They apparently spider and scan their own websites for "harmful" language:
I just find this wild. How and when did language itself become so dangerous to this degree? Along with most adults in my social circle, I care and think about my health, my family, my friends, my work, my dog, my environment, my community, etc. I could not give a flying fuck about language policing. Language isn't going to protect me on my bike from speeding cars on my street. Language isn't going to fill the dams in a drier and drier California. Language isn't going to do jackshit about 400+ ppm CO2 levels. And on and on.
These language policing idiots, and I am choosing my language here, are fucking clueless about the real challenges we face as individuals and as a society. Even worse, they are redirecting valuable resources to stupider and stupider bullshit.
How do we close this Pandora's box? How do we go back to debating meaningful problems and solutions and tell these language policing idiots to do something useful?
"EHLI Scans
In addition to the educational website, EHLI involves scanning Stanford University domains and sites to determine where and how identified harmful language is being used. The end goal is to help individuals and units eliminate harmful language that could be perpetuating stereotypes, inequality, violence, and racism.
Seven web domains authorized by the CIOC were scanned in a pilot phase to test the process of receiving, analyzing, and addressing scan results. This pilot phase led to a change in how terms are categorized from the scans, using these three priority levels:
Most egregious terms that need to be addressed immediately
Terms we do not expect to find on our sites but will scan for due diligence
Terms that can be used in a non-harmful way, generating many false positive results
For the seven domains in the pilot, baseline scans have been recorded, and scan results are now recorded monthly. The process for working with content owners for remediation is still in a planning phase. Additional domains to be included in the scanning process are being evaluated, in close partnership with the CIOC."
The thing more of us need to understand is this has never been about "safety", it's about power and control.
Becoming able to control someone's thoughts is very, very powerful and sought after, and what are thoughts composed of? Language. Define the language and you define how people think.
Define people of latin origin should be referred to by "latinx" and nothing else and congratulations: An entire collection of cultures was removed of their identity and subjugated.
Define all environmental concerns as "global warming" and later "climate change" and congratulations: You just invalidated swaths of inventions and solutions created by our forefathers and turned entire fields of science into a handy little political tool to fling around for profit.
Define science as something to be unconditionally trusted and congratulations: You just turned science into a religion and gained one of the biggest religious forces known to man to use for profit.
The people behind all this are very ingenious and very dangerous; he who controls language owns the human world.
Hanlon's razor applies. I don't believe that most of the people doing this are motivated by malign intent. Some are, some people really get off on telling others what to do, getting people fired, etc. But most truly believe they they are doing a service to minority groups.
In your example of "Latinx" for example, if you are a white person who doesn't speak Spanish but you really want to help improve society, it probably sounds like a great idea! Put women and men on an equal footing. It's very easy to walk through a field of landmines if you don't know there's any landmines there. It's very easy to be an activist if you don't know anything at all about the world.
It's better to attack the idea than the people. Push back on that Overton window. Rename your main branch to master. Call someone a Karen.
I think that the rationalization to self is indeed about goodwill. But the monkeybrain does love to elevate self above others, and I find that the people who write these are, to some degree, incapable of separating the motivations of true societal benefit and oneselves' lust for moral superiority from each other. This power motivation is so strongly encoded within us that if you're not explicitly aware of how its guiding your actions you WILL fall prey to it.
My generous take is that whoever wants to go this deep towards language policing has experienced real trauma that has debilitated them. That's something I can view compassionately.
But perhaps in having been traumatized and victimized, they view their identity as primarily a victim, because they don't know how to move on from or get over or heal from the trauma. And in an attempt to "redeem" their past, they want to create a landscape in which they can use their victimhood to accrue, wield, and exercise power, via guilt-tripping others, shaming others, and using their traumas and sufferings (again, something I can relate and sympathize and empathize with) as "street-cred" to flex on others who are all part of those who are "contributing to the traumatic systems that have harmed people like them."
On the flipside, though, are people who refuse to acknowledge their traumas, because they've bought into a false belief system that to be hurt by life means you're weak, and to be weak means you don't deserve respect and the rewards of society and that you're somehow inferior to those who haven't been traumatized or taken advantage of, etc.
I feel like both are two sides of the same coin. One becomes all-consumed with their traumas. The other sticks their head in the sand. The former wants to police and control everyone by using their traumas as a means to jockey for power over others. The latter often shits on people who talk about any and all trauma – even in healthy ways – because to admit it in themselves means they're somehow lesser-than and inferior, weak and unworthy.
That seems to be the extreme ends of this whole thing. But healing from traumas seems to be kind of the third way, so to speak, and an uncomfortable journey that upends both extremes, without being a "meeting in the middle" type of proposed solution.
I would say that McCarthy and his acolytes, was also motivated to do good (protect America).
The villagers burning 'witches' were motivated to do good (protect the village, and incidentally get their neighbours lands / jobs ... hmmm)
The students in the Cultural Revolution in China were motivated to do good (bring us forward into the utopia ... hmmm).
There is a nice saying, present in many languages: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions".
And while I think intention does actually matter (vs. the a frequent claim by the woke), results matter more. (Intention matters because, e.g., it influences how you treat the action.)
> all this “believe experts” dogma is legit indistinguishable from the rhetoric of evangelical christians. ffs please just go to church and leave science to the skeptical assholes.
First, quoting a poorly formatted tweet as if it was something OP said is annoying. Second, arguments about "science skepticism" have little to do with the language experiment shown in the submission.
> The thing more of us need to understand is this has never been about "safety", it's about power and control.
Precisely.
It's an attempt by some groups to have others jump through hoops that they define. The end goal is never language, but the ability to control what others do and be the one calling the shots.
I can't remember the book it came from, but there was an author who wrote about his time growing up in an Eastern European communist country. During "Independence Days" his dad had to put a flag up in his store window. It wasn't optional. If he didn't do it, the police would stop by and ask why he didn't have a flag in his window.
If he refused, he's be on the "naughty list" with the authorities which could impact his employment, his housing, his kids schooling.
Putting the flag in the window was never the goal of the government. The goal was to show citizens they had no choice. The author talks about how capitulating the demand was dehumanizing and just ground down any resistance to authority that may have existed. "If I don't have the choice as to fly a flag or not, what choice did I have with more important aspects of my life?"
It's like putting stars of David on Jews in Germany. It wasn't just to identify them in public (though that was a goal) it was also to show them "who was in charge".
> During "Independence Days" his dad had to put a flag up in his store window. It wasn't optional. If he didn't do it, the police would stop by and ask why he didn't have a flag in his window.
Václav Havel is really an incredible figure. From a political dissident repeatedly imprisoned for his writings and advocacy, to first President of Czechoslovakia after the fall of communism and the country’s first free elections.
> It's an attempt by some groups to have others jump through hoops that they define. The end goal is never language, but the ability to control what others do and be the one calling the shots.
Nicely put. Living in a Eastern European country we've just swapped a word "communism/socialism" with "democracy", so in effect very little changed. Ironically, not putting the flag out in towns an villages will now brand you as a anti-Croat and a communist sympathizer which can have very serious consequences if you ever want to get employed by the local government (usually the only source of employment in a lot of places).
Slightly related to the control of languange. One of the first editions of the National Geographic Magazine in Croatia (in Croatian language) featured a big article about a deadly disease spreading mostly in Africa, and how you could be born infected and it was terrible and everything. I've read that article and the disease was called "kopnica". I've never heard about it before, but it sure did seem nasty.
A month later (or could be two, doesn't matter), there was an angry letter to the editor which accused the magazine's proofreader of inventing a new word for AIDS (a word which everyone on the planet knows about). That proofreader in the reply thinly accused the reader of harbouring anti-national thoughts and some other horrible sentiments. I was shocked and wowed never to buy NGM in Croatia ever again.
Similar thing happened in IT magazines over here which started to "translate" English words by means of just inventing Croatian sounding ones. That made no sense to me, but it did make some proofreader's and academia careers.
Once I was on a public consultation "conference" about drone regulation in my country and had
some polite technical questions on the end of one talk. The government official berated me for "using foreign words [english] when we have such nice [newly invented] Croatian words" and then didn't bother to answer any of my questions. Half of the audience laughed how clever the official sounded. Also it was a bit sad that consultation was just a formality, but thats a different story.
So you're completely right. Language can be molded into small hoops for your enemy to jump through first. In general, a set of rules you create, and your enemy has to abide with making the communication asymetrical easing the control one has over the other.
And it's a vicious cycle which generates support. If you can pressure a neutral to adopt your 'language', they are likely to eventually convince themselves that they support your ideals, since why else would they go through the trouble of adjusting how they speak?
More than a dozen replies join a chorus of agreement here.
I wonder if there’s another framing for this. One of the top educational institutions in the world is formalising a communications approach that doesn’t casually evoke, reference, and cause suffering. This dynamic might only be present in a small percentage of their audience—in fact it affects quite a significant majority—but in either case it’s a win worth pursuing on the scale of their operations.
The antidote to the fear and hysteria of change is transparency — and what a marvellous gesture of transparency here, from Stanford. (Remember the Byzantine episode from ICLR?)
Context matters. Each of the guidelines linked here has some. It’s a gift: you can now use that language more precisely.
And he who better controls his own language, better controls his world.
> These language policing idiots, and I am choosing my language here, are fucking clueless about the real challenges we face as individuals and as a society. Even worse, they are redirecting valuable resources to stupider and stupider bullshit.
This is spot on. They are cultural parasites who siphon resources and attention from their host.
> How do we go back to debating meaningful problems and solutions and tell these language policing idiots to do something useful?
By refusing to placate emotional cripples and authoritarians. By refusing to accept the false assertion that everyone is innately entitled to respect. Respect is something that is earned. Those who seek to police our language due to imaginary harms that they assert someone may suffer are not entitled to respect - quite the opposite. It is long past time we as a society started actively disrespecting these people. We should heap scorn and ridicule on the people who came up with this ridiculous blacklist of commonly used words and drive them out of decent society. We should actively disrespect the self-appointed hall monitors that claim the power to decide the acceptable parameters of public discourse. The fact that such petty, small-minded people have filled the halls of power in most of most powerful institutions, from academia to government, is a withering indictment on our society.
> We should heap scorn and ridicule on the people who came up with this ridiculous blacklist of commonly used words and drive them out of decent society.
Let's put things in perspective. Stanford, on its own website, behind a Stanford login, posted a list of words they want to try to avoid using on their own websites and code. That's it. For this great offense, you suggest:
> We should heap scorn and ridicule on the people who came up with this ridiculous blacklist of commonly used words and drive them out of decent society.
Really. To reiterate, these people who you say should be driven "out of decent society" aren't even imposing that you shouldn't say these words. It's just for them. And for this you want to encourage their banishment at a societal level? You suppose they are the authoritarians, though? You, as always, are free to do whatever you want. Say all the words on the list in a row if you want. No one will stop you.
Your comment is very dissonant for me, because it seems to be anti-woke, yet pro cancel culture. I feel like this must be evidence for Horseshoe Theory.
The list is deserving of scorn and ridicule, precisely because it precisely is ridiculous. The language will be enforced onto professors as they routinely crawl and scan their own domains [1]. American students are taking on enormous debts to pay for an ever increasingly size of administrative busy bodies who come up with nonsense like this to justify their existence.
> American students are taking on enormous debts to pay for an ever increasingly size of administrative busy bodies who come up with nonsense like this to justify their existence.
Now also taxpayers, because of debt cancellation. It's subsidized now.
> The language will be enforced onto professors as they routinely crawl and scan their own domains [1].
You don't seem to understand how academic departments are organized. I can't see any content on the link you provided (it just has a header that reads "News"), but faculty are not subject to the style guidelines of the IT department, especially if they are tenured. Faculty hire/fire decisions are made by the Chair and Dean of the respective departments, and they aren't bound by these kinds of lists either.
Feel free to criticize and ridicule as much as you want, using whatever words you want. No one will stop you, especially Stanford. But the fear you articulate here regarding faculty freedom of thought is baseless.
> I can't see any content on the link you provided (it just has a header that reads "News"), but faculty are not subject to the style guidelines of the IT department, especially if they are tenured.
The url indeed seems to be dead right now but it originally had described an initiative which would periodically scan everything which is hosted on Stanford domains, which naturally would include faculty pages. It previously stated as follows:
"EHLI Scans In addition to the educational website, EHLI involves scanning Stanford University domains and sites to determine where and how identified harmful language is being used. The end goal is to help individuals and units eliminate harmful language that could be perpetuating stereotypes, inequality, violence, and racism.
Seven web domains authorized by the CIOC were scanned in a pilot phase to test the process of receiving, analyzing, and addressing scan results. This pilot phase led to a change in how terms are categorized from the scans, using these three priority levels:
Most egregious terms that need to be addressed immediately Terms we do not expect to find on our sites but will scan for due diligence Terms that can be used in a non-harmful way, generating many false positive results For the seven domains in the pilot, baseline scans have been recorded, and scan results are now recorded monthly. The process for working with content owners for remediation is still in a planning phase. Additional domains to be included in the scanning process are being evaluated, in close partnership with the CIOC."
> But the fear you articulate here regarding faculty freedom of thought is baseless.
It absolutely is not. The coded language of "Harmful Language" which is constantly morphing and changing to continuously include more and more benign words such as "User" and "American" will absolutely be used to full effect against Faculty.
I guess we will see, but my experience with these kinds of things tells me that 0 professors will be disciplined at Stanford for using the words “user” or “American” on their Stanford owned properties. IMO you’re being hyperbolic and pushing baseless FUD to bolster your own preconceived notions, notions which aren’t supported by either the word list nor the link you’ve provided.
Indeed, the content from the link which is dead doesn’t support your point. They said they scanned for content and found egregiously harmful examples, along with many “false positives”, meaning there is a process here. So it’s not just “you used the word American, therefore you’re disciplined.” No, it’s nothing like that whatsoever.
It’s more like you posted the word “jewed” somewhere on your personal faculty page and they’d prefer to get rid of that. But if you posted “jewed” in an academic context, there’s obviously nothing wrong with that usage.
I don’t think I need to explain why Stanford doesn’t need a list of words or scanning tools to discipline employees for using racial slurs on company property, so what’s the problem?
The link is now alive again, so you could see it yourself.
As for the list, the problem is the clear attempts to obfuscate and grow the number of wrong think words wile trying to equate their usage as harmful. Purposeful and clearly overtly racist words such as "jewed" are right along side words like "grandfathered", "user", is a pretty clear attempt to mix the two. There certainly will be a process, but your kidding yourself thinking that academics will not be told under no uncertain terms that they are permitted to express "Harmful Language".
Okay I hear what you are saying. If I would improve this list, I would separate it into "overtly racist words" and "words and phrases that have meanings or origins which aren't well known and that may be problematic in some circumstances". Would that help assuage some of your concerns?
> your kidding yourself thinking that academics will not be told under no uncertain terms that they are permitted to express "Harmful Language".
And you're kidding yourself if you think academics will care. Wake me when something actually happens.
Isn't it Berkeley where 80% of applications for faculty positions are filtered on their diversity statement (even for things like particle physics)? Or consider Stuart Reges being disciplined by UW for not putting the boilerplate land acknowledgement on his course's syllabus.
You are woefully uninformed, or willfully misrepresenting things if you don't think using such lists to punish people aren't already being used today. It's not harmless, and it seems dishonest to me to paint it as such.
I'm not the one misrepresenting things. The entire nature of Stanford's word list has been misrepresented up and down this thread by those freaking out that it's some sort of blacklist of "forbidden words" (as one poster put it).
Also I'm in academia so I'm not woefully uninformed about what goes on in academia and how it works. I think the SV tech workers here on HN are the ones who are uninformed about how academia works.
> Isn't it Berkeley where 80% of applications for faculty positions are filtered on their diversity statement
Have you ever read such a statement? They are very important for academia, because classrooms are very diverse. It's important for applicants to state their philosophy on teaching people with different (dis)abilities, because that's the nature of the job. As an instructor, you will face the range of disabilities in students from mild dyslexia all the way to students who are bound to a wheelchair and communicate through a computer voice system. How does the instructor handle those situations? What techniques or practices do they employ?
Also, classroom conflicts do exist. For CS there aren't so many, but in other classes that touch on contentious issues, the question for the instructor is: how do they balance the views of all students in a constructive way that is conducive to learning? It's not easy, and so requires some explanation on the part of the applicant.
Filtering on diversity statements means advancing candidates who have put genuine thought into these issues, because again, they are important for the job.
The other part of the diversity statement plays is that is forces the candidate to reflect on their community service work. Did you know that service is part of the job description of a professor? The job is research, teaching, and service. We ask them for a research and a teaching statement, so what's wrong with asking for a diversity statement? Would you rather it be called a "service" statement?
The filtering process selects for candidates who are serious about service and who have thought deeply about how to teach a diverse classroom (because that's the job). I don't see a problem with that; even if you disagree with DEI initiatives, you still have to teach a diverse classroom. This whole idea that we can't ask job candidates how they handle situations which will arise on the job to which they're applying is strange to me.
> Or consider Stuart Reges being disciplined by UW for not putting the boilerplate land acknowledgement on his course's syllabus.
This is a misrepresentation. The land acknowledgement for UW is in fact optional on the course syllabus. What Stuart Reges did was put his own land acknowledgement statement on the syllabus which veered from factual statements and was a political statement.
So he was using his platform in an engineering course to push his own personal political agenda. A syllabus in particular is regarded as a contract, sometimes binding, between student and professor. It's not the place for off-the-cuff political statements. If Stuart Reges is allowed to put his political statements on his syllabus, that opens up the door for all professors, which makes the syllabus a political platform. Apparently he was very vocal about the land statements outside of the syllabus and that is fine for UW, but it just didn't belong in the syllabus.
I don't see a problem with that, do you? If you want to include the UW land statement, that's fine. If you don't want to include the statement, that's fine. But what's not fine including your own statement because you're personally politically against land statements or what the UW statement has to say. I mean, if you take a course, do you care to see it colored with political statements from your instructor that are wholly unrelated to the course content?
As for how he was disciplined... what happened to him exactly? They asked him to take down the statement, he refused. Yet his salary was uninterrupted and he still works at UW to this day: https://www.cs.washington.edu/people/faculty/reges. So the sum total of his discipline was what, exactly?
According to the lawsuit Reges filed, he didn't even claim material damages. His lawsuit was about being butthurt because he felt like a pariah, which reading the situation, is as much his fault as anyone else's. In fact, the party that was materially impacted was the department; they had to open another section of the course because he was so acerbic to the students. That costs serious money and time from all of his colleagues. Honestly for that alone I would have fired him, but I guess UW is more forgiving than me.
>To reiterate, these people who you say should be driven "out of decent society" aren't even imposing that you shouldn't say these words. It's just for them.
So, in your opinion, if Neo-Nazis try to impose a speech code among those young people who they seek to indoctrinate into their "ethos", that is okay, as long as it is "just for them" and they don't try to impose it on society at large?
>And for this you want to encourage their banishment at a societal level?
Yes.
> You, as always, are free to do whatever you want. Say all the words on the list in a row if you want. No one will stop you.
Just like Neo-Nazis and self-appointed cultural hall-monitors at Stanford are free to do whatever they want. And the rest of us are free to drive these worthless people out of decent society because they have no place here and are detrimental to free and open discourse among decent, reasonable people.
> So, in your opinion, if Neo-Nazis try to impose a speech code among those
Yea, I’m supportive of the first amendment rights afforded to all Americans, including neo-Nazis, with whom I disagree. Crucially, they already do this. Use too many words that neo-Nazis don’t like to hear and they’re likely to reject you from their group, which is also their right.
> Yes.
Great, thank you for admitting you are in fact an authoritarian in this context. It clarifies the rest of your comment.
We close the box by mercilessly mocking these ninnies and refusing to give money or influence to institutions that engage in this sort of chicanery. Don't send your kids to Stanford. Say whatever words you want.
The need for express the category doesn't go away with the word, so new words replace the category, and banning the word does nothing to the underlying category
Best seen with the transformation of terms around disability, where even transformations as late as differently abled are now derogatory and to be avoided.
I had that very thought reading the entry for "abort". so what happens when we nuke that word? "I've had a cancellation". well, now we're calling it that, and the argument is now about that, and round and round we go.
I'm not against changing how we use language, but perhaps there are deeper issues that could be dealt with to avoid having to retcon our dictionary in the first place.
besides the nature of offensivene of language come with intent, people are perfectly able to come up with mean sentences out of menial words (your brain is as big as a pea) all the while if you go to a supermarket in spain all dark chocholate is hard r n-word and life goes on as normal.
we kinda have lost the plot when calling out people for being intentionally disrespectful became calling out any form of language that the disrespectful people used, in a form of guilty-by-association game.
if we could be back calling out specific instances of offensiveness and evaluate it case by case it be grand. it doesn't scale, but justice never was intended to be scalable -by design-
'Frequently, over time, euphemisms themselves become taboo words, through the linguistic process of semantic change known as pejoration, which University of Oregon linguist Sharon Henderson Taylor dubbed the "euphemism cycle" in 1974, also frequently referred to as the "euphemism treadmill"'
Language policing is a great tool to control society. There is always some “flaw” in your language. So you have always something for people to “struggle session” about, in order to become better communi… I mean woke. Ideologies based of group identity have been using this since the early days.
We can't right now. We could have done it 15 years ago, as I remember being able to openly talk about it at work (master vs main) but everybody who agreed with me could not be bothered to take a stand. Right now I would be terminated instantly for arguing "tarball" can not be harmful, such is the environment.
That's the clever thing about this setup. You can't stop it because any pushback makes you a "fascist" or any other "ist". It's shielded from any type of criticism by shame and mob justice.
You can't tweak this nor will they self-correct. This is a monster to forcefully remove, but nobody dares to do that.
I don't see an end to this, I think it's getting worse. It looks like a revolution picking up speed. The places that stopped revolutions did it with very heavy measures. If there is a way to stop this that is not that, I don't know what it is.
I don't think this guide is meant to prevent harm. It almost seems like this kind of language policing is like a shibboleth to identify the in from the out group. It forces you to join the in group or suffer the immediate consequences of being in the out group. So like instant career suicide if you disobey the rules. If you don't comply, you are now in the same camp as the most evil people on the planet. No one wants that association so they comply. It's extremely effective. So I don't see it going away.
There must be something from the past we can learn from. The Salem witch trials come to mind. The Puritans in their towns believed witches to be real. That they existed among them. That they were evil and harmful to their well being. This lead members to believe sightings of behavior to be witchery. But most concerning is the social mechanisms you describe. Where the risk of ostracization outweighed truth. Why risk questioning the claim of a witch when it can cost you your life? The panic grows and eventually takes hold of the town. Everyone is complicit in the behavior, regardless if everyone actually believes it or not.
This story is not unique. We've seen it in WWII Germany and communist regimes around thew world. This language list by Stanford is just a modern reincarnation of the same thing. The language list isn't actually about making people feel safer. It's a means of power and control.
The founding fathers of the United States were well aware of this human behavior. The freedom of speech. The presumption of innocence. Right to a jury. Right to privacy. Are all principles enshrined into law to serve as a countermeasure to our proclivities of mob rule and hysteria. These are all effective. But we now live in an age of social media. Mob rule has returned. But it's now all virtual. Do we need to formulate a new list of rights to counteract virtual mob rule?
> I don't see an end to this, I think it's getting worse. It looks like a revolution picking up speed. The places that stopped revolutions did it with very heavy measures. If there is a way to stop this that is not that, I don't know what it is.
Well, they do this thing where they form a mob and harass people.
The thing is, their ingroup is relatively small, about 8%. If sizeable chunk of the outgroup started using their tactics against them...
I just find this wild. How and when did language itself become so dangerous to this degree? Along with most adults in my social circle, I care and think about my health, my family, my friends, my work, my dog, my environment, my community, etc. I could not give a flying fuck about language policing. Language isn't going to protect me on my bike from speeding cars on my street. Language isn't going to fill the dams in a drier and drier California. Language isn't going to do jackshit about 400+ ppm CO2 levels. And on and on.
These language policing idiots, and I am choosing my language here, are fucking clueless about the real challenges we face as individuals and as a society. Even worse, they are redirecting valuable resources to stupider and stupider bullshit.
How do we close this Pandora's box? How do we go back to debating meaningful problems and solutions and tell these language policing idiots to do something useful?
https://itcommunity.stanford.edu/news/poc-it-2022-progress-a...
"EHLI Scans In addition to the educational website, EHLI involves scanning Stanford University domains and sites to determine where and how identified harmful language is being used. The end goal is to help individuals and units eliminate harmful language that could be perpetuating stereotypes, inequality, violence, and racism.
Seven web domains authorized by the CIOC were scanned in a pilot phase to test the process of receiving, analyzing, and addressing scan results. This pilot phase led to a change in how terms are categorized from the scans, using these three priority levels:
Most egregious terms that need to be addressed immediately Terms we do not expect to find on our sites but will scan for due diligence Terms that can be used in a non-harmful way, generating many false positive results For the seven domains in the pilot, baseline scans have been recorded, and scan results are now recorded monthly. The process for working with content owners for remediation is still in a planning phase. Additional domains to be included in the scanning process are being evaluated, in close partnership with the CIOC."