7 ms·

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
        > Respectful conversation involves sarcasm and satire It can in some contexts! For example with friends or close colleagues, or a small group of familiars. But the context is the dominant variable. In a context like HN (a large, public, optionally anonymous internet forum), sarcasm and satire and snark are likely to come across as cheap attacks. The odds of that are so high that such messages should either be avoided or disambiguated enough that the median reader—someone who doesn't know you or anything about you—can still detect that you're conversing respectfully. This sucks a bit—it means we're all subject to a certain blandness here. But the alternative is the war of all against all, followed by scorched earth, and that isn't much of a choice. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20-corporate%20-title%20bland&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20rugby%20-scrum&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
    - Atotalnoob 2y ago
      Trans people aren’t NSFW, please reread what I said. I said the NSFW text content. Not trans people.
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.

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
        > Respectful conversation involves sarcasm and satire It can in some contexts! For example with friends or close colleagues, or a small group of familiars. But the context is the dominant variable. In a context like HN (a large, public, optionally anonymous internet forum), sarcasm and satire and snark are likely to come across as cheap attacks. The odds of that are so high that such messages should either be avoided or disambiguated enough that the median reader—someone who doesn't know you or anything about you—can still detect that you're conversing respectfully. This sucks a bit—it means we're all subject to a certain blandness here. But the alternative is the war of all against all, followed by scorched earth, and that isn't much of a choice. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20-corporate%20-title%20bland&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20rugby%20-scrum&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
  - Atotalnoob 2y ago
    Trans people aren’t NSFW, please reread what I said. I said the NSFW text content. Not trans people.

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.