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.
If the NSFW limit was put on “image of a woman wearing shorts and sports bra”, would you run to shut down the break room TV when they showed such obscene NSFW things like the Olympic games with their skimpy track and field and beach volleyball outfits? All of those communities would obviously need to be marked NSFW on Lemmy too.
And while NSFW indeed does come from the words “Not safe for work”, it isn’t “blur everything that wouldn’t be appropriate for my coworkers or boss to see me browse during work time”.
Getting caught watching episodes of My Little Pony would be pretty inappropriate and embarrassing during working hours as well.
Why not??? That’s surely exactly what NSFW should mean.
Your “there’s no clear boundary between appropriate and inappropriate” is bogus. You could use the same argument to remove NSFW tagging altogether or allow CSM on the platform. It’s not a useful or sensible contribution.
Nudity, gore, violence - explicit materials. Stuff you wouldn’t be allowed to plaster on a giant billboards in the middle of the city or on the side of your office building or have run on daytime TV in the breakroom. If an image of a clothed female is NSFW then obviously a man wearing nothing but a towel in a shower is as well.
You start making a list of everything everyone takes offence into and finds inappropriate and you end up with a list with literally everything on it. Some people in this thread have used “If I couldn’t use it as a wallpaper at work, it should be NSFW”. Plenty of people would find this picture absolutely disgusting and inappropriate, so should it and everything like it be NSFW tagged as well?
That’s the same argument again. It claims that something is sometimes hard to do therefore should never be done. It claims that some people might disagree therefore no decision can be made. It’s fallacious.
Some people would get in trouble at work if they were caught browsing Lemmy. Period. Therefore every post, and the entire website, is NSFW.
You define it that broadly and it’s meaningless.
There’s a world of difference between “some people” and “most people” that you’re ignoring. Obviously the NSFW tag is useless to people who aren’t allowed on their phones in their break time, but that’s absolutely no reason to exclude scantily clad people from the not suitable for work tag.
I’ll go with, if you are browsing an Anime related channel, then that’s not to be NSFW’d.
When x-Posting, it would be NSFW.
But I don’t use Lemmy or social media at the workplace anyway, so what would I know
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of context
Did you look at the image?
She’s not being sexual or suggestive.
Good luck explaining that to HR or trying to come up with a non-creepy reason for viewing that on your computer at work.
Solution: Don’t look at Lemmy at work.
I don’t look at Facebook, use Google for non-work needs, and I don’t use social media.
I check my email but honestly I shouldn’t even do that.
I work in IT. They can see everything you type, everything on your screen, and can silently record video and audio. It’s not your computer, it’s theirs, and they are completely within their rights under the law.
Are you serious? She’s mostly naked. Look at the body language and facial expression.
And it’s just the woman in a void, unlike the Olympics where they’re people doing stuff.
If a smile and blushing is suggestive to you, I suggest that you never leave your house. Too many temptations out there my guy.
And if a bra and shorts qualifies as “mostly naked” then I suggest that you don’t leave your house between the months of May and October.
I see your other reply below, so I don’t know if this is before or after the other one (which is an honest take).
My guy. Do I have to explain to how “I was reading about the olympics” is a whole other category than “I was looking at anime girls”? Maybe it shouldn’t be, but that’s not the world we live in.
Where do you draw the line?
The platform has its own governance.
Personally, I feel like social media at work is inappropriate.
If you’re watching the Summer Olympics, and only watch the events where they’re scantily clad (and commonly underage), maybe not watch that at work either.
As far as the tag? If it’s not showing nipples, isn’t sexual in nature, or suggestive, I personally don’t see why it should unless you go back and puritanically apply the tag anything anyone could be offended. And at that point - what do we have left?
Look, I can’t control what people define as sexual. It is possible to block communities. Tailor it to fit your preferences. Heck why not make a second profile that is specific to when you’re not at work? And one that blocks out all but the news and wholesome content for work?
I don’t see why this should be a one-fits-all process. We’re trying that out right now, with the supreme court. (Assuming that you live in the US)
Honestly I lost track of what the original context was (irony) and was just mad that people are like “no, no, half naked anime girls are totally on the same level as Olympic athletes”
It’s up to the community what they want to mark as NSFW. I personally think stuff like the linked image are on the far side of NSFW.
Eh I will admit there are places where wearing a bra in public is odd and sexual there are also places like Florida where women were bras out in grocery stores