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.

  • Log in | Sign up@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    6 months ago

    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”.

    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.

    • JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      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?

      • Log in | Sign up@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • weew@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

          • Log in | Sign up@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            6 months ago

            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.

      • ulterno@lemmy.kde.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        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