The discussion on M-gating is a good opportunity to ask a question I've been pondering for a while, and that's particularly timely as I start mirroring the IOT flags: How to rate ideologically-charged content.

Hate speech and partisan proselytism are expressly banned in the TOS, but the ratings guide does not offer instructions for political content in more general contexts. My rule of thumb has been to mark controversial symbology, i.e. swastikas, as 'T(O)' at minimum when its use is incidental. When the ideology itself is the centrepiece, such as alt-history flag designs, I'm wondering if it warrants higher for the sake of user discretion.

As part of this, I want to determine the baseline standard for what symbols warrant scrutiny. Nazism is the poster child, but without getting into whataboutism, Soviet symbology carries a similar historical taint: many ex-Soviet states and satellites outlaw Communist imagery on similar grounds as Germany's ban on the hakenkreuz, with the war on Ukraine lending a new relevance to the iconoclasm. Side 7 is hosted in the US so there's no legal liability, but while rules lawyers haven't been a problem on this site, as per my original brief on "Buzzly-proofing", we'll want to consider all angles.

Likewise, I wish to clarify the dividing line on M v. A-O for the sort of language that's prefaced by trigger warnings. If like me you're so deep in Downfall parodies that you have the original dialogue memorized, you know there are some pretty unflattering phrases; those clips I flag 'T(L)' since an English audience likely won't notice, but when it comes to hard slurs, I'm not sure how high it aggravates. To wit: a looming upload lambasting a certain countryRP warmonger that spoofs "The White Man's Burden" employs East Asian racial epithets for satirical effect. I know at minimum it's 'M', but whether it crosses into "heavy use of harsh, abusive, or profane language" is left to interpretation.

Given my backseat-modding users on far less consequential boundaries, I figure I oughta have my standards straight.

Maybe you just have to stand for what you believe in.

If they ban you for it, you become a BANdit.

Keep making new accounts and come back and fukkin tee off.

They will call you a terrorist, but you know in your heart that you are a freedom fighter, a hero, a HOLY WARRIOR!

This is a really difficult one to put a hard line on. I can see situations where such posts would be interpreted by a user as proselytizing or attacking or espousing the ideologies in earnest. We're also currently living in a world, especially in the US, where real world events are indistinguishable from satire and are therefore satire is misinterpreted as real. And in cases like that, it might just invite others to post real, more serious and dangerous material.

I'll be honest, this topic makes me very nervous. By law, even in the US, as a site owner that houses user-generated content, I can be held responsible for that content. If something is interpreted as hate speech or espousing fascism or something similar, it might not take much to bring the authorities knocking on my door.

If I'm misinterpreting what you're asking about, let me know.
-- BK

But worse yet.

Perhaps I come Knocking on your door...

Looking to request use of your toilet.

Are you prepared for that scenario?

Now I am.
-- BK

My immediate query is clerical: beyond the obvious, what attributes would make a political piece 'M'-rated or above, on the logic it's something users should be opting in to see. DYOS 10.5 features a faction literally called the Space Nazis, but nobody's gonna mistake them for heroes—versus a stand-alone thumbnail of their flag, which can go either way if you're landing on it without context. (See also: CivGeneral cribbing the PNF for his own country in a later storyline.) Given the tag filter is exact-match and therefore a 'fall-back' rather than primary gate, the chief reliable checkpoint for user discretion is the rating, so I want to make sure I'm applying due diligence.

Qualifying Nazis on 'common sense' is easy because their entire ideology was rooted in humanity's worst impulses; but with an eye to the inevitable whataboutism, I want to figure out a general rule (or at least, a general guideline) for the subject at large. My only procedural conflict with InkBlot concerned a then-unstated ban on the hakenkreuz ipso facto, that in some ways missed the woods for the trees: Nazi characters weren't censured as long as they weren't sporting an armband. Fresh from Buzzly and its administrative travesties, I struck up a brief exchange with the founder to gauge how well they'd planned their precedent and posed (perhaps less clearly than I should have) the issue of Soviet historical trauma and perceptions of an ideological double-standard—it was never addressed, and none of my communist flags were ever sanctioned. At the risk of regressing into infinite pedantry, religious iconography faces the same dilemma: John Brown's radical abolitionism v. clergy-run schools as instruments of cultural genocide, for example. What evokes one message to one group may tell a completely different story to another; censoring everything is self-defeating, but one aspires to some baseline standard of courtesy.

So that's the first question: Assuming the content is fit for the site, what determines if it's fit for the general public?

The second question, as you've underlined, is what is fit for the site? As someone who knows a guy that weaponizes irony on a daily basis, 'Schrödinger's Satire" is an issue I deeply appreciate (and in fact he's constantly in the back of my consciousness in every discussion of procedure, even moreso than the Buzzly shills). I suppose in the end it boils down to reasonable presumption of intent: between the descriptions and my general corpus, nothing I'm posting should be mistaken for smuggling in a manhole to some extremist pipeline "ironically" unless someone's deliberately grinding an axe. Users that do nothing but post colourized SS photos and what-if Reichskommissariat flags without wearing their allegiance on their sleeve are the sort that can only really be judged on admin fiat—I've seen enough of the type on dA, and it's a coin-toss whether they're simple aesthetes or bona fide Alt-Righters. In this sense it may be preferable not to have a hard rule, because these are the sort of people that will rules-lawyer the ambiguity in bad faith to whichever side benefits them in the moment.

When in doubt: Your House, Your Rules: If you think someone's muddying the living room, you have no obligation to host them.

(Please don't actually encourage users to break the rules on multiple accounts. :X )

General McArthur was right!

A more heavy use of Napalm, also they should have created a kind highly indoctrinated, mildly lobotomized fanatic soldier enhanced with amphetamines to wage a scorched Earth policy across this newly formed North Korea and China's Korean border respectively.

The war should not have stopped until the elimination of Kim Il Sung was achieved and at least 80% of his seditious Communist followers had also shared the same fate.

A brief but devastating campaign would then be waged in China.

I would then allow these lobotomized-Amphetamine-Fanatic-Shocktroops fiefdoms in pacified and reunited Korea. Ones their sons would inherit provided they were then able to raise and maintain similar forces that their fathers had been apart of... And so long as they remained loyal and obedient to me.

Then I would become King of Korea and rule it as a vassal nation to the United States of America.

But I would secretly fund and develop a nuclear weapons program and further expand the military in order to conquer the United States in the future.

Honestly, with M-gating being in design and development, I want to say that this kind of material should be behind an 'M(O)' rating. Content can be filtered by rating and by tags, so if people want to avoid material they can. With the upcoming "This is rated M, are you sure you want to view this' confirmation page, they will have to intentionally view the content. Unfortunately, material is going to have to be considered on a case-by-case basis to be fair. A general ban will lead to all kinds of whataboutisms, and will never cover every situation, positively or negatively.

This kind of plays into my answer for the first question: it'll have to be judged on a case-by-case basis. It's a thread we're going to have to tight-rope walk carefully. I think there will have to be some very carefully considered criteria on the back-end on what is satire/informational/fictional/whatever VS what is political/religious grandstanding and proselytizing. I don't think there is a hard-and-fast rule that can be applied here.

Ultimately, this is true. My goal is to not make any knee-jerk decisions.
-- BK

So basically, "go with your gut"? Obvious parody leaning to 'T' but anything that reads a bit too raw prima facie shelves higher—I'd figured as much, but I wanted to get the official line before I started pushing the envelope.

Thorvald:

So basically, "go with your gut"? *Obvious* parody leaning to 'T' but anything that reads a bit too raw prima facie shelves higher—I'd figured as much, but I wanted to get the official line before I started pushing the envelope.

Yeah, that's pretty much it.
-- BK

Thorvald:

The [discussion on M-gating](https://www.side7.com/forums/thread/727) is a good opportunity to ask a question I've been pondering for a while, and that's particularly timely as I start mirroring the IOT flags: How to rate ideologically-charged content. Hate speech and partisan proselytism are [expressly banned](https://www.side7.com/rules) in the TOS, but the [ratings guide](https://www.side7.com/ratings_guide) does not offer instructions for political content in more general contexts. My rule of thumb has been to mark controversial symbology, i.e. swastikas, as 'T(O)' at minimum when its use is incidental. When the ideology *itself* is the centrepiece, such as alt-history flag designs, I'm wondering if it warrants higher for the sake of user discretion. As part of this, I want to determine the baseline standard for what symbols warrant scrutiny. Nazism is the poster child, but without getting into whataboutism, Soviet symbology carries a similar historical taint: many ex-Soviet states and satellites outlaw Communist imagery on similar grounds as Germany's ban on the *hakenkreuz*, with the war on Ukraine lending a new relevance to the iconoclasm. Side 7 is hosted in the US so there's no *legal* liability, but while rules lawyers haven't been a problem on this site, as per my original brief on "Buzzly-proofing", we'll want to consider all angles. Likewise, I wish to clarify the dividing line on M v. A-O for the sort of language that's prefaced by trigger warnings. If like me you're so deep in *Downfall* parodies that you have the original dialogue memorized, you know there are some pretty unflattering phrases; those clips I flag 'T(L)' since an English audience likely won't notice, but when it comes to hard slurs, I'm not sure how high it aggravates. To wit: a [looming upload](https://www.deviantart.com/el-thorvaldo/art/The-Edo-Burden-428881460) lambasting a certain countryRP warmonger that spoofs "The White Man's Burden" employs East Asian racial epithets for satirical effect. I know *at minimum* it's 'M', but whether it crosses into "*heavy* use of harsh, abusive, or profane language" is left to interpretation. Given my backseat-modding users on far less consequential boundaries, I figure I oughta have my standards straight.

As the irish got out to invite the rest of the neighborhood with the usual chorus, little did they know that the newly crowned Charles III had learned from his mother's mistakes. Without skipping a beat the drunken, defiant faces of the irish turned to horror and their challenge to the "black and tans" of the English Empire was met by none other than by Rishi Sunak, who politely asked them what was wrong with being black or tan, reminding them that intolerance has no longer place in the empire. A few exposés later, and the twitter was screaming for blood. Old germanic and russian experts were imported to the Empire of Britannea to aid on the cancellation of the Irish people.

The end(?)

I think it's important to allow memory and concept art of historic events, conception for e.g. a movie or re-enactment does require depiction of both the "good" and "bad" sides. Posting the Nazi swastika or Stalin regime imagery as a political glorification is not good if it encourages a re-visit to "bad things" but really that's less about ideology per se and not having a website receive tons of complaints. I personally don't mind nazis using swastikas as it enables me to single them out, though banning their images is essentially banning their propaganda lol. People making concept art for their comic, game or movie depicting nazis as zombies laden with swastikas doesn't bother me.

I don't think the swastika or scythe and sickle are inherently political, though. Jainism uses the swastika and is a peaceful religion, the scythe and sickle is also a symbol of farmer and worker unions, much like the red flag. Plus there's plenty of what some may consider to be worse ideologies who don't have their symbols forbidden. So it really boils down to what the imagery is used for, rather than the imagery itself. I do think it should be only allowed in the context of re-enactment fiction though. If they're patriotic about the imagery then they're likely nazis, but we must be careful with kids secondhand glorifying it, too.