The failures of the minds jury system.

Yesterday morning, when I opened up minds.com, I was greeted by a message "you have been selected to the jury". After I reluctantly went through the chain of "yes" and "accept", I was presented with a picture of a well known channel here on minds that specializes on showing beautiful naked women. The image in question was probably NSFW but in no way pornography.

The reason given was "Should be NSFW because of pornography"

The appeal was a longer text by the owner of the channel where he pointed out that this picture does not fall under the definition of "pornography". He also showed a number of references (here on minds and elsewhere) which showed more explicit pictures that were *not* marked as NSFW. And as a last point, which made me accept his appeal, he pointed out that *the channel as a whole* was already flagged as NSFW.

My conclusion:

But the fact that a jury was called means that already Minds staff had accepted the report. This is failure #1.

The process I went through to become jury member did mention content policy but did not give a hint about what the content policy is. Failure #2.

As you @AllOfMyLife points out, there is no coherent definition of words. NSFW is not pornography and while pornography is not safe for work, it is by no means a synonym. Failure #3.

And as a last point, that a channel that is already flagged NSFW has to stand up against these reports is friggin nonsensical. This is a *BIG FAT BUG* in the minds software and the jury system. Failure #4.