3 ms·
It’s not the blurring, it’s the logging in. I don’t want to log into Google. They could have had a setting, but this way makes them more money. They already d
by prepend 4y ago
It’s not the blurring, it’s the logging in. I don’t want to log into Google.
They could have had a setting, but this way makes them more money.
They already default to “safe search” or whatever. Making people log in does nothing to protect children and just lets them gather more data.
They’ve been doing this on YouTube for years with nsfw stuff.
- skybrian 4y agoWill users be able to click through to the original website instead of logging in?
- anonymouskimmer 4y agoYes, users can click through to the original website. They'll just be clicking through on a blurred image. This point is made in a single, short sentence of the original article that is easy to miss: "If you click "View image," you see life's frail nature."
- skybrian 4y agoIt reminds me of how they do it on Mastodon.
- LorenPechtel 4y agoYeah--I have no problem with the existence of Safe Search. It's a good idea for the internet naive who can innocently get some shocking material. However, it should be under more user control. Hey, Google Translate, please interpret this in it's sexual sense, not it's innocent sense! I haven't figured out any way to do this. (I wanted it to translate the dirty word for penis--and I never figured out how to do it. It will translate dirty words if it doesn't have a choice.) And it shouldn't require logging in!
- iggldiggl 4y agoGoogle Translate generally seems to fare badly if you want to fine-tweak the translation or explore alternative meanings and things like that – at most it seems to usually offer a single alternative translation per sentence, and that's that. If your language pair is supported by deepl.com, give that one a try – it offers alternative translations at a much more fine-grained level, down to individual words, and usually offers much more than just one single alternative.