Censoring Stories: Incorrect Perception It is Generated by AI (Big Brother is Alive & Well)

[metropolinational]

So there must be a discrete verb for cutting just the wilted ends off of chives prior to chopping them to sprinkle on your chicken agrodolce. If you can’t supply such, I claim it must be to censor the chives.

pruning.

no. wait. trimming.

omg, AI was helpful:
The general, all-encompassing term for cutting off ends, removing skins, or taking off undesirable parts of a vegetable before cooking is
trimming. Specific, more technical terms for removing internal parts include coring (removing the center) or peeling (removing the outer skin).

 

[EmilyMiller]

I dont like the extreme, super-libertarian view that being a business entitles you to do whatever you want.

Straw-man argument. No one said that. I merely - accurately - pointed out that Lit declining to publish a story over AI issues does not meet the customary definition of censorship. It’s hyperbolic exaggeration to try to make a weak point about non-existent rights confered by non-existent legislation.

 

[StillStunned]

pruning.

no. wait. trimming.

And the verb you're looking for is "rejecting". It's been used by publishers for a long time. It means "No thanks, but feel free to take your story elsewhere."

 

[EmilyMiller]

pruning.

no. wait. trimming.

omg, AI was helpful:
The general, all-encompassing term for cutting off ends, removing skins, or taking off undesirable parts of a vegetable before cooking is
trimming. Specific, more technical terms for removing internal parts include coring (removing the center) or peeling (removing the outer skin).

No - it has to apply only to chives and only to chives to be sprinkled on chicken Agrodolce, and the chicken has to be organic breasts. Trimming just won’t do. Must be censoring, just has to be. It’s the only logical conclusion.

 

[EmilyMiller]

We had Godwin’s Law, I’m now going to apply @StillStunned’s Precept and - having clearly stated my case twice - leave others to argue if they want to.

 

[SmilingLez]

Straw-man argument. No one said that. I merely - accurately - pointed out that Lit declining to publish a story over AI issues does not meet the customary definition of censorship. It’s hyperbolic exaggeration to try to make a weak point about non-existent rights confered by non-existent legislation.

Your POV is only valid if the automated tool that flagged a story as AI generated is 100% accurate 100% of the time. Unfortunately there is no such tool. So rejecting a story based on a flawed automated tool, when Laurel/Manu know that the tool is not 100% accurate, does fit the definition of censorship

 

[metropolinational]

We had Godwin’s Law, I’m now going to apply @StillStunned’s Precept and - having clearly stated my case twice - leave others to argue if they want to.

I'm fine with that. I almost pulled out a bit earlier. This conversation is now mostly about the use of the word "censorship". you guys refuse to use it. I would exclusively use the word to describe what is going on here.
not sure what difference it makes, in the end.

 

[metropolinational]

No - it has to apply only to chives and only to chives to be sprinkled on chicken Agrodolce, and the chicken has to be organic breasts. Trimming just won’t do. Must be censoring, just has to be. It’s the only logical conclusion.

come on. it's not like you proposed a word and I rejected it. I'm calling it censorship.

if this was about quality, I would be willing to say its about editorial standards. but its very clearly not about quality.

 

[metropolinational]

So rejecting a story based on a flawed automated tool, when Laurel/Manu know that the tool is not 100% accurate, does fit the definition of censorship

this is the point I tried to make to @CalBishForNow but he/she did not like it one bit...

 

[SmilingLez]

this is the point I tried to make to @CalBishForNow but he/she did not like it one bit...

We live in a world where most people believe the emperor is wearing a new suit, I'm glad I'm not one of those people

 

[EmilyMiller]

come on. it's not like you proposed a word and I rejected it. I'm calling it censorship.

 

[loic333]

finally, a sensible suggestion.

personally, I would not create an AI slop category because many authors who do use it would lie and say they did not, and we'd end up in the same place, with these threads.

but I would abandon the AI standard and instead attach an AI probability rating (whatever it is they are using) to every story. then readers could set a filter to, say, 90+% human probability only.

Done. Problem solved.

Hello... a good idea, provided the verification program is reliable. Personally, to check my students' work, I use Justdone AI, which is well-regarded for French language assessment. But out of curiosity, I compared it with Chatgpt, and while Justdone AI gave me a 0% result, Chatgpt gave me 30%. So I tried it with one of my own papers, and Justdone gave me 0%, while Chatgpt gave me 24%... So even AI can be improved, and even when checking the source code, we can still encounter surprises. Therefore, your solution is interesting, but it could also spark controversy.

 

[metropolinational]

a good idea, provided the verification program is reliable.

it won't be. AI detection is almost worthless. but, they are using it already.
but yeah, it would be controversial, particularly for the anti-AI purists if their scores say something like 35% AI. that will drive them crazy.

 

[SkyBubble]

when they "make the decision" not to publish, what are they doing? what's the verb?

this is a literary site. they censor.

That is not censorship, any mor than it is when you decide you don't want certain kinds of music in your house. This site is @Laurel & @Manu's property. We are guests. When they make rules for their guests on their property, that is not censorship.

You are still fee to publish your story on another site, such as AO3 for example. Thus, you are not censored.

 

[SkyBubble]

Lit's just exercising the same right all publishers have had through the ages: the right to choose what they will and will not publish.

If Random House doesn't want your book, that doesn't prevent Simon & Schuster from publishing it. If CBS doesn't want your TV show, NBC is still free to carry it.

 

[metropolinational]

That is not censorship, any mor than it is when you decide you don't want certain kinds of music in your house.

first, a business is not the same a private home. entirely different legal and moral frameworks apply. that is why sometimes business are required to have bathrooms, or required to get a license, or required to serve people of all races.

second, not all businesses are publishers of creative works. such businesses are subject (both legally and morally) to much higher standards.

now, we may honestly disagree about what those legal and moral standards might be, but to claim that the same principles apply to a literary website and to your house is simply incorrect.

 

[EmilyMiller]

first, a business is not the same a private home. entirely different legal and moral frameworks apply. that is why sometimes business are required to have bathrooms, or required to get a license, or required to serve people of all races.

second, not all businesses are publishers of creative works. such businesses are subject (both legally and morally) to much higher standards.

now, we may honestly disagree about what those legal and moral standards might be, but to claim that the same principles apply to a literary website and to your house is simply incorrect.

I think we are getting into wilful misunderstandings here. The analogy is entirely appropriate, you’re attacking some random minutiae rather than the substance of the claim. That’s never a great look.

Governments censor work which means that it can’t be published anywhere, even self-published (unless outside of the jurisdiction). If Literotica rejects a story, it can be published in multiple other places, including self-publishing.

Literotica is under no moral or legal obligation to publish anything they don’t want to. Same as Random House.

And this is not companies being able to do what the hell they want. It’s them not being forced to do things that don’t want, when this infringes no established rights. And it has nothing to do with First Amendment rights whatsoever.

If anyone can point to where their right to have Literotica publish their work is enshrined, I’ll withdraw my comments and agree with them.