I have searched the site for guidelines around NSFW tagging, and could not find something very clear (thanks for pointing it out to me in case I have missed it).
Personally, I would love to have these, as it would allow me to choose whether or not I share some pieces on the site (being tagged NSFW makes me feel like I’m doing porn art )
For the debate part, I understand that nudity is the determining factor (nipples specifically?). I do understand that (even though it is not my belief that the human body has to be hidden, it is beautiful), but I think it could use some fine-tuning.
For example, a clothed character can be infinitely more sexually suggestive than a naked one. Think of classical statues against a Lil’ Kim video, right?
I also think that some themes can be a lot harder to look at than nakedness. As far as I know, a dismembered character has less chances of ending up tagged as NSFW than a naked body in a T-pose. Let’s not speak about weapons, or politicized pieces.
Now, there are probably elements I don’t have, such as the site status, the way algorithms work, monetization and, as the name says, company rules.
So don’t get me wrong, I am neither complaining or suggesting changes, but I’d love to have clear guidelines, and if possible, a healthy debate.
I would also love to hear the constraints the staff deals with, so as to ensure not to make your life difficult inadvertently
This is a much larger factor than you’d think. If the site is found in violation of Google’s policies, we can’t run ads, and the site will be delisted from search. People wouldn’t be able to google questions and get answers anymore- the site would be destroyed almost overnight.
Google categorizes adult websites differently- they should up in different searches and have different ads. They’re blocked by SafeSearch and blacklisted in the Google Ad Partner Network. Anything that has nudity, per Google’s automatic image scanning, is “adult”. Period, no questions asked. This is why social media sites ban nudity- I promise Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t care about nudity, but he does care if people can get to Facebook from Google. Love it or hate it, these rules determine the viability of every site on the Internet, and google is not nice about them. The NSFW tag keeps the site compliant, and more importantly, keeps it alive
Thanks for your answer, that does help to understand the reasonning, and your freedom of choice indeed. That is also insightful generally.
It poses a larger question on how a company like Google effectively dictates the culture on internet though…
So I also understand that nudity is indeed the critical factor in that, as algorithms can detect it, right? Away from nudity, away from NSFW?
I do agree on the nudity thing at least, as in some cases we have gone from “don’t like it don’t look” to “you are going to look at it and you will learn to like it”. The gallery view used by the art forums now all but guarantees you will end up looking at mature content otherwise (which means it makes a case for families with kids to outright block this site on their home computers, good luck figuring out how to do things with Blender).
As for Google being a dictator, I will note that the reason they want you in their ecosystem is so they can ban you from disagreeing with the personal views of their executives. From this thread at least, it appears to be (for example) a key reason why Covid discussions are not allowed to be much more than PSA messages that parrot the CDC. Unfortunately, the California tech. companies have tied up everything to the point where completely severing yourself from their influence is not easy (because they also want to ban people from creating alternative platforms as well).
It is, when you think of graceful erotica or dispassionate encyclopedic examples… but on average NSFW tends to be something far more disturbing and tasteless. It’s better for mental hygiene and preserving sanity to make it hidden behind a filter.
Of course, the line between “appropriate” and “not-safe” is blurry (and relative) but you have to draw it somewhere.
Look at it this way… if I’m browsing this site at work and I happen to open a thread not marked “NSFW” but has some nakedness… then my boss happens to walk by and see that, I could be fired. It’s not just that Google is an overlord dictating what we see, it’s to keep people safe (especially kids) from potential fallout over inadvertently viewing something that others may find objectionable. My company hasn’t blocked BA as of yet, and I’d like to keep it that way.
Yeah, but this is SOOO hypocritical…
You really think that ANY of these measures actually “protects” children?
If children/minors want to see porn or naked bodies they will. There is nothing stopping them.
Google does not censor anything related to porn, its all there, but they have a problem with art forums where people might post anatomic studies or more or less tasteful erotic art?
I’ve been saying this for 20 years now, children SHOULD NOT have access to the internet.
There is your protection.
Sane people wouldn’t take their children to a titty bar or an MMA fight, but people think there is a way to make the internet “save” for children???
Also they (google and everybody else) is targeting and abusing children with propaganda and brainwashing (advertising) but somehow they want to protect them at the same time.
Its all bullshit and they can go fuck themself.
I have nothing against NSFW tags (for the reason you mentioned), but the hypocrisy about “protecting children” is mind-numbingly absurd.
Sorry for the rant. I am done.
For the record, there are no itemized, point-by-point guidelines. Most artworks that could be tagged NSFW that aren’t blatantly NSFW have a full staff discussion about whether or not to apply the tag. NSFW tagging, then, is human-based and fully reliant on staff discussion.
Why not use a yes/no list? It would be extremely difficult to maintain and impossible to make accurate. For example, posts have been marked NSFW before for suggestive poses without explicit nudity. Having a yes/no list would mean defining every possible conceivable pose the human body can be in - and it’s worth noting that facial expression also plays a role in the suggestiveness of a pose- it would simply not be possible to mark every single possible pose/facial expression combination as “safe” or “not safe”.
Also, I’ve mentioned this before, but NSFW doesn’t mean “we as the staff think this is inappropriate or pornographic or whatever”. It means this isn’t something you could have on your screen at your workplace. There’s no room for discussion about artistic nudity there. Society has a very clear standard about what’s appropriate at work and what isn’t. Love or hate the standard, it’s there, and every public-facing site on the Internet follows it.
Thanks all for the replies, good to have your perspectives.
Maybe back to the main tangible point: guidelines. Can some be edicted for the site?
I searched on internet, and the definition of NSFW varies. Nudity always seems to be part of the list (but where does nudity start? Revealing beachwear OK? No nipples, no nudity?), but the full extent of it can be larger.
Short answer: see my reply directly above yours
Also short answer: people have asked Bart for this many times before, and from his replies, I gather that he feels it’s better to avoid writing up strict guidelines, so I highly doubt this will ever happen
I do understand that, and it makes sense. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that things should be made as explicit as possible. You are refering to a clear society standard, but it is not so clear to me. Every company has its own work charter and code of conduct, so at least for me, the boundaries are not so obvious.
For example, a page on the site with extracts from this discussion and a simple bullet list of what will trigger a staff review would already be helpful IMHO. I do understand your arguments, but I still think that there is nothing wrong with being open and transparent about the process. Especially because there has actually been a lot of thinking on your side, and that deserves to be exposed. It also clarifies the curating role the site takes I think.
Finally, I think this discussion clearly shows that people like me do not understand the constraints you’re dealing with and the impact on financial viability. That is also super important to expose I think.
Thanks again for your answers, that is very insightful.
You can go through the existing nsfw if you want to gain a better perspective on what’s NSFW and what isn’t- although I must warn you it’s an unpleasant and distasteful journey. Here’s three examples of posts that got marked NSFW that don’t have explicit nudity:
This third one is NSFW for gore:
You can see from these that the NSFW decision is very, very, nuanced. I don’t think there is a way to make things as explicit as possible like you’re asking.
To paraphrase a famous US Supreme Court Justice - “I don’t know what [NSFW] is, but I’ll know it when I see it”
Or they may not want to loose advertisers and their money. I would argue it is more about what the advertisers think their customers might find appropriate (or even what their loud customers think is appropriate).
Should parents then just give up on setting ground rules in their households and let anarchy rein?
People will steal, vandalize, commit murder, drive drunk, and ignore speed limits if they really want to, is that a reason to eliminate all of the laws?
Now I do agree, to a point, that the internet is getting to a place where I would not exactly recommend kids even use a browser until they are 18 years of age, but that is more a product of the complete breakdown of basic moral concepts than of historically sound advice.
I think the NSFW filter has a bug somewhere, all of the avatar pics. in the quote boxes have suddenly become blurred. I do not know if Discord allows for anything more fine-tuned than just taking a sledgehammer at any imagery in a thread.
Yep. We’ve done as much as we can without having to break into the Discourse EmberJS back-end and write a plugin, which would be a huge pain and not worth the effort
)
