Question about the new rules that got Shodan banned

[Bricker]

I’ve been away.

But as I understand it, and please correct me if I am wrong, it would draw a warning, or at least a note, to say something in Politics and Elections about, say, a prominent female politician, that the politician’s spouse was to be pitied for having to look at her (the politician) naked . . . that the politician was so physically unattractive, in other words, that no spouse could be expected to enjoy the sight, and the necessity of doing so was to be pitied.

Is that a fair guess?

If it is, would it be equally forbidden to offer an opinion about a male politician’s spouse that looking at him naked was a pitiable fate?

Thanks in advance for any guidance you can offer.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@Bricker

I’ve been away.

But as I understand it, and please correct me if I am wrong, it would draw a warning, or at least a note, to say something in Politics and Elections about, say, a prominent female politician, that the politician’s spouse was to be pitied for having to look at her (the politician) naked . . . that the politician was so physically unattractive, in other words, that no spouse could be expected to enjoy the sight, and the necessity of doing so was to be pitied.

Is that a fair guess?

If it is, would it be equally forbidden to offer an opinion about a male politician’s spouse that looking at him naked was a pitiable fate?

Thanks in advance for any guidance you can offer.

What happened when you reported it?

[Colibri]

The OP seems to be based on misinformation. I suggest that you review the announcement of Shodan’s banning, and the extensive discussion on the banning.

Shodan’s banning was not due to the offense you describe, and I would not call the rules exactly new. If you still have questions after reading these threads, you are free to open another thread. Given that we had a long and contentious discussion only a month ago I am closing this one.