4 ms·
> As nothing in the Baywatch intro is NSFW Clearly incorrect by any reasonable definition unless you work at a swimwear company or a few bits of the media. I
by unfocussed_mike 5y ago
> As nothing in the Baywatch intro is NSFW
Clearly incorrect by any reasonable definition unless you work at a swimwear company or a few bits of the media.
I mean, you or I might think Alexandra Paul in a one-piece is an image approaching the beauty of classical sculpture, but quite a lot of classical sculpture is NSFW in most of the world, and the brow is a bit lower where Baywatch is concerned.
- capableweb 5y agoOne (dare I say?) "reasonable" definition of NSFW is nudity, which in most contexts I'm guilty of associating it with. I know it's an acronym (Not Safe For Work) but I never took it that literally, as otherwise most content would be NSFW unless you work in media. I wouldn't consider Seinfeld NSFW, but the companies I work for wouldn't want to see me watching it at work time, even if it's not normally considered NSFW.
- unfocussed_mike 5y agoNudity is not even the beginning of NSFW. If you're looking at nudity in most places you're way beyond NSFW and into gross misconduct. Very many workplaces have a definition of NSFW that is a bit more restrictive than Facebook's content rules. And rightly so. Go to work, do your work, go home. It's not adult daycare. Watching video footage of people running around in swimwear is not really appropriate content unless you work in media or swimwear. And the title sequence to Baywatch is hardly an advert for sporting endeavour; Baywatch is titillation. It would be entirely reasonable for almost anyone, male or female, to complain about that content. It is far more sensible to define NSFW as "things I shouldn't be looking at just in case someone has an unjustifiable complaint to make about me that they are looking to bolster with additional offences".