How do you define "non-disturbing"? There are some pretty challenging red sites on the dark web. You can watch videos of pretty serious crimes. Surely the point is context and relevance...
I mean what is "wolfballs" for? What is the manifesto?
Comment on I propose a rule change
Spotted_Lady@wolfballs.com 2 years agoI didn't even think of necrophilia and cannibalism.
I don't see what would be wrong with non-disturbing photos of the dead. For instance, in the old days, photography was so expensive that oftentimes, the only photos that folks had of them were when they were dead. We consider that creepy today, but they'd dress them up, pose with them, etc., since they'd never have that opportunity again.
goldenballs@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
Spotted_Lady@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
You knew what I meant. It is much like the Supreme Court justice who said, "I can't tell you what pornography is, but I know it when I see it."
So a non-disturbing photo of a dead person would be like someone who just peacefully died, like photos from a funeral service. Disturbing would be things like blood, brains, and protruding bones.
goldenballs@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
Not all the same things are disturbing to everyone, it depends what you're used to. Whatever your supreme court says, art or lingerie catalogues can be used as porn
Spotted_Lady@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
Still, you know what I mean. And interpretation changes nothing. I mean, I can find things "offensive" (that is, agree that other people do) withing finding it offensive.
masterofballs@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
I mean news worthy or historical photos should be allowed but at the end of the day that is a fussy line and a admin or mod will have to make a gut decision on it.
I just wouldn't want actual necrophiliacs to take over the site. There is a dark part of the internet that is into that kinda stuff I don't want to be anywhere near.
Spotted_Lady@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
I get you on that.
And what about cartoon nudity? Still NSFW, right? That said, Wikipedia uses such images to depict the topics. Like if you look up fellatio. That has a cartoon image depicting it. They've mulled over ways to detect IPs in certain places and hide the images by default for them.
Esperantist@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
If we just go strictly by the initialism, drawn sexual images even if not pornographic don't seem like the kind of thing that'd be safe to look at at work. Seems fitting to give them an NSFW tag.
goldenballs@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
Wilipedia pages of sexual related things are the borderline of that and medical diagrams. The question should always be "Why are you looking at that at work?" That test applies to textual content as well images and some sounds or music.