4 ms·
Anyone else see the irony in acknowledging that NFSW is subjective and contextual, but assuming that pornographic images are not?
by SloopJon 10y ago
Anyone else see the irony in acknowledging that NFSW is subjective and contextual, but assuming that pornographic images are not?
- CodeMage 10y agoThere's no definition of "ironic" that I can think of applying to that. It's like saying that "beautiful painting" is subjective and contextual, but "still life painting" isn't. It just happens that pornography is almost[1] always considered NFSW, but again, I can't see how that is ironic. [1] Almost, because porn is SFW when your work involves porn.
- SloopJon 10y agoI think it's easier to agree that a picture of a naked person is NSFW than that it's pornographic.
- robbrown451 10y agoI didn't see where they said that pornographic images are not subjective and contextual. In fact it seemed like they were using "NSFW" and "pornographic" almost interchangeably, while acknowledging that the current implementation doesn't deal with violent images etc. For instance, if you read it like this, it still makes sense (I replaced NSFW with pornographic): Disclaimer: The definition of pornographic is subjective and contextual. This model is a general purpose reference model, which can be used for the preliminary filtering of pornographic images. We do not provide guarantees of accuracy of output, rather we make this available for developers to explore and enhance as an open source project.