'Anti-Trump' keywords

I deleted anti-trump-film from Joker twice, but it's back again.

Just curious, but who approves the "contributions"? Is it a bot or staff?

Generally speaking there is processing by staff, but in the case of keywords I think a lot of it is automated.

The keyword "anti-trump-film" is still attached to 106 titles. Should they be?

All of them ought to be removed, as it is doubtful that the folks who are contributing these are doing so in good faith. This does beg the question of what to do about keywords that are synonymous with "pro-trump-propaganda", if they exist. Then of course there is the matter of the current President of the United States and the former ones preceding Donald Trump's tenure. If there are many applications of variants of "anti-biden", "anti-obama"or "anti-bush", "anti-reagan", so on and so forth, as keywords, then this ought to affect the decisions about what to do with the "anti-trump" ones. In the bigger picture, we may be proper to scrutinize keywords containing "qanon", but that is kind of like an escalation into over-complication.

Now back up to 80!!  Now 101!!

Welcome to the "anti-trump-film" game, which is being played by an incorrigible troll. The "anti-trump-film" keyword needs to be permabanned, for reasons that I explain here.  Based on the date at the top of this thread alone, people have been complaining about the "anti-trump-film" keyword for a year and a half now. Yet nothing has been done about it by IMDb staff, despite them promising several times to look into it. By doing nothing, IMDb staff are effectively aiding and abetting this troll.

PLEASE!  This needs to be dealt with.  I actually think that, in some cases, "anti-trump" is a valid keyword.  I even added it to the recent Borat movie.  BUT... someone is adding it to notable films that have to do with: Black people (Judas and the Black Messiah, about the Black Panthers and Fred Hampton, and the recent Birth of a Nation, both history that happened long before Trump, even, most unbelievable, Ma Rainey's Black Bottom), immigration, the border, lgbtq (Love, Victor, The Prom, Love, Simon), anti-fascism, xenophobia, women's rights (Bombshell and Promising Young Woman), children's movies (Frozen II, Coco, Dora and the Lost City of Gold)), etc. It seems like there's a contributor who has a Trump agenda, and he/she keeps adding and re-adding "anti-trump" to titles that are NOT anti-Trump, even by the farthest stretches of one's imagination. C'mon, IMDb, it is time to be adults and render a logical, factual decision.

I mostly agree with Bradley Kent. However, I would beg to differ on whether, present trolling from the person behind this keyword aside, "anti-trump-film" could be deemed a valid keyword. As I have pointed out here, one of the problems with this keyword is it doesn't even refer to Donald Trump, but instead a vague "trump." It's just a bad keyword all around. I also don't think that "anti-trump-film" or another keyword like it would properly apply to the latest Borat movie. Inherently subjective keywords that imply motives are not a good fit for mockumentaries and satirical films. Even if "anti-trump-film" were corrected to "anti-donald-trump," I believe that it would validly apply to only a single film among the 100+ films with  "anti-trump-film" currently applied to them. I will not name that film here, but it is a documentary whose title and plot summary make it very clear the film was created to urge people to vote against Donald Trump. With that said, "anti-trump-film" still needs to be permabanned. The troll responsible for this keyword is abusing user privileges and will continue to do so as long as the keyword exists.

I bet that Sacha Baron Cohen would be very happy to know that his Borat movie was considered an "anti-trump-film."  He was adamant that it be released before the election.

Okay. I've seen Judas and the Black Messiah, and I'm unable to determine any aspect of it that is against Donald Trump or his service as President of the United States. On the other hand, it wouldn't be too clear to me whether or not there is anything in the movie that is against what for which the Trump family or Donald, Senior, himself supposedly stands. I'm not aware of a keyword that could adequately convey the idea of what would or wouldn't meet the approval of Donald John Trump, Senior. The only thing in the movie that might cause Trump to frown in disgust/disbelief would be the scene in which uniformed police officers (of a particular police department) bring a can of gasoline with them in their police car to a raid/shootout and use it (with apparent impunity) to start a fire inside of the building that the "criminals" were inhabiting. The behavior depicted is much more characteristic of nineteenth century police corruption than the twentieth century variant, but certainly within the realm of possibility, especially when the Tulsa massacre is taken into consideration. Without having researched the raid/shootout/arrest  in question and gathered adequate proof, I'm inclined to doubt the historical accuracy of that particular scene (but I don't automatically denounce it as necessarily dangerous for public consumption or otherwise corrosive upon the public morale). So as not to get too side-tracked, I must return to the point about a hypothetical keyword reflecting Trump's approval or disapproval of a movie and question/dispute the merit of allowing such a keyword to exist, since it constitutes undue weight being given to the perspective of a particular "critic", especially if it is being applied to movies about which he or she hasn't even published a single remark.

You are overthinking it. This keyword is the work of a troll, and that's really all any of us need to know. In fact, if the troll is reading this thread, he/she is probably taking a lot of delight in knowing how much time and thought we are all putting into this. (But I will add that much of that time and thought would have been unnecessary if IMDb staff had nipped this keyword in the bud when it was first brought to their attention. So I blame them just as much as the troll.)

There is no evidence of that a troll is behind it, but unfortunately there never will be, so it is fair enough to blame the IMDb company for this unexplained nuisance lasting for over a year's time. Doesn't anybody at least find it odd that the "appropriate team" seemingly hasn't provided Elizabeth with an "update"? We also haven't heard from any other IMDb employees.

The use of the keyword itself proves that this is a troll. As we've already discussed, the vast majority of these 100+ films have nothing to do with Donald Trump or the Trump family. Yet on a daily basis for two years now, the troll makes sure that the keyword is reapplied to this exact list of films. How could this be the work of anything but a troll? As for the IMDb staff, they are functionally complicit in that they have done nothing to fix the problem. But that is most likely explained as simple negligence.

We've also been seemingly operating under the assumption that a single individual is behind this. We don't know that a given "contributor" or "vandal" is applying the keyword to more than a mere fraction of the total body of affected title pages. Most importantly, we don't know why the IMDb data editors are apparently allowing this. Either the matter is on the back burner or it is existing as intended by the folks who run IMDb.

I'm a bit more concerned about the lack of feedback from the IMDb staff concerning this and in some ways also concerning post-report-repost-rereport kind of "edit" wars that sometimes happen with movie reviews, How is it that an abuse report against a movie review can be approved, thus causing the movie review to show up (in the interface in the perspective of its author) as declined, but then same offending content can be submitted again and immediately approved? Surely the submission screening is partly automated, but it seems the IMDb data editors would be able to override it and also be in agreement with each other about which content is or isn't eligible to go live on the site. These kinds of situations are legitimate cause for contributors to wonder if the IMDb data editors themselves are "deadlocked" or so and just going whichever way the wind blows.

I don't have an opinion on the reviews, or the automation involved in accepting data submissions. But I should probably mention here that I believe the keyword system is, and always has been, a disaster. I also believe that IMDb does not have the resources to make it useful or free of corruption. We're all just asking for superficial fixes. I wait for artificial intelligence to solve this problem. It shouldn't be too long before AI is advanced enough that the IMDb team can use it for a reasonable price to do something that is otherwise too complicated and time-consuming.

Thanks @Michelle ! 9 titles seems to remain under 'anti-trump-film.

It appears that the "anti-trump" troll has latched on to a new inappropriate keyword for abusive trolling purposes. His new keyword is "almond-eyes," and he is trolling IMDb on a daily basis with it. He appears to be using the same botting software that he previously used to mass-apply "anti-trump-film" every 24 hours, and is now doing the same with "almond-eyes." Details explained here.  

I was in the process of writing and posting the following message (loosely addressed to certain spicy criticizers of "censorship") on that other thread when it was suddenly locked from having new posts: That's all very interesting, but at the same time, it is not appropriate to mock Bradley Kent or any participant of the forum. The push to move keywords away from being so colloquial is understandable and actually quite admirable. Maybe there ought to be a discussion about how to actually deal with references to colloquialism found within cinema and television. That would be my focus at at least. The matter of non-colloquial terms being labeled as offensive is a whole other problem. Society has long been at a point where the word "straight" is favored over the word "heterosexual", and the word "gay" is favored over the word "homosexual". In my humble opinion, such a favoring is absurd. I'm not the type to obsess over keywords, but I did be so become obsessed, I would demand the abandonment of terms like "assault rifle" and "sniper rifle", in favor of more exact identifiers or at least less-mistakable identifiers, "fully-automatic carbines", "long-range rifles", so on and so forth. Anyway, the grander issue at hand is the IMDb data editors' apparent inability to resolve edit wars, for lack of a better word. I do understand that a significant contributing factor in the closure was to avert some kind of mild flame war (or meme battle) among participants of this forum.