G'day:
Earlier this evening I published TypeScript decorators: not actually decorators. And about 5min after it went live, it vanished. Weird. Looking in the back-end of Blogger, I see this warning:
What? Seriously?
Looking through my junk folder in my email client, I had an email thus:
Hello,
As you may know, our Community Guidelines (https://blogger.com/go/contentpolicy) describe the boundaries for what we allow – and don't allow – on Blogger. Your post titled 'TypeScript decorators: not actually decorators' was flagged to us for review. We have determined that it violates our guidelines and have unpublished the URL https://blog.adamcameron.me/2025/10/typescript-decorators-not-actually.html, making it unavailable to blog readers.
If you are interested in republishing the post, please update the content to adhere to Blogger's Community Guidelines. Once the content has been updated, you may republish it at [URL removed]. This will trigger a review of the post.
You may have the option to pursue your claims in court. If you have legal questions or wish to examine legal options that may be available to you, you may want to consult your own legal counsel.
For more information, please review the following resources:
- Terms of Service: https://www.blogger.com/go/terms
- Blogger Community Guidelines: https://blogger.com/go/contentpolicy
Sincerely,
The Blogger Team
"OK," I thought. "I'll play yer silly game", knowing full-well I had done nothing to violate any sane T&Cs / guidelines. You can review the guidance yerself: obvs there's nothing in the article that comes anywhere near close to butting up against any of those rules.
I did make a coupla edits and resubmitted it:
- Updated text in the first para to read "what the heck". You can imagine what it said before the edit. Not the only instance of that word in this blog, as one can imagine.
- I was using my son's name instead of "Jed Dough". I have used Z's name a lot in the past, so can't see it was that.
- I used a very cliched common password as sample data in place of tough_to_guess.
- I removed most of one para. The para starting "Worth learning?" went on to explain how some noted TypeScript frameworks used decorators heavily. Why did I remove this? Well: Claudia wrote it, and this came from her knowledge not my own. I didn't know those frameworks even existed, let alone used decorators. I admonished her for using original "research", but I also went through and verified that she was correct in what she was saying. To me this was harmless and useful info: but it wasn't my own work, so I thought I'd get rid. I had included a note there that it was her and not me. There's nothing in the T&Cs that said one cannot use AI to help writing these articles, but I know people are getting a bit pearl-clutchy about the whole thing ATM, so figured it might be that. Daft though, given it was an admission it was AI-written; rather than try to shadily pass AI work as my own. Which, if you read this blog, I don't do. I always say when she's helped me draft things. And I always read what she's done ands tweak where necessary anyhow. It's my work.
And that was it. But maybe 30min later I got another email from them:
Hello,
We have re-evaluated the post titled 'TypeScript decorators: not actually decorators' against our Community Guidelines (https://blogger.com/go/contentpolicy). Upon review, the post has been reinstated. You may access the post at https://blog.adamcameron.me/2025/10/typescript-decorators-not-actually.html.
Sincerely,
The Blogger Team
Cool. No harm done, but I'd really like to know what triggered it. Of course they can't tell me as that would be leaking info that bad-actors could then use to circumvent their system. I get that. And it's better to err on the side of caution in these matters I guess.
Anyway, that was a thing.
Righto.
--
Adam (who wrote every word of this one. How bloody tedious)
