It’s always something wacky with the redactions, someone over there sucks ass at Regex
Sounds plausible but if you search for
- dont - 12k results
- don t - 2k results
- don’t - 70k results
But there’s other very strange redactions as well, like “I” here
It’s probably some shitty AI work
I’d ONLY - I “DON” LY
These were probably redacted by a hundred people each doing their own dumb method.
Probably “I’d”
So least amount of unredacted combination of the three is the closer one to what they said they’re trying to redact. The automation could’ve been employed partially through too, meaning some were left out early/late
That tracks. WAY back in the day, you couldn’t say “wristwatch” or “pocketwatch”’ on the GameFAQs forum. Can you figure out why? It blocked both as one word or two.
It’s because both have “twat” in them. Any word that ended in T, followed by a word that begins with WAT, was automatically flagged for moderation.
Same situation. Kind of. Way different scale, sure. But similar logic by the computer.
My favorite was a multitool forum that censored all swear words to “smurf.” A common topic of discussion was the use of stainless steel Leatherman tools in and around the ocean, if they would corrode in that environment, and how to clean and care for them in and around salsmurfer.
salsmurfer
Salfucker? Salcunter? Salasser? Salbitcher? Salshiter? Salcraper? Salbutter? Salnutsacker? Saldicker? Salcocker? Saltwater oh okay there it is.
The old Scunthorpe problem.
And famously at one time the people of Scunthorpe in the UK couldn’t post their town’s name on many websites.
Knight being censored in FromSoft games situation
Nasser had his name auto changed to N***er, which made everything better.
There’s no reason for the sender to have been redacted as well, of course.
Is there an explanation for the use of the equal sign for the letter e on lots of his emails?
I saw a post about this. Wrong decoding of email format.
Yes this is wrong decoding of Quoted-Printable encoding. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quoted-printable
Probably bad ocr of scanned documents.
Then the real question is: why the hell has a digital medium been printed just to be scanned + OCR’ed? (and because clearly redactions are not done physically).
A lot of the degenerate pedophiles in question are grey haired boomers, a cohort that just…loves to print shit out on paper for some reason.
I hear you. But I am guessing that the agents, investigators and other case officials are not all boomers. There are probably hundreds of people on a case like this and their ages probably span all age groups.
😆
