4 ms·

There were too many NSFW/L photos with no warning. For me, 2/3 before I gave up.

by SilasX 4y ago

neogodless 4y ago
Are you talking about people who appear inebriated? Because that's all I saw. Nothing truly NSFW. Just went back for another dozen. No inappropriate skin showing, no illegal activities (unless, of course, there are underage people drinking, but it's hard to tell that for sure.)
- SilasX 4y ago
  Male lifting up his shirt, which, while not obscene, is also not SFW. Another picture had a bloody finger. I don't know why people seem to be so incredulous/outraged at my observation. Is it that hard to believe such pictures made it into the set? Am I supposed to be supporting the team here?
  - dspillett 4y ago
    > I don't know why people seem to be so incredulous/outraged I think you are overreacting to a reaction that barely exists there. It looks like one person has responded (at the time I'm writing this) and while they didn't agree with your assessment, they stated so quite calmly rather than in a manner I would call outrage. Unless you have been inundated by personal messages that I can't see? There was a lass in a bikini, but even that is safe for my work. If your work is pretty strict about images of these natures, I would suggest refraining from browsing non-work-related sites at all until you are at home or at least on a device that is not using the corporate network. [edit: having had a scan through the images (someone posted a link to where they are all visible) there are a couple of people flipping the bird too, those might get a reaction if the bikini does] HN itself is pretty much SFW (aside from some comments, but they get downvoted to oblivion or otherwise hidden pretty quickly) but IIRC makes no guarantee that anything linked from it will be likewise.
    - SilasX 4y ago
      I wasn’t looking at it from work, I don’t have an office job right now (see profile). Perhaps you just weren’t aware that neither of those things are prerequisites to warning others about the high probability of seeing such images? You’re allowed to care about SFW/L beyond work contexts, and it’s helpful to alert others who might care. It feels like an attempt at invalidation when you expect someone to not even be able to warn others about content simply because some people might not care about whether it’s in that category. Hence why it comes across to me as outrage: you have to feel pretty strongly to oppose a mere warning. It’s kind of funny how common trigger warnings are, but when I mention the possibility of an image set being surprisingly unfiltered and having frequent NSFW/L content, I have to rehash the entire concept. Also, I would say your work is unusually lax if you see nothing wrong with pulling up bikini images there. (Similarly unusual deficit of empathy, while we’re at it.)
      - dspillett 4y ago
        I did not object at all to you raising what you feel is a valid warning. Nor, as far as I see did the other poster, they simply disagreed politely. My comment about you overreacting wasn't about the definition of what is/n't safe for work/life, but that you referred to one polite disagreement as “people being outraged”. > Also, I would say your work is unusually lax if you see nothing wrong with pulling up bikini images there. Deliberately pulling up such images, perhaps for the purposes of ogling them, would be inappropriate. Happening upon them while taking a break and looking as at random site would not, any more than there would be an issue with such an image coming up as you browse a newspaper that happens to have an image of that sort illustrating an article about the current heatwave, or some holiday offer, or a beech fashion event. Sensible rules have room for context. > (Similarly unusual deficit of empathy, while we’re at it.) I find your comment on empathy ironic, given the rest of this bit of thread!
        SilasX 4y ago
        >I did not object at all to you raising what you feel is a valid warning. Nor, as far as I see did the other poster, they simply disagreed politely. If you're saying that people are wrong to not want a massive bloody finger or a drunken flashing photo on their screen, then yes, you are objecting to the warning, and you are showing an empathy deficit. Sorry, where was the irony you claimed to see? Because as far as I can tell, I have empathy for people who don't want those images on their screen, while you don't. Generally speaking, I imagine there's a high threshold for objecting to a mere warning (the point about triggers you ignored), so I assumed if anyone were actually disputing that this merited a warning, they believed the wrongness of my comment met that threshold. But sure, I was wrong to assume anyone thinks that far ahead or tries to be consistent.
  - furyofantares 4y ago
    Although your description doesn't sound like anything I'd expect most people to call NSFW/L, if it is for you then yeah I don't think you should browse it from work. FWIW I think you also got real unlucky on the ratio, I did quite a few and didn't come across any blood and only one male nipple
- Akronymus 4y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32070771 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32070771 Maybe check out the image I got?
  - account42 4y ago
    Thats... pretty mild. I guess sensibilities vary but I wouldn't even count that as gore at all, just a wound that seems to be healing.

There were too many NSFW/L photos with no warning. For me, 2/3 before I gave up.

by SilasX 4y ago

There were too many NSFW/L photos with no warning. For me, 2/3 before I gave up.

Are you talking about people who appear inebriated? Because that's all I saw. Nothing truly NSFW. Just went back for another dozen. No inappropriate skin showing, no illegal activities (unless, of course, there are underage people drinking, but it's hard to tell that for sure.)

SilasX 4y ago
Male lifting up his shirt, which, while not obscene, is also not SFW. Another picture had a bloody finger. I don't know why people seem to be so incredulous/outraged at my observation. Is it that hard to believe such pictures made it into the set? Am I supposed to be supporting the team here?
- dspillett 4y ago
  > I don't know why people seem to be so incredulous/outraged I think you are overreacting to a reaction that barely exists there. It looks like one person has responded (at the time I'm writing this) and while they didn't agree with your assessment, they stated so quite calmly rather than in a manner I would call outrage. Unless you have been inundated by personal messages that I can't see? There was a lass in a bikini, but even that is safe for my work. If your work is pretty strict about images of these natures, I would suggest refraining from browsing non-work-related sites at all until you are at home or at least on a device that is not using the corporate network. [edit: having had a scan through the images (someone posted a link to where they are all visible) there are a couple of people flipping the bird too, those might get a reaction if the bikini does] HN itself is pretty much SFW (aside from some comments, but they get downvoted to oblivion or otherwise hidden pretty quickly) but IIRC makes no guarantee that anything linked from it will be likewise.
  - SilasX 4y ago
    I wasn’t looking at it from work, I don’t have an office job right now (see profile). Perhaps you just weren’t aware that neither of those things are prerequisites to warning others about the high probability of seeing such images? You’re allowed to care about SFW/L beyond work contexts, and it’s helpful to alert others who might care. It feels like an attempt at invalidation when you expect someone to not even be able to warn others about content simply because some people might not care about whether it’s in that category. Hence why it comes across to me as outrage: you have to feel pretty strongly to oppose a mere warning. It’s kind of funny how common trigger warnings are, but when I mention the possibility of an image set being surprisingly unfiltered and having frequent NSFW/L content, I have to rehash the entire concept. Also, I would say your work is unusually lax if you see nothing wrong with pulling up bikini images there. (Similarly unusual deficit of empathy, while we’re at it.)
    - dspillett 4y ago
      I did not object at all to you raising what you feel is a valid warning. Nor, as far as I see did the other poster, they simply disagreed politely. My comment about you overreacting wasn't about the definition of what is/n't safe for work/life, but that you referred to one polite disagreement as “people being outraged”. > Also, I would say your work is unusually lax if you see nothing wrong with pulling up bikini images there. Deliberately pulling up such images, perhaps for the purposes of ogling them, would be inappropriate. Happening upon them while taking a break and looking as at random site would not, any more than there would be an issue with such an image coming up as you browse a newspaper that happens to have an image of that sort illustrating an article about the current heatwave, or some holiday offer, or a beech fashion event. Sensible rules have room for context. > (Similarly unusual deficit of empathy, while we’re at it.) I find your comment on empathy ironic, given the rest of this bit of thread!
      - SilasX 4y ago
        >I did not object at all to you raising what you feel is a valid warning. Nor, as far as I see did the other poster, they simply disagreed politely. If you're saying that people are wrong to not want a massive bloody finger or a drunken flashing photo on their screen, then yes, you are objecting to the warning, and you are showing an empathy deficit. Sorry, where was the irony you claimed to see? Because as far as I can tell, I have empathy for people who don't want those images on their screen, while you don't. Generally speaking, I imagine there's a high threshold for objecting to a mere warning (the point about triggers you ignored), so I assumed if anyone were actually disputing that this merited a warning, they believed the wrongness of my comment met that threshold. But sure, I was wrong to assume anyone thinks that far ahead or tries to be consistent.
- furyofantares 4y ago
  Although your description doesn't sound like anything I'd expect most people to call NSFW/L, if it is for you then yeah I don't think you should browse it from work. FWIW I think you also got real unlucky on the ratio, I did quite a few and didn't come across any blood and only one male nipple
Akronymus 4y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32070771 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32070771 Maybe check out the image I got?
- account42 4y ago
  Thats... pretty mild. I guess sensibilities vary but I wouldn't even count that as gore at all, just a wound that seems to be healing.