Comments on: More On NSFW

By: sunfeathers

sunfeathers — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 12:49:46 +0000

I think most people, on both sides, are missing the point. Sure, it would be great if we didn’t have to censor what we read at work, but we do. The NSFW label makes it easier for us to do that, and as such it is a polite and useful thing for a writer to put in. Regina Lynn does it in links out from her columns and I respect that because it means I can read the columns at work, and check the links from home later, where I won’t offend anyone. Without the NSFW, I’d have to avoid all the links instead of just some of them, just in case.

The trick is, if someone is going to link without noting that there might be graphic adult material on the other side, then they should make it obvious from the link text where it’s going. If a link says ‘nearly naked teens’ then it’s pretty obvious that it isn’t something to open at work, for most. If it says ‘my new puppy’ and you’re expecting a furry canine rather than a cute guy/girl wearing a collar and a leash.. well the NSFW might have just helped.

It’s like this suggestion of removing the CAPSLOCK key from keyboards. It’s a tool – the tool isn’t good or bad, only the use of it is. NSFW isn’t a ghetto, unless you let it be one. Use the tool, or don’t use it – but I don’t think it’s right to say no one should use it because you personally don’t like it. That’s just as much censorship as using NSFW can be.

By: 2Short

2Short — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 05:53:00 +0000

NSFW is stupid. Who is it for? People whose workplace doesn’t care if they surf the web, but they’ll get fired if they look at sexually explicit content, even if they say “oops!” and immediately click the back button. If your workplace allows web surfing, but can’t handle an “oops!”, then your workplace doesn’t allow web surfing.

At my workplace, it wouldn’t be considered apropriate to have explicit stuff up on my screen, but they’re sane: I’d say “oops”, and it wouldn’t be a problem. And you know what? I’ve never once had to say “oops”; not because of NSFW tags, but because it’s just not that hard to tell. Ben: I just googled up all the links to ErosBlog from Wired, which they call (in the “Sex Drive Daily” section) “one of the best sex blogs, with great pictures…” Good thing they’ve got that NSFW tag there eh? I can see how you wouldn’t have realized.

By: Roxi

Roxi — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 01:56:11 +0000

Frankly, I prefer a NSFW tag. I don’t want my employer and coworkers to know my appetites and proclivities…its like a secret handshake to me and I like being part of that club….

By: Ben

Ben — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 06:34:42 +0000

I work in a hospital emergency department. Patients (including children) and other staff can almost always see whichever terminal I’m at. All web use is logged, and ‘anyone who accesses pornography will be sacked’, according to our contracts.

So I find the NSFW tag extremely useful. Imagine if I clicked a link from Wired to ErosBlog without realizing.

It’s just practical.

By: Heraclitus

Heraclitus — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 00:04:39 +0000

After reading the back and forth here, I have to say that while I might agree with Bacchus’ view that content should not be labeled blithely and stigmatized as “not safe for work,” I can’t see how Josh and his friends and co-workers and the millions in their position are doing any sort of harm by using the NSFW tag with the purpose being not to vilify or degrade the content but merely to help each other stay out of trouble with The Man–whether they agree with His views or not. And honestly, the “if your workplace sucks leave it and become a self-righteous sex blogger” argument doesn’t really work; if droves of people quit their jobs because the policy restrictions were completely tolerable but chafed against their principles, like you seem to want them to do, Bacchus, the economy would be in eighty kinds of trouble. Finally, the NSFW tag isn’t inherently bad or even repressive, like other lables (oh, say n*gger or fag or any number I can think of off the top of my head) are–it merely notifies the prospective viewer that the content MIGHT not be suitable for public viewing. If you choose to ignore those little four words or don’t need to heed them, great, but for the millions of workers who browse the net during work, it’s just a helpful feature–not an instrument of societal oppression or anything (which, by the way, is a real stretch; if some sort of authority mandated the tag, then you’d have at least some basis for an argument, but “societal oppression” here? Come on…).

By: Tierce

Tierce — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 13:32:34 +0000

Harvey’s comment made me realize that NSFW is basically comparable to the rating system. Any rating system helps people to process information, but it can also inevitably be used to help censorship. It seems to me that that the process of designating things NSFW also presents the problem of subjectivity and/or bias (cf. Kirby Dick’s film on the rating system). While I agree that perhaps people often err too much on the side of caution when tagging things NSFW, it seems like you’re opposed to helping people make informed decisions.

Just to reiterate, I agree that people shouldn’t have to be afraid of punishment for looking at sexual content in the workplace, and that the boundaries of what is permissible should be broader, both at work and in American society in general, but that’s an argument about the proper scope of NSFW, not whether it should exist.

By: Josh Jasper

Josh Jasper — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 03:29:06 +0000

Josh, I’m not sure we’re going to be able to talk about this in a useful way. I’m concerned with a society that’s larger than “your friends and yourself�?

Well, I work in an office, so I have to be concerned with these issues, which are how to ballance a reasonable amount of sexual talk with a workplace where no one gets into trouble. Tagging things that might get people in trouble when opened at work is the best compromise I can think of.

Sleepy says he(she?) never tags, but leaves it for toher people to sort out. Isn’t that what we’re doing? Sorting things out as private individuals.

If there’s more going on, but you’re not willing to explain about the harm, it’s not because I’m unwillign to *listen*. If you talk to me calmly, rationally and repsectfully and attempt to address my concerns with some sort of alternate means of dealing with things, or perhaps even a call to revolution, I *will* listen. Susie frequently makes sense, so when she’s not making sense, I cut her a fair amount of slack to try and explaon where she’s coming from and why she thinks what she’s saying shoud be important to me.

So far, I’ve got slogans, or you saying that because I’m not seeing her viewpoint (despite being willing to listen and interested in actually talking things out) I’m not worth your time.

And that’s where things stand.