this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2025
28 points (63.0% liked)
Fediverse
36144 readers
16 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The subscription tab exists for this very reason. Stop being a selfish prick and trying to curate /ALL
No! Those who posts unmarked NSFW are the ones that should stop being a selfish prick and mark it as NSFW
The example OP has giving isn't even NSFW though, so no tag is warranted.
Softcore porn is absolutely NSFW for many people.
Well since you obviously didn't open the link, it's a girl in a fully covered bikini. Literally not softcore anything, it's as racy as sports illustrated.
... where do you work that sports illustrated isn't considered NSFW? Seriously I'd get fired out of a cannon if I was caught browsing it at work, this seems kinda disingenuous to imply it's not NSFW just because it's not explicit.
I've seen worse images as people's office wallpaper/screensaver.
Okay, but you do understand that most people don't work in an environment where that would be considered at all acceptable right?
I'm not sure. Most people are in China and India and I know little about their office culture.
It's not much different from western cultures, though india does have a problem with sexism in (and outside of) the workplace. But are you really arguing demographic semantics to avoid the point at hand?
As I said, I regularly seen bikini picture and the like on office computers, so yes, I think it's acceptable in "western culture". Maybe not in some of the more puritan countries or large corporations, but in general, yes.
Also the term NSFW isn't defined by what is literally allowed at workplaces, so the entire argument is pointless. It's a tag for porn and gore. Bikini pictures aren't porn.
It's... literally "Not Safe For Work". There's no formal definition, let alone one beyond "not safe to have at work". It was a usenet appelation applied to content you don't want your boss seeing you browsing, it's never evern been explicitly about porn? It's not exactly hardline censorship to want tagging guidlines to be followed. At the moment, /all is the best way to find new communities to subscribe to. It's not unreasonable to ask people not to complain about the content they find there, but since this is the one single content filter common to lemmy, it's also not unreasonable to ask people to use it?
Despite what the letters literally stand for or where it's from, it doesn't actually mean that (anymore). If it did for most people almost any media would be "NSFW". Most people would get in trouble for watching a movie or playing video games at work, regardless of content. That's obviously a useless definition.
Since it was popularized on reddit and other social media the tag now defacto means porn/gore. That's how the vast majority of people uses it and that's how I think it should be used.
And of course people can complain. But well, sometimes the complain might just fall on deaf ears. And in the case if demanding bikini pictures be tagged as NSFW, I think rightfully so.
But it's never stopped meaning that, though? It's still extremely commonly used to tag that sort of content, and I don't know why you're starting to insist that words don't mean the things they say.
The situations in which you're watching any alternative media in a workplace setting are potentially fraught with reprimand, though. "You're there on work time being on your phone is literally theft" and all that hyperbolic corpo BS. But during times you can be on your phone, it's still broadly less acceptable to be watching "haurhi jiggles up and down [nightcore] [bigtits]" videos than it would be watching generic videogame content.
The literal meaning of the phrase is useless, since what is safe at a workplace varies drastically with the workplace. It's also relevant in a lot of other settings that aren't work, like browsing your phone on public transport or at school. It's also very common for phrases to have a different meaning from the literal meaning of the individual words. I'd say that's even the case for most phrases. When you say it's raining cats and dogs there aren't actually cats and dogs falling from the sky. In this case the actual "work" aspect isn't relevant.
What the tag does signify is that the following content might be disturbing or inappropriate in certain situations so you can be aware before opening it. And bikini pictures don't warrant that warning, even if some workplaces have a policy against it.
Dude, maybe take a few steps away from the computer for a little while.
... What?
Never mind China and India — there's much more cultural diversity in the world than you'd have us imagine even within any one "western" country.
Mmk. So?
It's legally sold to minors, available in grocery stores, hell I've seen them sitting on a rack in doctor's offices.
NSFW is the terminology we use for actual explicit material, that's the point. It's a shorthand. Getting overly literal about how 'work' should be applied to the context is like arguing that all FPS games are actually RPGs because you're 'playing the role' of some character.
No, NSFW is terminology we use for content that might get you in trouble for browsing at work. Just because you use it differently doesn't change the definition.
And nobody is going to get in trouble for scrolling past a woman with a bikini on at work. If your workplace is that strict, you're going to be in more trouble for scrolling social media on the clock.
More graphic content is visible in ads on any major website. The idea that a clothed woman should be censored as if it's vulgar is excessive in my opinion. Where do we draw the line? Shoulders? Knees? Ankles? I had assumed as a society we had decided it was the actual genitals, but apparently not.
Why does your work have cannons
Why are they human-sized barrels
and finally
How do i get a job there
It wasn't in my building, but the maintenance building was on the same campus and they were for triggering avalanches. I think you'd probably have to be chopped up pretty fine to fit in them though (I think we can all agree that would be NSFW content...) but you could probably manage it. And man, IDK. The DOT howitzers teams are never hiring, believe me I check regularly.
Just because there's no nudity doesn't mean it's safe-for-work. This would absolutely make my female colleagues uncomfortable and that falls under the spirit of NSFW. Getting pedantic about what is or isn't pornographic or nudity to justify having gross pictures up on your screen is entirely beside the point -- if there's any reason it could contribute to a less equitable workplace, it should be labeled NSFW. If there's any debate about it at all, it's the considerate thing to do.
NSFW is cultural shorthand for porn or graphic content. It's not a literal guideline for what's acceptable in every single workplace. Should ACAB posts be labeled NSFW because saying that at my workplace in the US south would make a hell of a lot of people uncomfortable?
And why are you browsing Lemmy at work in full view of passing coworkers? Is it that lax that you can just openly fuck around and your only concern is someone might see a girl in a bikini?
If the ACAB post is just words, then no. If it's imagery of people being beaten by cops, then yes. There's no need to argue extremes to make the point seem ridiculous -- just use judgment and be kind.
It's about being considerate; that's where the conversation starts and ends, so don't get sidetracked or focus on semantics. It does not matter why someone is browsing any website at their place of work, so let's not even bring that into the conversation. NFSW is meant to help people view content at work/in public by making it avoidable. It's a communication from the author/community to the audience that the content may or may not be inappropriate -- that's it. If it's debatable and isn't tagged, that's inconsiderate and a request to tag it should be treated with consideration and kindness (barring trolls, which OP clearly isn't).
But that's just my opinion, and I acknowledge yours is different.
I agree with this. This is the fundamental point of the tag. I don't want anyone to lose their job, or suffer undue consequences for happening across something particularly graphic, upsetting, or unlawful.
This is what I don't agree with. Everything is debatable. I live in the US south, if my coworkers had their way, any image of a drag queen or a pride parade would have to be marked NSFW. And while thankfully this isn't a problem on Lemmy (yet), that means a sizable portion of the population would be unable to see that content at all without uploading their ID and giving up any semblance of anonymity.
There's nothing dangerous, illegal, or upsetting about a woman in a bikini. It's something any person might see in public at literally any time if you live somewhere warm. And yes, I'm sure there are people who would feel harassed if you waved an image like that in their faces, but I cannot imagine a scenario where someone suffers any professional setback because someone saw them scroll past some clothed tits.
Thanks for taking the time to explain :)
Most employers would be pretty unhappy with you publicly reading the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition.
And they would be fine with you publicly browsing Lemmy on the clock?
Yes, lots of jobs have expected down time.
They better not go outside then.
Lota of people dress lightly in public, not to mention public art and adverts show quite a lot.
We have several statues of nude men and women in my city!
Requiring that social media be more "sanitized" than normal public life is ridiculous.
If you really wouldn't want a coworker seeing it, it's NSFW I would say. Personally I think someone even seeing a forum that looks like Reddit open on your work computer is a bit NSFW, but that's what the tag is for.
That image is 100% NSFW
You're somewhat correct of course but the NSFW tag exists for a reason. If there is one entire category of /all you can just filter out due to lack of interest, it should be stuff like that. Maybe at some point we'll also get an 'AI' tag.
The pro of being able to 'safely', for lack of a better term, browse /all is being able to discover stuff that you are not subscribed to, stuff you might not find otherwise.
And I think everyone here can agree that any of these subs that are focused on explicit material should absolutely be pressured into setting the sub NSFW.
The part that has people against the OP is that he's claiming a girl in a relatively modest bikini should be flagged NSFW, and that a sub for non-explicit anime pics should have to adopt the NSFW label, which seems excessive to me.
I'm on an instance that blocks nsfw instances. Because I don't want porn in my feed.
I DO want the anime girls though.
Are you suggesting I should deal with a feed full porn in order to get that?
So you're good with everything except the nipple? I mean, I'm not even particularly hardline about this topic, that just seems like a really really niche use case that you want catered to
I'm good with nipples. And porn for that matter. I just don't want it in my feed.
I have nipples in my phone wallpaper rotation. Female ones. But the relevant pieces fall into the artistic rather than pornographic category.
NSFW is a insanely fuzzy concept that allows you to draw the line essentially anywhere. It's why I'm on an instance that blocks porn, rather than just using an account with nsfw tagged content disabled. Because that way I can keep nsfw enabled, and not miss stuff I want to see, because some people will mark stuff I would never in my wildest dreams think is nsfw.
Or they just use it to mark spoilered content, nevermind that people with nsfw disabled wont then see the post at all.
My instance manually blocks instances and communities that are pornographic. Because that's literally the only way this can work.
There will always be someone who thinks any given piece of content should/shouldn't be considered nsfw.
It's a gradient that allows you to slightly lean in onen direction or the other, so stop acting like it should "at least" do anything. It does not draw a clear line, and there is no way to shift online culture so that it could.
So... nothing being presented here would affect you at all, then? If you don't have NSFW content blocked, and your instance manually reviews blocked instances, marking softcore stuff as NSFW wouldn't change how you interact with that content (unless your instance is overly zealous in blocking). So what's the problem here?
I run a ton of these communities.
And I care about the fediverse as a whole.
Marking an entire category of content as nsfw because a tiny minority can't be bothered to block it themselves, without good reason, will immediately kneecap community and content discovery.
I saw this in the numbers immediately.
I do still use the feature. And I calibrate the line of what is and what is not, based on votes, comments and reports.
One, single, upset person, is not reason enough cut off dozens or hundreds of people from encountering content they might like.
Okay sure, but why are we considering the people who don't want to see that content as worth less than the people who do? For that matter, why is engagement more important to you than curating an appreciative audience? People are railing against people that downvote in /all as well, but what's the alternative to express that they don't want to see that content - blocking entire instances is an overly broad approach except in some specific cases (lemmy.nsfw for example) and blocking community by community is exhausting, given how many new highly specific "anime moe tiddy thigh-gap colored hair" communities crop up daily. Downvoting expresses disinterest, and it's apparently common enough to see things you're not interested in that "not downvoting in /all" is being pushed as basic courtesy. Asking them to tag things NSFW, or even just bringing out a different tag that isn't blocked by default (which god, we really need even if just for spoilers) is a perfectly valid request that at the very least solves the downvoting problem, among others (it's hard to bring on new users when a site gets a reputation for being overrun with anime fanservice communities, for example)
Why are people who want to see the content worth less than the ones who don't? Anyone can block content. No-one is likely to find content they don't even know is there.
What is the difference between engagement and an appreciative audience? I aim to minimize the number of people I offend, while maximizing the people I reach. What's wrong with that? What more can I do?
The only certain way to offend no-one, even if I marked every single post nsfw, is to stop posting entirely.
I keep seeing this argument. What new communities? With a couple exceptions, I run them! I haven't made a new one in over a year, and I've only recently had to add half a dozen new entries to my list.
Several clients offer word filtering. Asking for the feature in lemmy itself is fine, and something I fully support.
Oh boy am I not up for dealing with a point-by-point right now, so in no particular order:
Engagement is any interaction, including viewing, from a user. An appreciative audience is one that wants to view it. Why is Thighdeology marked nsfw on reddit, yet still a hugely popular subreddit, but somehow that would be a deathknell for it to be the same on lemmy? Your list includes none of the many AI-specific anime art communities that are out there, I think you need to be a bit more proactive in your browsing. Asking people to specify every word they don't want to be exposed to is absurd, when there's already one single and very easy to append word - NSFW - that you are ardently rejecting on the basis that it would damage your interactions.
Additionally people shouldn't have to expose themselves to everything they don't want to be exposed to before they can block it - there's no way to know about something without interacting with it, but if you don't want sexualized (but arguably non-explicit) images of anime girls in your feed, you'd have to go through and view a bunch of them before you can block it. Surely you can see how that's... pretty ridiculous? Potentially very demeaning?
I don't maximize for that. The only "engagement" I actively look for is the positive kind. You think I wouldn't start marking things nsfw if it got a ton downvotes when I didn't?
Currently, the reality is the other way around. Pointlessly tagged posts receive significantly less votes, because people looking for porn don't vote, and people browsing normally, are less likely to check a post tagged nsfw.
Critical mass. Tons of things are a death-knell to fediverse activity simply because it is tiny. Reddit can support a shitload of duplicate communities any one of which outweighs the single equivalent fediverse community by orders of magnitude.
I actively refuse to engage with AI content. There are active communities besides !share_anime_art@lemmy.dbzer0.com that aren't on porn instances?
Finding a common word used in content you don't like is no harder that blocking. The feature becoming generally available would allow us to implement arbitrary tags. Why does this suggestion offend you? It's a genuine win-win solution.
That's true for any category of content. Are you saying anime girls are somehow inherently bad or damaging to users, as compared to for example sports content?
I blocked music content from my feed this way. Should I feel demeaned for having been made to see things other people enjoy, but I don't care for?
Okay, but then can you stop trying to use people talking about communities which include the ones you don't want to engage with as a way to dismiss their claims as blown out of proportion? Maybe they're just not talking about your content, or your content is being lumped in with the AI slop since there's so much of it, and anime AI is getting so good these days you can't tell at a casual glance.
You literally do, though. You just said you do. Everyone does, god knows I do, but I have the courtesy to marking my NSFW as NSFW since I'm confident that people who are interested in my content can just look it up. I don't know why you think the people interested in your content can't do the same, especially when you curate an extremely helpful list of communities related to the topic.
See, I don't even care about this (beyond that I think the culture of ridiculously exploitative depictions of women in anime being defended as "not technically porn" is the root of some incredibly toxic aspects of modern culture, which is a completely separate issue I admit) it's just bizarre how hostile people are to being asked to use the one tool we have to separate content.
(edit: also you're trying to conflate adult-targeted content with a long and entrenched history of sexism with music preferences, and I know you know that's a false equivalency. sheesh.)
No I don't and no I didn't. I don't get downvotes and reports and go "yesss, views and engagement". Each time I have, I've reconsidered my posts in an effort to not have that happen again.
Your apparent assumption that I don't care whether content is seen by people who want to see it, is entirely on you. I do care.
But the only way to ensure no-one who doesn't want to see it, sees it, is not to post. So yeah, I'm ok with some minority of people being put off.
Do you have an example beyond the one I made it clear I'm aware of? I block these too. They're not popping up every day, which was your point.
Did you miss the part where I said I do the same? I'm simply do not agree that there is any level of sense in filing the entire ecategory of anime content on lemmy, under nsfw. That is completely insane. It's an art medium, not a pornhub genre.
I'm not sure where to even begin unpacking the prejudice towards anime-fans here. Sure there are issues, but come on. This isn't argument. The only reason to include this thought is to reveal how little you think of me because of something I like.
Because it doesn't work. The NSFW toggle is used to tag porn, spoilers, nsfl, and many other things, yet at the same time a ton of people use and expect it to work the way "not safe for work" implies. It's a mess. We need arbitrary tagging.
In the meantime using it more than necessary DOES slow down the already glacial growth of federated social media. That's a fact, not an opinion. Suggesting it should be applied to an entire fucking fandom is not far off wishing that that the entire fandom not be allowed on the fediverse. And no, "it works fine for porn" is not a counter-argument. People looking for porn aren't going to be avoiding the nsfw tag. They'll head straight for it. Would you like to guess what they do if they find one of my communities instead of actual porn? They downvote.
What long entrenched history of sexism? Weeb=sexist now? It seems to me you genuinely hate us. As a whole and individually. You want me hidden more than necessary because apparently the things I'm into make me sexist or worse. And/or my sharing the things I'm into, spreads this sexism, and worse.
Seriously, are you actually claiming that having to view a couple anime girls before blocking the relevant communities, for which a convenient list is provided, is so dangerous and corrupting that it warrants the "warning label" that is nsfw being applied to every single related post?