Ask Lemmy

If you're browsing Lemmy, on your phone, in work then really you should be curating your feed a bit better.

No

Yes. All academic points aside, it's not socially-acceptable to view stuff like this in public.

Having looked at your referenced image. No. She is appropriately clothed for summer.

In certain states in the US, a woman can choose to be topless anywhere a man can be. This woman is not topless.

Also maybe not visit Lemmy or any social media at work.

As far as on the bus? I guarantee that there's a woman on the bus in similar atire off it's summer.

I think they should only be half marked NSFW.

I think this is a good conversion to have. I enjoy images of women, but everyone doesn't. I also don't feel it's fair to compare these images to porn and play morality police.

It makes sense to break NSFW into a handful of tags and allow more granular control. The problem historically was that the number of tags kept growing and became hard to classify.

The number of tags wouldn't be much of an issue, but then it comes down to the OP to tag appropriately. Even with generic NSFW filter turned on, I still occasionally see genitals in my feed.

We could allow users to tag, but I see brigading and other abuses possible here. Appointing power users also might work, but that has its own list of issues. That also would mean that all this information would need to synch with the post.

As maybe the main culprit behind such content, I can comment.

I'd love to err on the side of caution. Unfortunately that isn't how the NSFW toggle is used, and erring on the side of caution any more than necessary comes with drawbacks in terms of post visibility and community growth.

Posts like the one you linked perform orders of magnitude better when not marked NSFW, which means they reach more people who want to see them when un-tagged, than didn't want to see them.

And tagging them, in fact achieves the opposite.

This is because people scroll past content marked NSFW regardless of what it is. Because they can't see what it is. Except when they are looking for porn.

So while I didn't stop using the NSFW tag, I pushed the needle a bit and stopped marking everything even slightly revealing as NSFW "just in case" because it was literally hiding it from the people who wanted to see it, and leaving just the porn enthusiasts to check the actual images, who'd then down-vote it because it wasn't actually porn.

I am myself completely uninterested in actual pornographic content on Lemmy, yet as someone who doesn't mind it, I actually do not hide NSFW content, and even disable blurring it by default.

Because the binary tagging of NSFW is utterly useless as a tool for curating away content I do not want to see, as a SHIT-TON of content I DO want to see would go with it.

Instead I use the list view in Thunder with its small thumbnails, making the occasional porn very difficult to spot over my shoulder, but allowing me to much more properly vet what posts I open and view in full size.

I am fairly certain that a lot of the people who engage with my many "moe" communities, are, like me, quite uninterested in actual explicit content. As such they do not engage with posts marked NSFW, or perhaps even disable it entirely on their accounts.

The NSFW toggle isn't enough, and its purpose and exact threshold varies wildly depending on your sensibilities.

This content isn't porn, yet if I run my communities as if it is, they don't get traction.

If I run my communities like they're for porn, they'll mostly be frequented by people who post and look for exactly that. But they won't fit in because I don't allow nudity, and the stuff I do allow isn't the kind anyone settles down to actually get off to, despite some of it being arousing. So, my communities don't belong on that side of the fediverse, but at the same time they don't entirely belong on the SFW side of a lot of people's feeds either.

Yet, to reach the people like myself, but who unlike me don't make the insane effort of checking every NSFW post to see if it's not porn, that's where they have to exist.

No

As a side note, if there can be a sort of tag that denotes things like half naked anime characters, I would be the first one to permanently filter them out of my feed because they contribute absolute zero value to my experience here. Not trying to be a downer but it's just not for me. I'm glad there are people who enjoy that and can have that.

While I don't really see that specific image as nsfw, you can point that out to the posters to mark it as such; or you can block communities or posters that you don't think adhere to it consistently.

Edit: Neptunia series do have their fair share of fanservice as in their original artwork, so you could feel free to block that community

Probably yes. As long as it's something that would reasonably not be ok to watch in public/family/work environment, it's always better to be on the cautious side.

There's a setting to just not blur NSFW tagged content, for people that are not concerned.

Yes

If you want to start your path down the reddit rabbit hole, yeah. Else, no

I would personally adhere to US Beachwear rules unless mods specify otherwise.

1. No nipples, exceptions being for explicitly male, of photographs of cultures that generally do not cover breasts, or certain artistic or medical references.

2. No pubic region that reveals any genitalia or anus.

3. There is no third rule, literally anything goes, including the image you were wondering about.

So while some people might object to a lot of the content we see, I don't personally think it is problematic. Especially when your instance has images collapsed by default, except for thumbnails.

No. That's just a fully clothed character. Any workplace where that would be considered "NSFW" is the kind of place where getting caught browsing Lemmy at all is NSFW.

No. Worrying about this is like making dogs and cats wear pants.