Now that we're finally out of reddit, can we finally get different tag for NSFW and NSFL?
For the uninitiated, generally NSFW is for sexual contents and NSFL is for gory contents. People may want to see one but not see the other at any time for any reason. I have seen this feature requested over the years in Reddit but it never happens. Maybe now some instance can finally implement it?
Also NSFV for not suitable for vegans for anything involving animals, meat, or animal processing. That way we can tag those posts and if they complain about them we know they’re just raging because they’re insufferable assholes.
EDIT: Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting that all vegans are insufferable assholes. I know a bunch of vegans who are awesome people. I’m just suggesting that the ones who rage at people who don’t share their beliefs and who try to shove their beliefs down other people’s throats are insufferable assholes.
EDIT 2: Oh no, I’ve upset the insufferable assholes! Oh wait, this is Lemmy and their downvotes don’t mean anything!
I think it would be better to add the option to mark posts as “sensitive” or “not save for work”, which are then blurred for the user and appear when clicked on.
The rest should be up to moderation and everything else is just solutionism.
Don’t we have enough sick shit going on with the child porn thing that happened? You want to add a tag for Not Safe For Life content? I feel like I’m in bizarro world.
I would vote for never ever having that content on Lemmy.
NSFW is not a Reddit thing. It was around and already popular years before Reddit came along.
I agree that NSFW should be more granular but let’s keep the acronym because everyone already knows what it means and I see no reason to move away from it.
Omg this. Nsfw was ALWAYS not for WORK, nsfl errything else. Dont have to go too into specifics, thats up to subreddits to moderate. Dont sub to those stuff and don’t browse All, or filter shit.
It would be wonderful with something more granular than “NSFW”…
I would love if we got something even more granular like a "Content Warning: ".
Examples:
Content Warning: nudity - might be a painting with nude people, might be a photo of nude people, in essence if it isn’t porn, but there’s exposed genitals, butts or breasts.
Content Warning: porn - you can probably guess…
Content Warning: gore - images with gore, people missing body parts, often dead as well.
Content Warning: death - images with people dying, but without gore.
Content Warning: blood - images with some blood, but no death or gore. (often seen in news articles)
Content Warning: violence - people fighting, but without turning bloody.
These could of course be expanded with many more categories if need be.
The first two and the last three are the same lol.
There really isn’t any need for tuning them even further. They’re both already niche enough as is. The people who are good with the two are good with both. The people good with the last three are ‘good’ with any. You genuinely cannot get any of them without the other lol.
Yeah, it’d be better to implement OP’s idea, see how it goes, and then see if there’s need for the others. Gradual changes help admins see what works best, I think. Follow the KISS: Keep It Simple, Supid.
Intensity warning is a good thing. Though it does make tagging complicated, but in this case overlapping tags would do. blood-death and gore-death and simply death.
probably shouldn’t borrow the exact terms from fandom, but they have tag modifiers like ‘dead dove: do not eat’ which basically means this is an absolute celebration of the previous tag, so gore tag coupled with that tag is gore intensified to the max, while they also use tags ‘slight mentions of gore’ for only a bit of gore. but if you filter out gore both would still be filtered out.
AO3 runs on open source software and has a very robust tagging system.
Yes please and just call it what it is! “Brutal” and “sexual” feg. Because I for one work in a sex fight fetish porn production studio so to me all of this is very sfw.
Having gone through the code a bit, the NSFW handling looks very baked in, so it’s not a small ask. The smart approach would be to add an arbitrary tag system and handle it that way.
“Duck tape” actually has a longer history than “duct tape.” While there is also branded Duck™ tape, duck tape, as in adhesive cotton duck, has been around since the 1800s or so.
I think it’s both. Instead of trying to update the codebase with one new database attributes for each conceivable way to tag content, you simply put in facilities to abstract that - “show only posts with tag foobar”, “hide all posts with tag foobar”.
I don’t care about Reddit (or about growing Lemmy) as much as the average post I see in Lemmy, but if you wanted to migrate people from the former to the latter this is one of the easier ways to help do it. It’s one of those small quality of life things that are asked for periodically. If Lemmy had it it’d be mentioned in Reddit every time people are pissed with the site (which is every day for most sites, including Reddit). It’d be free mouth to mouth word of mouth (being ESL is funny sometimes) publicity for Lemmy
I’ve always thought, of all the options to warn us that clicking will put titties on our screen, that “not safe for work” was a bad choice.
Like, what if your work doesn’t care about titties? What about the tons of other times you wouldn’t want those to pop into your screen without warning, like when you’re on public transit, or sitting next to grandma?
I’d vote for “LEWD” vs “GORE” or something more clear - users can decide for themselves when it is or isn’t safe.
I can imagine they don’t want accountants or IT people looking at porn while they work though. Their own websites are probably not filtered, but whether the work is for a porn site or a car manufacturer, you prefer them focussing on their work. For a content reviewer though, it’s a different story.
That being said, there is not enough money in the world that would convince me to become a content reviewer. The shit they have to sit through is often utterly vile and traumatizing. Here is an article about a facebook moderator as an example: www.bbc.com/news/technology-57088382
Add comment