07-13-2006, 12:00 AM
|
|
Executive Editor, Android Thoughts
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,233
|
|
Censoring in Text Messages, Subtle And Direct Methods
"Electronics have long been recognized as a weak link when it comes to secure conversation. From bugs hidden in lampshades to phone taps to keystroke tracking software, electronics provide the easy path to monitoring and censoring communications. In no area is that so apparent, perhaps, as in text messaging, as some users around the globe are discovering the hard way. Text messaging and the first level of censorship begins at the phone. While it's certainly possible to enter any word using the alphabetic method in which a=2, b=2-2, c=2-2-2, d=3 and so on, it isn't very convenient. This has led manufacturers to develop alternate systems like T9, which make it easier to enter common words. T9 works by using algorithms to determine what word a user is trying to enter. Punching 2-2-8 might default to "cat" for example, since that's a common word which uses the letters associated with those numbers. It might also give you "bat" however, which is another logical guess based on the letters available through those keystrokes. Usually, a provision is made for selecting words other than the algorithm's first guess. Where things start to get hairy is when a user enters something like 3-8-2-5, which can spell either "dual" or a somewhat naughty word which you won't find in your family newspaper."
An interesting read for those of us who are concerned about censorship or who live in a country where we like to believe we aren't censored  . While T9 doesn't seem to be subtle censoring to me, I suppose the argument could be made, and the other examples cited are certainly censorship. What do you think - should text messages be censored directly or indirectly by manufacturers or governments?
__________________
Dr. Jon Westfall, MCSE, MS-MVP
Executive Editor - Android Thoughts
News Editor - Windows Phone Thoughts
|
| |
|
|
|
07-13-2006, 07:42 AM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 810
|
|
Re: Censoring in Text Messages, Subtle And Direct Methods
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jon Westfall
...should text messages be censored directly or indirectly by manufacturers or governments?
|
If this question pertains to the word choices that T9 and similar input systems offer up, I think the threshold should most definitely exist just short of profanity or vulgar slang. Beyond this, censorship of the input system's word database shouldn't exist unless for purposes of practicality (i.e.: memory limits) and never for political reasons.
T9 or similar input technologies cannot offer up every word in the English (or any other) language, therefore, if so many perfectly fine words must be sacrificed by default in the name of practicality, then what reasonable explanation could someone ever offer up to suggest that their place be taken up with words that are vulgar?
How do we define "vulgar slang"? Well, if any adult needs that term to be expounded upon for their own understanding, then they may not possess the acumen needed to understand the explanation in the first place, so I won't waste my breath on that. It's not rocket science.
That said, the input system should adapt and learn, so if someone chooses to teach it those words and phrases, although I don't agree with the act of using them in speech or written word, it should be that person's choice.
But by default, vulgarities have no place in these input systems.
But if we're talking about blanketed censoring of portions of or entire live messages people are sending back and forth to one another... well, that's another issue altogether and completely inappropriate.
|
| |
|
|
|
07-13-2006, 12:04 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 35
|
|
Quote:
|
How do we define "vulgar slang"? Well, if any adult needs that term to be expounded upon for their own understanding, then they may not possess the acumen needed to understand the explanation in the first place, so I won't waste my breath on that. It's not rocket science.
|
The crux of the matter is that you do need to define what is vulgar language. For example, some people take offense at the word "bloody" unfortunately this word is either offensive or a perfectly valid adjective describing something covered in blood. My personal feeling is that if a word exists in a "standard" dictionary (e.g. Oxford English for UK English speakers) then it should also be allowed to exist in the T9 database.
Yes, this will allow some vulgar language, but to my mind that is the price you pay for having a rich, expressive language. It has to be able to express concepts you may not necessarily wish to hear as well as those you do.
|
| |
|
|
|
07-13-2006, 12:53 PM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 810
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by koriel
...The crux of the matter is that you do need to define what is vulgar language...
|
I think you're missing my point. The point I was making was that I don't have to define it in order to make my points clear in my original post.
I'll leave the details you're referring to, up to the people who create T9 and similar input software.
And to address your point with the word "bloody", you're citing an exception, not a rule, because that word does refer to something covered in blood, and that's the way most English speaking people are going to interpret that word. I don't think we're going to have that duality with words like the "F" word and other similarly vulgar terms.
We may have to agree to disagree, but I think with hundreds of thousands of words, you can have a rich expressive language in a well rounded database without the most vulgar of words. I don't need software to help me fill in the missing letters to the word sh**. I can do that myself if I have to.
If people want vulgarity, they can add it themselves to their own database. The path of least resistance is the best way here in the way that you're not going to offend a user or make them feel robbed because vulgarities were omitted, but you will offend many for including them. I think that's something that the vast majority of people across the board would agree with.
|
| |
|
|
|
07-13-2006, 04:27 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 323
|
|
[quote="koriel"]
Quote:
|
For example, some people take offense at the word "bloody" unfortunately this word is either offensive or a perfectly valid adjective describing something covered in blood.
|
Another example (and pardon me if I offend, but I can see no simple way to make this point without actually using the word) is "shag." I understand that, in Britain, this is a synonym of 3-8-2-5. Almost all Americans have no idea that it can have anything other than innocent definitions. We have shag carpeting, shaggy haircuts, shaggy dogs (including main characters in Disney movies!) and shaggy dog stories. When my daughter was 12 I wouldn't let her get an Austin Powers t-shirt which used the word "shagadelic" because I considered it inappropriate, and she was rather puzzled.
----------------------
Changing the subject, one of the articles linked to used the acronyms PITA, BFD, and BTHOM. I know the first two, but can't fathom the third. So, I'll just admit my ignorance and ask what it means.
|
| |
|
|
|
07-13-2006, 06:50 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 48
|
|
In response to the original question, the only "censorship" we should be concerned about is that which is done by force, i.e. by a government. I don't consider anything offered by a private company to be true censorship, because the free market always offers you choices.
|
| |
|
|
|
07-14-2006, 05:20 AM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 810
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rocky_raher
...Another example...is "shag."I understand that, in Britain, this is a synonym of 3-8-2-5. Almost all Americans have no idea that it can have anything other than innocent definitions. We have shag carpeting, shaggy haircuts, shaggy dogs (including main characters in Disney movies!) and shaggy dog stories. When my daughter was 12 I wouldn't let her get an Austin Powers t-shirt which used the word "shagadelic" because I considered it inappropriate, and she was rather puzzled.
|
This is another exception. Those types of words may end up being accepted as default due to the nature of their dual or multiple meanings based on location of usage or context. I'm certain there are many words that fit this profile, but there are certain terms that are vulgar and have the same meaning regardless of geographical location or context. These words are the ones that should certainly be excluded by default.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wbuch
In response to the original question, the only "censorship" we should be concerned about is that which is done by force, i.e. by a government. I don't consider anything offered by a private company to be true censorship, because the free market always offers you choices.
|
Interesting perspective. Of course, the article goes beyond simpler aspects of language and touches on the issue of monitoring and filtering text messages as well. And especially in these dangerous days, this is a very touchy subject. I don't agree with a government filtering private messages whatsoever, but rhetorically speaking, would monitoring ever be necessary? This gets into privacy vs. safety issues as it pertains to technology and terrorist and criminal activities.
|
| |
|
|
|
07-14-2006, 02:47 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 323
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rocky_raher
Changing the subject, one of the articles linked to used the acronyms PITA, BFD, and BTHOM. I know the first two, but can't fathom the third. So, I'll just admit my ignorance and ask what it means.
|
"Beats the heck outta me"
Thank you to acronyms.thefreedictionary.com.
|
| |
|
|
|
07-15-2006, 02:54 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 455
|
|
Excuse me, but are we debating whether free speech should be censored? Or are we just trying to figure out ways of slicing cusswords out of text messages?
Either way, let it go. Say what you want, even if some consider it vulgar. If others don't want to hear you speak, they'll stop listening. But if what you have to say has substance...
...then maybe it isn't vulgar after all...
And to the original question: No censorship by companies, governments, or software.
__________________
Steven Lyle Jordan: Original SF so good, Fox would never put in on the air. |
| |
|
|
|
07-15-2006, 07:18 PM
|
|
Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,060
|
|
For some reason, this issue doesn't seem that complicated to me. My guess is that at one point the phone and/or T9 software developers asked themselves which is more likely: that customers will get upset that they have to use the multi-tap method to enter the "3825-word," or that customers trying to type "dual" will get offended when that "other" word pops onto their screen as a possible choice.
I don't look at this as the type of aggressive censorship we see when someone tries to impose their own morality on someone else. It's a business decision based on the knowledge that SOME people would be offended by seeing certain words appear on their screen. That said, though, I think the issue of cultural differences is the more challenging and important one.
__________________
Old Market Researchers never die...they just get broken down by age and sex.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
