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.
People who want NSFW stuff in their feed can tick “Show NSFW content” and untick “Blur NSFW content”. There’s no reason to argue with other people for wanting to use the NSFW tag for exactly what it was designed and named for.
Yes, there is.
Should XY be tagged as NSFW is not asking about if the tag should exist on certain topics (that’s indeed something you can ignore with your own settings) but about if people should be forced to flag stuff as NSFW. And I refuse to tag stuff as NSFW just because I can imagine someone, somehow, in some rare context wanting that tag. Because by then it lost all meaning and we should do an “Yes this is safe for 4 years olds”-tag instead.
I claim that it’s quite clear that this is not suitable for work. HR are not going to get cross with me for browsing memes in my lunch break on my phone, but if this comes up, it’s clearly not OK, and I don’t think I’m at all unusual in having a work environment like that.
I’m just asking that we try to use Not Suitable For Work to mean not suitable for work. You might feel that my workplace is weird, but that’s not what you’re arguing, so I think you’re kind of missing the point of the tag. Yay internet freedom and all that, but tagging something that’s very likely to get someone in trouble at work as NSFW is just being a considerate person. That’s all. People are still free to see it, but it gives them the freedom to choose to filter it out and use their phone when they’re on a break at work.
Again, I think you’re on the wrong site at work then. Lemmy is not suitable for your workplace and you’re asking us to make it suitable for your workplace.
