Conversation
| To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Service comes with NO WARRANTY, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. | ||
| </p> | ||
| <h2 id="6-governing-law">6. Governing Law</h2> | ||
| <p>These Terms are governed by the laws of the United Kingdom, and jurisdiction in disputes relating to the Service shall be limited to the courts of England, United Kingdom.</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For other reviewers: I inspected the diff manually (since the highlighting here is not very informative) and the only changes I see before this point are formatting of HTML source.
| If you see content which you believe is harmful or illegal, report it to us via our <a href="/safety/report">Safety Center</a>. | ||
| </p> | ||
| <p> | ||
| We use proactive moderation mechanisms to analyse posts and user accounts on an ongoing basis. New posts and new users are scanned as they are created and blocked if necessary. We also run regularly scheduled scans of existing users and content to proactively identify and remove harmful or illegal content. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we currently scan posts? I'm wondering if we should be saying we do or we can/might. Since this is in TOS, it could be phrased as "you acknowledge that we can do this", unless the OSA requires that we do it this way? (No strong opinion; just trying to make sure what we say is pedantically correct.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Technically we do; there's no real definition of "scanning", but it'll make sense to users. The system takes post content into account in some scheduled jobs and in spam blocking, which is close enough for me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, I forgot about the role of posts in the spam tools. Works for me.
2 participants
Closes https://github.com/codidact/org-admin/issues/6