4 ms·

There aren’t any content warnings for links on HN. So it’s not like the user is making a conscious choice to go to a furry personal blog.

krapp 11mo ago
There is nothing in the linked article that would require a content warning. No sexually explicit or even implicit content whatsoever.
- alephnerd 11mo ago
  Furry content is often deemed NSFW, and it can get annoying for it to be constantly flashed in your face. Nothing wrong with it, but giving some sort of content warning isn't the worst thing in the world. Personally, it does get annoying sometimes when two completely unrelated topics are fused into one - personally I'd find this kind of content equally as annoying as that cringe Gen X "Semiconductors with Brittany Spears" shtick, but to each their own. There is nothing wrong with content flags or warnings, especially for stuff with a sensual or potentially sexual connotation.
  - krapp 11mo ago
    There is nothing in the linked article that is unsafe for work, nor does anything in the linked article have a sexual connotation. No one owes you a content warning that "this site contains cartoons and that might annoy you."
    - alephnerd 11mo ago
      > No one owes you a content warning In most cases, people do owe content warnings for content that is potentially sexual in nature.
      - JoshTriplett 11mo ago
        The article contains zero content that necessitates such a warning. Your belief that it is "sexual in nature" is a misinterpretation or incorrect assumption.
      - kelseyfrog 11mo ago
        I don't find anthropomorphized animals to be sexual in nature. I find it a bit strange that it's assumed most people complaining about the blog or suggesting content warnings, on the contrary, do.
        bugbuddy 11mo ago
        The complainer is a self-proclaimed policy wonk. I am sure he knows all the corrext policies to enforce include NSFW content policies. Heck, looking at his comment history, I get the impression that he might be a policy wonk in everything.
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]

krapp 11mo ago

There is nothing in the linked article that would require a content warning. No sexually explicit or even implicit content whatsoever.

alephnerd 11mo ago
Furry content is often deemed NSFW, and it can get annoying for it to be constantly flashed in your face. Nothing wrong with it, but giving some sort of content warning isn't the worst thing in the world. Personally, it does get annoying sometimes when two completely unrelated topics are fused into one - personally I'd find this kind of content equally as annoying as that cringe Gen X "Semiconductors with Brittany Spears" shtick, but to each their own. There is nothing wrong with content flags or warnings, especially for stuff with a sensual or potentially sexual connotation.
- krapp 11mo ago
  There is nothing in the linked article that is unsafe for work, nor does anything in the linked article have a sexual connotation. No one owes you a content warning that "this site contains cartoons and that might annoy you."
  - alephnerd 11mo ago
    > No one owes you a content warning In most cases, people do owe content warnings for content that is potentially sexual in nature.
    - JoshTriplett 11mo ago
      The article contains zero content that necessitates such a warning. Your belief that it is "sexual in nature" is a misinterpretation or incorrect assumption.
    - kelseyfrog 11mo ago
      I don't find anthropomorphized animals to be sexual in nature. I find it a bit strange that it's assumed most people complaining about the blog or suggesting content warnings, on the contrary, do.
      - bugbuddy 11mo ago
        The complainer is a self-proclaimed policy wonk. I am sure he knows all the corrext policies to enforce include NSFW content policies. Heck, looking at his comment history, I get the impression that he might be a policy wonk in everything.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]