The wording sounds like this is a problem or even something to solve. Why?
But let's start with the basics:
- Why are these people not countable? Shoudn't we not at least just be able to get a good statistical number on this? We do the same for all people on (and off) this planet.
- Let's assume we have a number: how to we know that they sit and are alone and every day? This sounds to me like an overspecific approach.
- Why would anyone join local groups? You normally can't find people you want to interact with within a specific range, that's the great thing about social media or the internet overall: you don't need to be in a geographic range.
And the last one: what are you trying to solve here?
I still think that the word redacted is meant to destroy the original text, it might not remove the metadata (e.g. length).
Redaction is done mostly in ways with a possibility to reveal the underlying text, but all this is not redacted in my understanding of the word. I always liked the english word for this – the german word "schwärzen" just means to "blacken" the text and this was never the same for me.
But after further research I must agree with you, it just means to obscure or remove, but not clearly just remove. I have been using it for years in a stronger meaning that it's really meant.
One more but: we hopefully can all agree that putting a black bar over some text which still is just copy/pasteable is not even obscuring.
It’s either redacted or not. There is no "bad". The text is either there or it isn’t, sorry but this is a binary option and not on a spectrum from bad to good.
I've been in the enterprise sector for over 20 years, seen everything, started as Linux guy, now project lead, also started with AI. I'm doing mainly contracting within the EU, but I'm open for everything.
So, basically: just bear with us a little bit longer and then drop all computer usage (this will include every tech which blinks).