removed, but then we're back into the person-hour problem that Lit has generally.

 

[old_prof]

I think I lean towards immediate takedown. But I would like to have an automatic quick review. Kind of like booth reviews in NFL for American sports fans.
And if the author objects they should get priority in the manual review process.

In addition, if anyone makes multiple bad faith reports, they should be banned.

 

[Dodola]

It's not really puritanism, because this same thing happens with copyright and other legal issues. It is in the site's best interest to presume guilt to protect their own interests.

"You were told this was a problem, and you didn't do anything?"
"Well, we emailed the author, we were waiting to hear back from them..."

That won't go ever well in court I suspect.

How many authors are dead, not checking their account email address.... etc...
It makes more sense to drop the hammer and put the onus on the author to act.

As mentioned, this happened to me, so I'm sympathetic and understand the inconvenience for an author. It's unfortunate that some people choose to weaponize this kind of thing, but that's a societal issue.

This makes sense. It's hard to argue with someone who's been through it.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

This makes sense. It's hard to argue with someone who's been through it.

The funny thing is, for all the cries of puritanism, and the "climate" in the world towards things like this, the AH is generally eager to get out their torches and pitchforks.

The presumption from a not insignificant number of AH regulars was you must have broken the rules (despite openly admitting they hadn't read it) and thus it deserved to be taken down.
They aren't against censoring, they just want to decide where the lines are.

ETA: The site was quick and responsive through the whole process. Only took a couple of days. Was probably a good trade for the extra views...

 

[Dodola]

The funny thing is, for all the cries of puritanism, and the "climate" in the world towards things like this, the AH is generally eager to get out their torches and pitchforks.

The presumption from a not insignificant number of AH regulars was you must have broken the rules (despite openly admitting they hadn't read it) and thus it deserved to be taken down.
They aren't against censoring, they just want to decide where the lines are.

ETA: The site was quick and responsive through the whole process. Only took a couple of days. Was probably a good trade for the extra views...

I'm catching on. The self-identified "inclusive" crowd isn't very fucking inclusive at all. They could take a lesson from me and my bunch.

 

[TheWritingGroup]

I think I lean towards immediate takedown. But I would like to have an automatic quick review. Kind of like booth reviews in NFL for American sports fans.
And if the author objects they should get priority in the manual review process.

In addition, if anyone makes multiple bad faith reports, they should be banned.

I'll bet you that most reports are anonymous, simply because most readers are.

--Annie

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

The funny thing is, for all the cries of puritanism, and the "climate" in the world towards things like this, the AH is generally eager to get out their torches and pitchforks.

The presumption from a not insignificant number of AH regulars was you must have broken the rules (despite openly admitting they hadn't read it) and thus it deserved to be taken down.
They aren't against censoring, they just want to decide where the lines are.

ETA: The site was quick and responsive through the whole process. Only took a couple of days. Was probably a good trade for the extra views...

I've been punctured and singed a few times.


I'm not sure a single report should cause an action. Two? Three maybe. That's why I wanted others to look at that story this morning. I wasn't sure if it crossed the line or not.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I've been punctured and singed a few times.


I'm not sure a single report should cause an action. Two? Three maybe. That's why I wanted others to look at that story this morning. I wasn't sure if it crossed the line or not.

From a rational person standpoint, I agree. From a legal standpoint... once you've been made aware of a potentially harmful situation... (and I'm using harmful very loosely in this situation.)