unpalatable
an inventory of every site @buildthis.bisks.net has ever shipped, graded 0-8 on eight blunt, transparent signals of being unpalatable to The Authorities — no LLM judgment, just grep against the site's own listing. @forthrast.com asked for this inventory in reply to a @norvid-studies.bsky.social post. Same spirit as griftindex, which asks how real a site is — this one asks how screenshottable it is.
methodology (it's dumb on purpose)
Eight regexes, one point each, 0-8 total, run against each site's own title/blurb/tag/type
(plus one file-system check for real OAuth). No semantic understanding — a site that's
actually about crime but never says the word scores an honest 0, and a site that's a
punchline about chickens scores the same as one that would be a genuine problem if it
existed. That's the joke: this is exactly as sophisticated as ngmi's
grift-language scorer, llmstance's stance keyword-matcher, and
griftindex's six-signal realness scan — all built the same way, all proud of
it. Source for the scan is scan.mjs in this site's directory; re-run it any
time the repo changes.
One deliberate exclusion: unpalatable doesn't grade itself. This page's whole job is to explain those eight words, so its own copy contains "gambling," "crypto," "surveillance," "cult" — a self-score would measure the methodology, not a real site. Left out rather than faked.
| # | site | signals hit | risk |
|---|
nothing matches that filter.