What Kind of Censorship Dictatorship is This?

[quantyst]

Within the past 12 hours I posted in the Quantnet Lounge a serious math/probability question that included a link to a video involving Howard Stern. But that post is excised from these forums. WHY?

 

[Andy Nguyen]

I removed it because it links to Howard Stern. It includes graphical material not suitable at work. (Did you really not see the banner ads for sexy girls?)
Be mindful that A LOT of Quantnet members are accessing these posts from work. I'm not one to be caught watching Howard Stern at work.
Yesterday, I had to remove a link to an article on playboy website and replaced it with text.

Had you posted the question in text, I wouldn't have any problem.

 

[dstefan]

Makes sense.

 

[quantyst]

I removed it because it links to Howard Stern. It includes graphical material not suitable at work. (Did you really not see the banner ads for sexy girls?)
Be mindful that A LOT of Quantnet members are accessing these posts from work. I'm not one to be caught watching Howard Stern at work.
Yesterday, I had to remove a link to an article on playboy website and replaced it with text.

Had you posted the question in text, I wouldn't have any problem.

Thank you for the explanation. Nonetheless, it is important to see the problem in its original (and may I say, natural?) environment, and your approach, therefore, remains too restrictive. Here's an alternative solution: Why not we -- i.e., you -- come up with a symbol or label (like skull&bones or EnterAtYourOwnRisk or something else) that identifies a link or post not suitable to be reached while at workplace? Posters like I, or regulators like you, can affix the warning symbol to the post so that people can decide for themselves whether or not they want to click on the link.

 

[AlexesDad]

Thank you for the explanation. Nonetheless, it is important to see the problem in its original (and may I say, natural?) environment, and your approach, therefore, remains too restrictive. Here's an alternative solution: Why not we -- i.e., you -- come up with a symbol or label (like skull&bones or EnterAtYourOwnRisk or something else) that identifies a link or post not suitable to be reached while at workplace? Posters like I, or regulators like you, can affix the warning symbol to the post so that people can decide for themselves whether or not they want to click on the link.

Perhaps because it may be very subjective as to what is acceptable and what is not, varying hugely between different employers. If then there is an oversight in marking a post with an appropriate warning or one is seen ( subjectively ) to be ok for viewing at work by the Quantnet admin but nevertheless leads to the firing of an employee because the employer disagreed with the administrator ...... then litigation all around.

 

[Andy Nguyen]

If we have to choose between our members missing a serious math/probability problem or the slight possibility of undesirable consequence, we'll take no chance.
Only if people knew the kind of monitoring software being used at work, NSFW warning is not even an option.

 

[Aditya Chitral]

Here's an alternative solution: Why not we -- i.e., you -- come up with a symbol or label (like skull&bones or EnterAtYourOwnRisk or something else) that identifies a link or post not suitable to be reached while at workplace? Posters like I, or regulators like you, can affix the warning symbol to the post so that people can decide for themselves whether or not they want to click on the link.

With no offense, if the poster can take the trouble of marking it "unsafe" with skull and bones (which is itself a very gaudy) why does he not post only the content that that matters.

 

[CGiuliano]

Who said Quantnet was democratic?

 

[quantyst]

If we have to choose between our members missing a serious math/probability problem or the slight possibility of undesirable consequence, we'll take no chance.
Only if people knew the kind of monitoring software being used at work, NSFW warning is not even an option.

Your premise, your first sentence, is incorrect. It is not necessarily the responsibility of this site to preempt the appropriateness of a user's decision to click or to not click on a link, as long as the user is given ample forewarning of the nature of the link. While there is a wide range of possibilities between, on the one hand, "missing a serious math/probability problem" and, on the other hand, "the slight possibility of undesirable consequence", neither I nor you can worry about how and why people decide to click or to not click on a link, as long as people are given ample forewarning about the link.

Here's another suggestion for a forewarning device: This site can be equipped with a mechanism that would cause a pop-up to appear upon clicking a link that is deemed "potentially inappropriate". The poster of such a link or the administrator would install the device upon a link that's deemed "inappropriate".

 

[Andy Nguyen]

Let's me simply ask you this: why should I spend my time installing such mechanism to facilitate the posting of "potentially inappropriate" materials?
All the technology in the world is useless without the lack of common sense. If it's remotely inappropriate, just don't post it. That's Quantnet principle and I'm sticking to it.

 

[Uncle Max]

Why not just describe this game without posting the video? This will be just 2-3 sentences problem. I watched the video and it has more to do with drunk homeless guy and naked women than with problem itself. What's a big deal to insist on having this video here?

 

[Andy Nguyen]

That's the whole point. Quantyst has close to 200 posts, majority of them posting questions in text so I'm surprised if he can't translate another question for us after viewing the Stern's video.

 

[quantyst]

Why not just describe this game without posting the video? This will be just 2-3 sentences problem. I watched the video and it has more to do with drunk homeless guy and naked women than with problem itself. What's a big deal to insist on having this video here?

I have previously alluded as to why I choose in this case (and many other future cases) to not describe the game. I would rather leave it to each interested party to observe the game in its naturally presented setting and subsequently to interpret the observation according to his/her understanding of the game. The part about "drunk homeless guy and naked women" is some fluff that has nothing to do with the game. And to the question "What's a big deal to insist on having this video here?", I would say that the issue is not whether or not it's a big deal, rather it is sufficient that it is a deal. Furthermore, one could ask the same question just about every post without really receiving a 'satisfactory' answer.

Andy wrote:

"If it's remotely inappropriate, just don't post it."

My point is that it is not up to me to decide the appropriateness/inappropriateness of a post for others. In my judgment rooted in 'common sense' (and all this while I thought the folks here aspired for un-herd-like behavior guided by their uncommon sense), I think my hitherto excised post was quite appropriate. But then that's me and you disagree with me on that.

BTW, I admit practical defeat in this exchange. So, I will let it be.

 

[bob]

If it helps you feel any better, I get the value of the game as 1217.9887339551201.

...and stopping is never optimal with that choice of payoffs.