I’m talking about this sort of thing. Like clearly I wouldn’t want someone to see that on my phone in the office or when I’m sat on a bus.

However there seems be a lot of these that aren’t filtered out by nsfw settings, when a similar picture of a woman would be, so it seems this is a deliberate feature I might not be understanding.

Discuss.

  • glitchdx@lemmy.world
    54·
    3 months ago

    I am of the opinion that there should be more granularity to NSFW than a simple binary.

    I’m a fan of how e621 does things:

    rating:s (safe)

    rating:q (questionable)

    rating:e (explicit,)

    But I would add another:

    rating:t (traumatic, known elsewhere as Not Safe For Life)

    Call it “purity” and allow users to filter posts to allow or block any arbitrary combination of purity levels (wallhalla, formerly wallbase, does this if you want to see how it could work).

    • recapitated@lemmy.world
      6·
      3 months ago

      Moreover I don’t think these need to be on a single scale. Like, trauma isn’t “more” than pornographic, it’s just something completely different (ideally).

      There can be a scale of safe to unsafe for a variety of reasons, and people might be able to filter what they see more proactively based on their own tolerances (and interests).

      But then again complexity can be a deterrence. Tagging and cataloging can be a big content management problem and I think most want to do the simplest thing possible.

      But maybe content advisory could be a crowd sourced effort, using a up/down ranking on explicit categories just like we can do on posts.