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.

  • weew@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    9 days ago

    No. That’s just a fully clothed character. Any workplace where that would be considered “NSFW” is the kind of place where getting caught browsing Lemmy at all is NSFW.

    • dacreator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 days ago

      Counterpoint I have a workplace where browsing Lemmy would not be NSFW but I don’t want to deal with someone being judgemental if they happen to look over my shoulder.

      • weew@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        That’s a you problem, not a content problem, though.

        Are we obligated to mark SpongeBob SquarePants as NSFW because you’re worried co-workers are going to be judgemental if they caught you watching it at work?

        • davidagain@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 days ago

          Getting cross with people who want to use the NSFW tag is making a you problem into an other people problem. If you don’t want anything blurred, change your settings and stop belittling people’s perspectives who want to use the feature.

          • weew@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 days ago

            It’s not belittling anyone. It’s about having an actual line and not making NSFW into a meaningless term.

            Seriously, if you define “NSFW” as anything ANYONE won’t want to be caught doing at work, all of Lemmy is NSFW. Your personal definition of “I might get embarrassed by it” is equally meaningless and, again, would result in the entire website simply labeling everything NSFW.

            Oh, what if I work in a conservative workplace and don’t want to get caught browsing a liberal sub? Guess everything liberal or left leaning is NSFW!

            Oh wait, I’d be embarrassed by people knowing I have relationship problems, so any relationship advice is now NSFW.

            I don’t want my co-workers to think I’m a dumbass, so anything like NoStupidQuestions or ELI5 is also inherently NSFW.

            You want to broaden the NSFW term to the point of being meaningless, and have everyone else moderate their posts to your ill-defined benefit. It’s so meaningless that the tag may as well not exist at that point.

            • davidagain@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              8 days ago

              No, you’re the one making it meaningless. If something’s not suitable for work, tag it NSFW. Scantily clad people are clearly not suitable for work. Simple.

              • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                8 days ago

                Yeah this guy is making the most ridiculous slippery slope argument here. What context is there for you to be viewing a half-naked anime girl at work? It just makes you look like a creep. Viewing political posts is hardly comparable.