5 ms·

The biggest piece of feedback I think I have gotten from posting here is that the nsfw content is a bit shocking which I get. Sorry about that. My guess is tha

by t4t 2y ago

The biggest piece of feedback I think I have gotten from posting here is that the nsfw content is a bit shocking which I get. Sorry about that. My guess is that if you just scrolled twitter or whatever by new exclusively unfiltered you wouldn’t have that different an experience. On the one hand I do think there is something interesting about the rawness of this network but also some sort of smart nsfw filtering is clearly needed, and I've been in the bubble of making this long enough to have become a bit desensitized. I will get that shipped within the week!

Atotalnoob 2y ago
You probably shouldn’t show NSFW to non-logged in users. Otherwise you could run afoul of various laws, since technically minors can access it
- t4t 2y ago
  I will add a tagging system and hide nsfw posts from non-logged-in non-opted-in users this weekend.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- cynicalsecurity 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - Atotalnoob 2y ago
    I’m talking about NSFW posts, not a blanket statement about trans people. I would urge you to reread my post.
  - dang 2y ago
    Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN. We've had to ask you this more than once before. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - cynicalsecurity 2y ago
      Answering to a person who calls topics related to trans people not safe for children is now regarded as starting a flamewar (whatever this means), nice.
      - dang 2y ago
        No, "Minors can't learn of trans people? What other people should they be warned of, Jews?" is starting a flamewar. This is not a borderline call. I think it's pretty clear what "the flamewar style" means to anyone who's been around internet forums for a little while, but if you want a definition, it could be somewhere in the neighborhood of: conversation that's focused on aggressive/snarky/indignant expression for the purpose of venting and/or defeating opponents, as opposed to curious, respectful conversation for the purpose of learning from each other. These two are mutually exclusive, and on this site we want the latter, not the former. Your GP comment was the former, as for that matter was your reply to me here.
        cynicalsecurity 2y ago
        Respectful conversation involves sarcasm and satire. I hope we are not in church to avoid using those. I wasn't using aggression against the person I was replying to and my comment was pretty calm, was it? What is really flamewary and pretty rude to say is stating that trans people need an NSFW tag. If you so much want to avoid flamewars, whatever this means, you probably should have replied to that person in the first place.
        monktastic1 2y ago
        It's hard to discern whether you're misreading this whole thread on purpose or not. Nobody is claiming that trans content in general is NSFW, but that a certain subset of content therein, displayed openly on the site is -- which OP evidently agrees with. If you think OP is anti-trans, I don't know who you think is pro-.
        dang 2y ago
- quesera 2y ago
  Serious question: Is my browser blocking image content or something? Or is there general consensus that plain body-font sized text is also an NSFW concern?
  - Atotalnoob 2y ago
    I didn’t see any non-text content, but I didn’t spend that much time looking. NSFW text is a thing, there are porn sites that house explicit text for zoophilia, pedophilia, incest, rape, etc. I’m not saying this site has anything extreme or out there, but there are likely laws governing what text can be shown, it’s simpler to just require login, since that will also help protect you against COPPA and other restrictions for minors that are non NSFW related. I’m all for free speech, but there are laws governing how certain text is handled
    - quesera 2y ago
      > there are laws governing how certain text is handled Is that true?? In the US? My instinctive metric[0] for NSFW is: Could a casual passerby see something that falls into a class of designated offensivenesses (e.g. sex of any kind, but not violence unless it's also sexual)? Text in a giant font could certainly qualify. But I would not think that ordinary-sized body text would be problematic -- if the passerby has to pause and snoop, they are breaking other equally-important protocols to ascertain SFW or lack thereof. 0: I have not run this by an HR department, and I've worked from a home office for more than twenty years, so I may know nothing of which I speak!
      - lazyasciiart 2y ago
        A better metric might be “could a casual network filtering program pick up something that would be forbidden at work”.
        quesera 2y ago
        Good point. I have never suffered such indignity, but I forget my privilege.
- mid-kid 2y ago
  All you need to sidestep those laws is a little prompt that asks you if you're 18, you don't need to require a login. Unless you're talking about recent US laws.
whalesalad 2y ago
honestly I think people just need to grow up. so many people get outraged and cry "this should be NSFW!" when it is literally just a naked human body. we are so prudish in our society.
- aliasxneo 2y ago
  Not everyone share that view, and that’s OK.
- mmooss 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 2y ago
    "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - mmooss 2y ago
      Yikes - I didn't think my comment was especially critical at all, just a kind of funny way to explore the issue. It's a sincere question. But I apparently am not imagining what it looks like. Sorry!
mmooss 2y ago
Several US states now require age verification for adult content (I don't know how that is defined). A case challenging such laws is being considered by the US Supreme Court, but most experts believe the court will allow the age verification. That may mean users identifying themselves, which seems dangerous. (It should not at all be dangerous, but it is.) All you need is some phobic government official to sue or investigate you, for any reason they can come up with, and demand all your records as part of their lawsuit/investigation. Perhaps there's a way to do age verification while minimizing privacy risks? For example, verify their age, give them their credentials, then delete the PII? I don't know if that would suffice if your age verification practices were challenged. (Talk to an expert.)
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  All the porn companies have handled this by simply blocking the sites in the states in question, just forcing people to use VPNs. If you ask for ID verification to see NSFW content they know hardly anyone would provide it, and at the same time it opens you up to a lot of liability in handling extremely sensitive PII. The whole thing is just moralistic BS anyway. I'm sure most kids can figure out how to use a VPN better than adults.
  - chimeracoder 2y ago
    > If you ask for ID verification to see NSFW content they know hardly anyone would provide it, and at the same time it opens you up to a lot of liability in handling extremely sensitive PII. Yes, and that is exactly why Morality in Media (the right-wing, evangelical group behind these laws) has been proposing them. Their goal is to outlaw pornography (and other "immoral" content) on the internet by making it so difficult to access or provide legally that nobody will bother. > I'm sure most kids can figure out how to use a VPN better than adults. You're making the mistake of assuming their goal is to prevent kids from being able to access pornography. It is not. Their goal is to make it so financially impractical to run any service that publishes (or allows people to publish) pornography, LGBTQ content, or anything that they deem "immoral" that nobody even tries. And it's working: many services which used to allow that content before 2017 no longer do, and it is much, much more expensive (and difficult) for the remaining folks to find platforms or hosting providers to continue to do so.
DiggyJohnson 2y ago
Unfiltered twitter is significantly less NSFW, just as a point of feedback. Good luck with you project tho

by t4t 2y ago

Atotalnoob 2y ago

You probably shouldn’t show NSFW to non-logged in users. Otherwise you could run afoul of various laws, since technically minors can access it

t4t 2y ago
I will add a tagging system and hide nsfw posts from non-logged-in non-opted-in users this weekend.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
cynicalsecurity 2y ago
[flagged]
- Atotalnoob 2y ago
  I’m talking about NSFW posts, not a blanket statement about trans people. I would urge you to reread my post.
- dang 2y ago
  Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN. We've had to ask you this more than once before. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - cynicalsecurity 2y ago
    Answering to a person who calls topics related to trans people not safe for children is now regarded as starting a flamewar (whatever this means), nice.
    - dang 2y ago
      No, "Minors can't learn of trans people? What other people should they be warned of, Jews?" is starting a flamewar. This is not a borderline call. I think it's pretty clear what "the flamewar style" means to anyone who's been around internet forums for a little while, but if you want a definition, it could be somewhere in the neighborhood of: conversation that's focused on aggressive/snarky/indignant expression for the purpose of venting and/or defeating opponents, as opposed to curious, respectful conversation for the purpose of learning from each other. These two are mutually exclusive, and on this site we want the latter, not the former. Your GP comment was the former, as for that matter was your reply to me here.
      - cynicalsecurity 2y ago
        Respectful conversation involves sarcasm and satire. I hope we are not in church to avoid using those. I wasn't using aggression against the person I was replying to and my comment was pretty calm, was it? What is really flamewary and pretty rude to say is stating that trans people need an NSFW tag. If you so much want to avoid flamewars, whatever this means, you probably should have replied to that person in the first place.
        monktastic1 2y ago
        It's hard to discern whether you're misreading this whole thread on purpose or not. Nobody is claiming that trans content in general is NSFW, but that a certain subset of content therein, displayed openly on the site is -- which OP evidently agrees with. If you think OP is anti-trans, I don't know who you think is pro-.
        dang 2y ago
quesera 2y ago
Serious question: Is my browser blocking image content or something? Or is there general consensus that plain body-font sized text is also an NSFW concern?
- Atotalnoob 2y ago
  I didn’t see any non-text content, but I didn’t spend that much time looking. NSFW text is a thing, there are porn sites that house explicit text for zoophilia, pedophilia, incest, rape, etc. I’m not saying this site has anything extreme or out there, but there are likely laws governing what text can be shown, it’s simpler to just require login, since that will also help protect you against COPPA and other restrictions for minors that are non NSFW related. I’m all for free speech, but there are laws governing how certain text is handled
  - quesera 2y ago
    > there are laws governing how certain text is handled Is that true?? In the US? My instinctive metric[0] for NSFW is: Could a casual passerby see something that falls into a class of designated offensivenesses (e.g. sex of any kind, but not violence unless it's also sexual)? Text in a giant font could certainly qualify. But I would not think that ordinary-sized body text would be problematic -- if the passerby has to pause and snoop, they are breaking other equally-important protocols to ascertain SFW or lack thereof. 0: I have not run this by an HR department, and I've worked from a home office for more than twenty years, so I may know nothing of which I speak!
    - lazyasciiart 2y ago
      A better metric might be “could a casual network filtering program pick up something that would be forbidden at work”.
      - quesera 2y ago
        Good point. I have never suffered such indignity, but I forget my privilege.
mid-kid 2y ago
All you need to sidestep those laws is a little prompt that asks you if you're 18, you don't need to require a login. Unless you're talking about recent US laws.

whalesalad 2y ago

honestly I think people just need to grow up. so many people get outraged and cry "this should be NSFW!" when it is literally just a naked human body. we are so prudish in our society.

aliasxneo 2y ago
Not everyone share that view, and that’s OK.
mmooss 2y ago
[flagged]
- dang 2y ago
  "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - mmooss 2y ago
    Yikes - I didn't think my comment was especially critical at all, just a kind of funny way to explore the issue. It's a sincere question. But I apparently am not imagining what it looks like. Sorry!

mmooss 2y ago

Several US states now require age verification for adult content (I don't know how that is defined). A case challenging such laws is being considered by the US Supreme Court, but most experts believe the court will allow the age verification. That may mean users identifying themselves, which seems dangerous. (It should not at all be dangerous, but it is.) All you need is some phobic government official to sue or investigate you, for any reason they can come up with, and demand all your records as part of their lawsuit/investigation. Perhaps there's a way to do age verification while minimizing privacy risks? For example, verify their age, give them their credentials, then delete the PII? I don't know if that would suffice if your age verification practices were challenged. (Talk to an expert.)

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
All the porn companies have handled this by simply blocking the sites in the states in question, just forcing people to use VPNs. If you ask for ID verification to see NSFW content they know hardly anyone would provide it, and at the same time it opens you up to a lot of liability in handling extremely sensitive PII. The whole thing is just moralistic BS anyway. I'm sure most kids can figure out how to use a VPN better than adults.
- chimeracoder 2y ago
  > If you ask for ID verification to see NSFW content they know hardly anyone would provide it, and at the same time it opens you up to a lot of liability in handling extremely sensitive PII. Yes, and that is exactly why Morality in Media (the right-wing, evangelical group behind these laws) has been proposing them. Their goal is to outlaw pornography (and other "immoral" content) on the internet by making it so difficult to access or provide legally that nobody will bother. > I'm sure most kids can figure out how to use a VPN better than adults. You're making the mistake of assuming their goal is to prevent kids from being able to access pornography. It is not. Their goal is to make it so financially impractical to run any service that publishes (or allows people to publish) pornography, LGBTQ content, or anything that they deem "immoral" that nobody even tries. And it's working: many services which used to allow that content before 2017 no longer do, and it is much, much more expensive (and difficult) for the remaining folks to find platforms or hosting providers to continue to do so.

DiggyJohnson 2y ago

Unfiltered twitter is significantly less NSFW, just as a point of feedback. Good luck with you project tho