A little common sense please IB on blocking certain words
 

So I posted a response in a thread today. I used the word ro.......s to describe a situation (not IB related).

Evidently FT edited out part of r-o-a-d-b-l-o-c-k-s (see above, with the ......) because, after ro & before s, it reads 'a-d-b-l-o-c-k' & IB doesn't like that.

I get IB wants folk to not use 'a-d-b-l-o-c-k-ers' because ads are how it makes its $$.

But there should be some common sense involved. A legitimate word that has nothing to do w/ a-d-b-l-o-c-k shouldn't get censored. The word r-o-a-d-b-l-o-c-k-s is used numerous legitimate contexts not having anything to do w/ a-d-b-l-o-c-k-ers.

:rolleyes:

changed it

.......
ro.......

give it a while to start working

Roadblocks.

It's fixed - thanks! :)

Just don't try to post about roadblockers! :D

Or .........s.

But you can post about douche bags.

A space makes all the difference in the world.

We can't have the French unable to discuss showers.

Yes, you can. But only in OMNI/PR. :D

What I don't get about a-d-b-l-o-c-k-ers is that IB isn't unique - many other sites (Forbes, Business Insider) won't even allow us to read their content with one installed.

But, doesn't the mere fact that I've installed one say that I will never ever click on an ad? I don't want em and won't use em. So why the insistence? It just wastes the advertisers money.