Yesterday on The Guardian I saw in the sidebar a man & woman on a bed, woman topless with just enough hair to cover her chest. I would consider this NSFW. What do you consider as NSFW?
I didn't see the photo, was it something like this [1]? If so, then I do see why some might think it is NSFW but, IMO that is a juvenile, silly, absurd, mindset, and even a bit insulting.
The only part of an image such as that which is NSFW is that it is IMO not suitable to spend time gawking at it while at work; but it is only slightly less suitable than wasting time on most any of the other news articles.
>What do you consider as NSFW
In general, the mere presence of an image, even a fully nude one isn't NSFW until some person's reaction to it negatively affects themselves or their co-workers, and even then, it isn't really the image that is to blame. But still, gross and or gratuitous pornography are out [2], as are most images of penises, vaginas, and anuses.
> even a fully nude one isn't NSFW until some person's reaction to it negatively affects themselves or their co-workers, and even then, it isn't really the image that is to blame.
I can understand this notion, but I feel that there is more to consider. I take NSFW to mean "would you read this at work". That is something I wouldn't think of opening at work, just to avoid things that MAY happen. For example:
- My computer isn't in an office, anyone can look and see what I'm doing when walking past. Someone to my boss, "I saw X looking at Y on his computer, I was offended" (in fact I didn't even open your link so that this or something similar doesn't occur)
Why even risk this sort of situation?
I think this is at the very heart of the phrase "NSFW". I'm on a news website, I don't want this to negatively affect me in any way, it's a "safe for work" site.
Back to the breastfeeding image. I will agree that on the whole, a good chunk of people would say that this is a safe for work picture. But because of workplace culture at certain businesses, I feel that this is on the boarder at best.
> I take NSFW to mean "would you read this at work".
Unless you are Brewster Kahle, almost everything on the internet has nothing to do with your work. That goes for nearly all Guardian content.
>Someone to my boss, "I saw X looking at Y on his computer, I was offended"
Well, if your boss searched your internet history, would anything be found to substantiate such a claim?
> (in fact I didn't even open your link so that this or something similar doesn't occur)
I deliberately posted the link to the article (daily mail) so that you wouldn't be afraid I was trying to goatse you or something. The images in the article are no worse than those that can be seen at a grocer's checkout. I am really sorry that you have so little job security that you fear reprisal over a simple image such as that. Incidentally, I've seen full frontal nudity plastered on bus stops in Germany and I don't think anyone batted an eye.
>Why even risk this sort of situation?
Because pandering to this risk-averse approach to never offending anyone ever, even the most socially-repressive of us, even by chance or misunderstanding only encourages more of it?
>I think this is at the very heart of the phrase "NSFW". I'm on a news website, I don't want this to negatively affect me in any way, it's a "safe for work" site.
Well, I have to inform you that not everyone shares your career and that an article on breastfeeding, or even one on marketing with racy photos, or any number of other subjects might very well be pertinent and safe for many peoples' work. You may have to adopt a more forgiving sense of propriety or confine yourself to some much smaller portion of the internet.
Do you suggest that everyone should be forced to obey the most repressive moral standards of all the sub-groups in our culture?
> almost everything on the internet has nothing to do with your work
While this is true, I use the internet heavily, being in the tech industry.
> if your boss searched your internet history, would anything be found to substantiate such a claim?
Not if the image was on the Guardian or something similar that just blends in.
> I am really sorry that you have so little job security that you fear reprisal over a simple image such as that. Incidentally, I've seen full frontal nudity plastered on bus stops in Germany and I don't think anyone batted an eye.
Yea, it kind of sucks, but that just comes back to different cultures. Nudity is more accepted in Germany apparently, and it isn't in the US, that's just something we have to live with.
> You may have to adopt a more forgiving sense of propriety or confine yourself to some much smaller portion of the internet.
I guess I do, unfortunate for the Guardian.
> Do you suggest that everyone should be forced to obey the most repressive moral standards of all the sub-groups in our culture?
Of course not, but this is not what I'm claiming at all. The Guardian presents itself as a news organization. The person that picked out that picture should have considered posting it in light of the fact that they are now, with the Snowden leak, a global news organization, with visitors from Germany AND the US (in this example). What they should consider is "Who is going to see this article?" and then take the option that attracts the most people to their site.
Understand that I'm not trying to say that Guardian should change their site up at all, rather I'm saying that it might benefit them to think twice about what they post, because I'm no longer visiting their site at work.
>The person that picked out that picture should have considered posting it
Oh, I bet that photo was chosen carefully to draw attention.
> in light of the fact that they are now, with the Snowden leak, a global news organization, with visitors from Germany AND the US (in this example).
They have always been so, and I hope they don't begin to pander to social conservatives.
> What they should consider is "Who is going to see this article?" and then take the option that attracts the most people to their site.
I think that's exactly what they've done. For better or worse.
>Understand that I'm not trying to say that Guardian should change their site up at all, rather I'm saying that it might benefit them to think twice about what they post, because I'm no longer visiting their site at work.
Not that I necessarily want more breastfeeding in my news but I certainly hope you're in the minority. How bad will it be when they have to pander to even more conservative Islamic sensibilities?
