So does that mean jlai.lu is blocked by lecho.be? I figured it was more likely that lecho.be was blocking Tor, thus blocking my connection.

Indeed. And it’s a needlessly destructive form of sanitization. That is, sanitizing properly normally means replacing the special characters with an encoding to ensure literals render.

I think this is a regression. IIRC, there was a time when a removal only removed it from the timeline. You could still reach it via the modlog. IIRC. But those days are gone. It’s a shame because it’s important for the community to be able to evaluate the mod’s decision making.

I’ve even seen cases where an over-zealous mod gets embarrassed by the mod log and purges the mod log itself to remove traces of the censorship itself. I suppose that’s only possible if the mod is also an admin.

There are bug reports and then there is user support. There’s some confusion because I filed a bug report in a user support community (because there is no bug reporting community).

Indeed the user support solution is to either request that the admin to change the slur filter config, or change instances. But the purpose of the thread was to report a bug in an in-band way (without interacting with a Microsoft asset [#deleteGithub]).

Do you want an answer or just a space to br angry and rant?

It’s all about getting an answer. Any rant that you think you sensed is at most an attempt to motivate a good answer.

I should also stress that I don’t want bad answers. The same broken speculation has been posted multiple times in this thread and in the parent. Thus compelling me to repeat the flaws in that bad answer.

I’m confident at this point that I finally got a viable answer: insurance. But I might be tempted to press for more details because it’s still unclear how the GDPR compliance pans out. GDPR violations are rampant these days, so it could lead to an article 77 complaint. I still have to do a bit of analysis on that from the insurance narrative.

That’s all plausible. But in the end the airline (their insurance) will be the loser, no?

When a traveler has insurance they have some reassurance & comfort that the loss won’t be theirs as they will file a claim. In my cases of lost luggage, the rules of the traveler’s insurance claim required me to still file a claim with the airline. The airline seemed to have the primary liability. Wouldn’t it be bizarre if the airline (who caused the loss) would get off the hook? My insurance just ensured I was compensated one way or another so long as I followed the rules and reported the loss to the airline. From there, wouldn’t my insurance work in their own interest to ensure the airline pays out? Surely my insurance must only be liable for benefits coverage that exceed the airline’s responsibility (depending on how generous my policy is).

Since an insurance company has the resources and legal muscle to ensure the responsible company pays out, I would expect it to /not/ be in the airline’s interest to deal with another insurance company over a loss. Just about every time I had a loss without insurance, the airline was directly liable to me but they told me to pound sand. Every time IIRC. They wouldn’t get away with that against another insurer.

Most of my cards are free with lousy policies that only pay out if I lose a limb or something like that. It was only when I paid for extra insurance that I got coverage that was useful.

In any case, if you are correct, that implies if I get a payment card with zero insurance (a prepaid card?), then the flight details won’t be shared, correct? Might be interesting to test that, but tricky because prepaid cards often don’t issue a statement.

I can see your point in many situations but when I say I am the one b*tching (myself… in the 1st person), in this context I am not saying I am acting badly myself. So the “women are bad” narrative doesn’t follow. In this case the word merely serves as a more expressive complaint.

If someone were to talk about someone else b*tching, it might well be what you’re saying, as they are complaining about someone else complaining & maybe they oppose that other person complaining or their aggressive style thereof.

You should simply pickup a few dictionaries and recognize there are multiple meanings, rather than cherry picking whatever definition plays into whatever narrative you’re fixated on. Have a look at mainstream definitions that most people are commonly working with.

One dictionary defines it as “the feeling of hating that a man has for women”. Another dictionary: “hatred of women”. Another: “Hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women”. Did alternate definitions not survive your whatever cleansing you’ve undergone? Is there a specific book that caused you to deviate from common definitions?

I would avoid trying to pin down absolutes. If you’re looking for absolutes you won’t get that from me.

However generally when a woman uses the word it’s not a reflection of a derogatory attitude toward women but rather just one or a few they are referring to in particular. Of course self hate & hating one’s own people w/same attributes is certainly possible, which is why you’re not getting any absolutes here.

Do you know what I should look for? Is it the version number? I recall Lemmy was forked to Lenny, but not sure how to recognize Lenny instances.

(btw, fwiw, I wouldn’t use sh.itjust.works because that’s even more nannied [by Cloudflare]).

Indeed people with malicious intentions will get around the filter anyway. It’s the non-malicious authors who get burnt by this filter.

but it is still considered misogynistic

Men and women both use that word and when a woman uses it, it’s not misogyny because it’s directed at a specific woman (not a demonstration of hatred of women generally). It usage has murky origins but it can’t be assumed that the author is even conscious of that. The bot is making a blunt blanket decision that it can’t, and it assumes the worst of people.

The other two bugs I mention are bugs regardless of how justified or true the positive detection is.

The travel insurance sounds more plausible than the anti-fraud measure. I had not considered that. Although the question is how is that info sharing is arranged considering airline would not inherently care about my travel insurance or have a duty to inform my insurer.

if you travel to another place and use your card there, then your bank are going to know you’re there.

That’s not the same bank that I bought my airfare with. The bank I use to buy the airfare with has no reason to know where I am. IIRC there’s a stat that on avg Americans have like ~15 or so different bank/credit cards. What you’re saying makes no sense. The airline takes the liberty of giving a travel notice to just one of your dozens of banks, and what about the rest?

If there’s a transaction showing you bought tickets to that city/country for the same dates that transactions happen within that city/country, that’s evidence to support one decision over the other on the algorithm’s part.

I often buy a one-way ticket with one card and a one-way return with another. So not even one bank has the full picture. I typically leave those cards at home as well because they have poor forex rates. Yet this doesn’t trip fraud sensors on the cards I carry to the destination. The fraud sensors are tripped when I forget my ATM limit or incorrectly adjust that limit for the foreign currency.

One bank that requires a travel notice doesn’t even accept that a trip would last more than 2 weeks. I call and say I will be gone 3 weeks, or 4 weeks, and they cannot handle it. They say “the travel notice will expire in 2 weeks so you have to call again when that time comes to renew your travel notice”. What I tell them directly carries more weight than whatever shows up on the transactions because they have no way of knowing what other travel arrangements I have. Yet what I tell them is not fully utilized.

The other problem with your theory is travel notices are a recent development of the past ~10—20 years, whereas itineraries have been shared with banks for as long as I can recall (~25+ years). Anyway, speculation isn’t cutting it. Solid info needed on why this is happening.

If your bank knows you’re meant to be in a specific place, they’ll know transactions happening there aren’t because someone’s stolen your card.

Every bank’s AI-driven fraud detection system is different and non-transparent. Whenever my account gets frozen for “fraud” and I removed¹ at the bank over it, I ask WHY my account was frozen. The CSR guesses what happened (because apparently it’s such a secret the bank’s own staff is kept in the dark). This can be deceiving because bankers seem to be trained to propose their guesswork with confidence to thwart questions. I ask “where in my terms of service agreement does it say I shouldn’t do [whatever the CSR thinks triggered the fraud sensors] & how can I prevent this false positive in the future?” They can never answer that.

Some banks don’t require travel notices and some do. The banks that don’t: how are they finding out my travel plans when I buy the ticket using a different bank? Most likely their fraud algo is (or tries to be) smart enough to not need to track you.

It would probably be a valid exception to GDPR on those grounds.

How is sharing purchase info with banks within the bounds of the airline’s operational needs? The bank’s problem is not the airline’s problem.

(edit)

1: woah, slur filter did a silent hit-and-run on my post. The word “removed” should be some form of “complain” using a synonym that begins with a “b”.

That’s been suggested in the parent thread and another crosspost. It’s the most popular answer but I don’t buy it.

Why would the airline risk the liability of excessive oversharing of personal data for no benefit in return? Is the bank giving them a reduced transaction fee for sharing that data?