• Duhtocqueville@ttrpg.networkEnglish
    74·
    3 days ago

    I guess I’m missing a lot on context here.

    Like if I’m on a hetero blowjob sub I’d also prefer no gay porn.

    If I’m on like a tech sub I’d also prefer no gay porn, but less that it’s gay and more that it’s porn.

    If I’m on a gay porn sub yeah I’d rather not see gay porn but then why am I there?

    • scrion@lemmy.worldEnglish
      41·
      3 days ago

      I don’t think any context is missing here. This is addressed to the instance admins, asking for an instance - wide ban on homosexual pornography. I don’t need any more context to clock this as bigotry.

      I get your drift, but If I’m in a tech community and gay porn shows up just to piss off that user, so be it.

    • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      19·
      3 days ago

      I also don’t know the full context but from what I’ve heard a big part of the issue is that on Mastodon (which is more twitter style) there isn’t a good universal way to tag and filter nsfw content, which means people who want to see it and people who do not can’t both get what they want in the same spaces.

      • threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        6·
        2 days ago

        there isn’t a good universal way to tag and filter nsfw content

        Seems like a simple boolean which federates with the post should be enough. What makes this more challenging than expected?

        • 0xSim@piefed.socialEnglish
          8·
          2 days ago

          There is already a “content warning” flag which will put the post under a, well, content warning message. It hides the text and blurs the media. You can also add a #nsfw hashtag. All the tools are there.

          • Jupiter Rowland@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            2·
            1 day ago

            Thing is, “content warnings” are a text field on Mastodon. The exact same text field that Identi.ca introduced as a summary field. The exact same text field that everything that can do long-form blogging still uses as a summary field, including Friendica and its descendants. Which, by the way, is a summary field in the W3C ActivityPub spec as well.

            The content warning flag that blurs images is a non-standard Mastodon thing. It’s actually half-independent from the content warning field. If you put a Mastodon toot under a content warning, Mastodon sets the content warning flag for all media attachments. But Mastodon does not set the content warning flag for external, non-Mastodon content with a “content warning”. The flag is set upon sending, not upon receiving.

            I guess this is intentional. If Mastodon did that, each long post with a summary that comes in as a Note-type object (= Mastodon does not hide it behind a link to the original) would have its perfectly SFW images blurred out, just because the post has a summary which Mastodon automatically understands as a CW.

            The only other Fediverse software I know about that can set Mastodon’s content warning flag are (streams) and Forte. And they set that flag for everything embedded into/attached to a post that contains the hashtag #sensitive and/or #nsfw. I don’t think this is documented anywhere.

            As for filters on Mastodon, they’re cumbersome. You want one keyword filtered, well, go click together a whole new filter. No such thing as keyword lists like on Friendica & Co. Nope, each keyword requires its own filter. In addition, I guess many Mastodon apps don’t even offer UI elements for the filters, and next to everyone on Mastodon only ever uses it on a phone with an app. That’s why Mastodon users resort to muting, blocking or calling the mods in cases in which everyone else would just add a filter.

            Wafrn, in turn, is literally decentralised Tumblr, just like Lemmy is literally decentralised Reddit. With the exact same mentality and the exact same culture as the respective original silo. A culture in which hashtags in the message text body don’t exist, in Tumblr’s and Wafrn’s case. (In Reddit’s and Lemmy’s case, hashtags don’t exist at all, technologically and thus culturally. Just for comparison.)

            The Wafrn users, all former Tumblr users, will never add any hashtags to their post texts. That’s primitive and un-Tumblr-like to them. For them, it’s the same dedicated keyword field as on Tumblr (which Mastodon won’t support, which even ActivityPub has no support for) or bust.

            I think Wafrn doesn’t have and doesn’t support the summary field (= Mastodon’s CW field) either because Tumblr has no such thing. On Tumblr, the only way to keep NSFW content away is to choose wisely whom to follow. But to my best knowledge, Tumblr has never had a public feed (for very good reasons), and I guess Wafrn doesn’t have one either (for the same reasons), whereas Mastodon does have a public, federated timeline in which everything washes up that happens on the server either way. One Mastodon user who follows a Wafrn account that posts gay porn will inevitably taint that Mastodon server’s entire federated timeline.

            Combining Tumblr’s culture (hashtags in post bad) and Wafrn’s lack of certain Mastodon features (summary/CW field), Wafrn users can post NSFW content either up front into everyone’s faces with no filter or not at all. And Wafrn users (= Tumblr refugees) associate not being allowed to post outright pr0n with Yahoo’s takeover of Tumblr and forcing it into being G-rated.

  • GarboDog@lemmy.worldEnglish
    19·
    2 days ago

    We personally don’t know the full context but we also like to have separation of sfw and nsfw. Though we’re sure they have a tag for nsfw and the dude could’ve just blocked nsfw like how we do on our accounts

    • cosmos8188@leminal.spaceEnglish
      9·
      2 days ago

      Agreed, its also one of the reasons why instances defederate to separate all the NSFW. Instances should either be fully NSFW or SFW - that way a user can easily navigate and use blocks.

      • GarboDog@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        2 days ago

        We don’t mind them being mixed together, sometimes something sfw can be classified nsfw even if the op doesn’t mean to.

        So the tagging system would work better and a mod can just slap on an nsfw tag and just be like “hey heads up this was nsfw, it’s image/content was just spoiler-filtered for ya” kinda thing rather than trying to whack a mole delete a bunch of stuff.

        But we can see the separation of tagging and exclusion can have pros and cons in either side. Even though we don’t like nsfw it’s still nice to have the option of it being there ig. It’s overall personal preference

    • rozodru@piefed.worldEnglish
      4·
      2 days ago

      yeah that’s about all I got from this. as someone who likes to set my machines up with retro themes I was like “oooooh what is that and what theme is it?”

  • pseudo@jlai.luEnglish
    4·
    2 days ago

    I would like to see less captures from no context confrontation. Plus there is already an active communauty to discuss power tripping moderators.

  • FiniteBanjo@feddit.onlineEnglish
    8·
    3 days ago

    I tell you what, anybody got $5 and some OCs I’ll draw up some high quality pornography for you as a celebration of this request. DM me the OC info, or leave a reply here, and we’ll work from there.