Comment on [deleted]
fubo@lemmy.world 1 year ago
While we’re at it, can we abandon the “NSFW” terminology entirely?
There have been many calls to separate out “porn” from “gore” from other topics that are often tagged “NSFW”. This is a perfect opportunity to do that.
Also, “NSFW” centers the idea that employers are in charge of society; that social rules should be dictated by employers. I’m not sure that’s the sort of ideology that the Lemmy developers want to promote.
This would actually work well with a tag system. Like you have predefined content warning tags. “Porn”, “Nudity”, “Gore”, “Violence”, “Sexual assault”, or whatever might be in the text/image/video. Users could then filter tags in their settings.
Defining the tags and enforcing them in communities would probably be the biggest hurdle.
This makes a lot of sense👌
All the support for this. I don’t even personally care much but I’ve seen this requested so many times.
Pyroglyph@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I thought it was generally accepted that porn was NSFW and gore/ick was NSFL.
jadero@programming.dev 1 year ago
I think it is, but NSFW has quite a bit of metaphorical use, too. I’ve seen particularly beautiful examples of craftsmanship labeled jokingly (?) as NSFW to highlight the the difference between merely masterful work and artistry. That’s one of the reasons I manage by subscription rather than by filter.
Even the word “porn” doesn’t really work. There are various Porn groups on Reddit, like EarthPorn, which was dedicated to amazing examples of completely natural landscapes.
fubo@lemmy.world 1 year ago
That distinction is not currently expressed in the Lemmy software.
In any event, “NSFW” as currently used has other things wrong with it from a social standpoint.
For example, it centers employers as our source of social standards, which is a position of extreme submission to capitalist control of social spaces.
It implicitly asks posters to tag their posts according to their understanding of other people’s employers’ opinions rather than according to their knowledge of the content itself.
For that matter, some people’s work is making porn. Erasing sex workers is regressive bullshit.
Pyroglyph@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Have you considered the possibility that the general public’s social standards have been inherited by offices, and not the other way round?
The “work” aspect of the phrase makes sense because it’s generally understood that a great many people browse various websites in an office where it’s easy for other people to glance over and see what’s on your screen.
You’d be ostracised in most workplaces if caught viewing content we currently mark as NSFW, much like you would be in any other public place like a library or a park (though people seeing your screen in these locations may be less frequent). Work is chosen for the phrase because a) it’s the most likely place you’ll be when viewing content, and b) the place you’ll get in the most trouble for doing so.
Knowing this, it makes sense.
I think you’re taking the acronym a bit too literally here. Plus I already explained why it it is the way it is above.
In any case, what else would you have everyone call it? “Content you wouldn’t want people looking over your shoulder and seeing”? Or perhaps “media that you would be embarrassed if your phone blasted it in public”? It’s a bit long winded, don’t you think?
DirigibleProtein@aussie.zone 1 year ago
Maybe rambling a bit, tired and drunk, sorry not sorry.
Like it or not, I feel that the general public’s social standards have historically been dictated mainly by religion, and therefore are (1) different in certain areas/countries; and (2) slow to change. Think of, for example, Sunday trading, holidays for Christmas and Easter, the wearing of certain items of clothing, the use of certain words in public, to name a few. What was common and acceptable 20 or 50 years ago in a white christian country may be NSFW now, and vice versa (such as girly calendars in the workplace, the hiring and treatment of ethnic minorities). Even within a country, different areas may have different social standards.
NSFW makes a direct reference to the workplace, but could also refer to material (not necessarily just visual media) that you might not want your child(ren), parent(s), partner, general public to see on your screen, and as someone else pointed out, could also refer to NSFL.
What could offend one person or group could be fine and acceptable to another; but a discussion of “political correctness”, “wokeness”, and reaction to being offended, is probably better suited to another time and place.
For these reasons, I think that NSF[WL] is too narrow a category; on the other hand I can’t think of a better, unless you use a completely different system, for example video ratings (adults only, [extreme] violence, mature themes, supernatural, parental guidance required).
fubo@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Hmm. When was the last time you saw a discussion of race hatred or religious bigotry labeled “NSFW”? Those things are also “bad” in American workplaces.