182
message understood (media.piefed.zip)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/fedimemes@feddit.uk
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
Quote woot of burnout.cafe's admin, which replies to mastodon.social's staff: "I really am a supporter of free speech and free expression, but I *really* wish you would ban people posting homosexual pornography on your instance. Gay pride is not about publishing gay pornography. And it's especially a real pity because mastodon.social is a big instance and pretty central to the Mastodon corner of the Fediverse. I really do not want to block your whole instance. But it's a real nuisance trying to Limit those accounts.". The quoter, Wafrn dev and admin comments "Hello everyone. We have read this message. Please post more gay porn"
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 20 points 3 months ago (3 children)

We personally don’t know the full context but we also like to have separation of sfw and nsfw. Though we’re sure they have a tag for nsfw and the dude could’ve just blocked nsfw like how we do on our accounts

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Agreed, its also one of the reasons why instances defederate to separate all the NSFW. Instances should either be fully NSFW or SFW - that way a user can easily navigate and use blocks.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago*

    We don’t mind them being mixed together, sometimes something sfw can be classified nsfw even if the op doesn’t mean to.

    So the tagging system would work better and a mod can just slap on an nsfw tag and just be like “hey heads up this was nsfw, it’s image/content was just spoiler-filtered for ya” kinda thing rather than trying to whack a mole delete a bunch of stuff.

    But we can see the separation of tagging and exclusion can have pros and cons in either side. Even though we don’t like nsfw it’s still nice to have the option of it being there ig. It’s overall personal preference

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Late to the party, but I think what counts as NSFW is also blurry and subjective. Like I have all NSFW blocked on my account, but the other day when I checked out the "All" feed, it had some pics that I would consider soft porn. Fully clothed subjects, but very much emphasising specific body parts in a sexualised way (I think the two communities I saw were midriff and thighs). I found them uncomfortable, but most people probably wouldn't call them outright NSFW.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent