Discussions » Greasy Fork Feedback
Should inclusive and hashed userscript be considered of explicit content
Should our userscripts be marked as (for) "Adults"?
If user-script works at the website with adult content, then yes. The only exception is Sleazy Fork (sleazyfork.org).
Should our userscripts be marked as (for) "Adults", in case supports is extended to non-Adult websites?
As I said earlier:
If user-script works at the website with adult content, then yes.
It doesn't matter if some of the websites where user-script works are not adult.
What about Page Overscroll? Of course not, even though it works on any website.
Indeed, our userscript is specific to adult websites.
The idea, however, may apply to non-adult websites, but it is not yet on our priority.
Suppose we re-brand and re-purpose the userscripts to any website (adult and non-adult), would we be allowed to remove the adult marker from it?
Eventually, the hostnames are hashed and may be revealed only by hashing a vocabulary of many websites.
Let me clarify the rules for you. If user-script is FOR adult websites, then it should be marked as adult. Also, user-script should be marked as adult if it adds adult content.
For example, let's take my user-script Page Overscroll. It wasn't created specifically for adult website(s), that's why it's not marked as adult.
I know and I understand. I read the rules and I respect the rules.
Currently, this script is effective to adult-only websites.
But, what if...
Suppose this script is intended for any non-adult video website. STOP
A YEAR LATER...
After a year, this script also supports adult video websites.
- All hostnames are hashed.
- The script itself has no adult contents.
By insisting on "hostnames are hashed" I mean that user must actively visit an adult website because hostname is not listed in @match nor is it present anywhere in the code, which already makes it lesser easier to make people to install it as it won't appear under /by-site/, not to mention that we also have tens and tens of ads which we don't and won't generate profit from.
Please understand, the xxx contents don't matter to us.
We want to:
- Save time, from 10 minutes to several hours, by displaying only the video (and hiding anything else)
- Hide website distractions
- Distract users out of xxx
- Help people to not to be xxx addicts
- Get peiple to marry and reproduce.
- Get people not to die lonely with useless paper money.
Also worth to note:
If it wasn't for the hashing, I wouldn't event allow to publish this project because I didn't want to advertise xxx websites by composing a list inside @match metablocks.
Hashing the hostnames was the factor that has made this script public.
I am not trying to be mischievous, in case you wonder, I'm trying to get more exposure by removing the xxx mark.
We are aware that adblockers do enough to block ads an let users watch xxx[1], but we want to do more than adblocking.
[1] So it is not so easy to promote userscript inside SleazyFork
Hello
The structure of our userscripts fits to any gallery and video page.
Stages:
There is no plain way to lookup for explicit content, unless you look in some CSS Selectors, but those are keywords.
Corrently, ALL websites are explicit.
Should our userscripts be marked as (for) "Adults"?
Should our userscripts be marked as (for) "Adults", in case supports is extended to non-Adult websites?
TIA