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.
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