it centers employers as our source of social standards, which is a position of extreme submission to capitalist control of social spaces.
Have you considered the possibility that the general public’s social standards have been inherited by offices, and not the other way round?
The “work” aspect of the phrase makes sense because it’s generally understood that a great many people browse various websites in an office where it’s easy for other people to glance over and see what’s on your screen.
You’d be ostracised (or even fired) in most workplaces if caught viewing content we currently mark as NSFW, much like you would be in any other public place like a library or a park (though people seeing your screen in these locations may be less frequent).
Work is chosen for the phrase because a) it’s the most likely place you’ll be when viewing content, and b) the place you’ll get in the most trouble for doing so.
Knowing this, it makes sense.
It implicitly asks posters to tag their posts according to their understanding of other people’s employers’ opinions
I think you’re taking the acronym a bit too literally here. Plus I already explained why it it is the way it is above.
In any case, what else would you have everyone call it? “Content you wouldn’t want people looking over your shoulder and seeing”? Or perhaps “media that you would be embarrassed if your phone blasted it in public”? It’s a bit long winded, don’t you think?
Hmm. When was the last time you saw a discussion of race hatred or religious bigotry labeled “NSFW”? Those things are also “bad” in American workplaces.
I haven’t seen any labelled NSFW. In fact, I luckily haven’t seen any at all. Though if I were to take a guess: the reason such discussions aren’t marked NSFW is because the people who take part in them don’t care about anyone but themselves and their own opinions. Asking them to be considerate and correctly flair their posts is meaningless as they are seemingly incapable of considering others.
I’m not sure what any of that had to do with what I said before though.
You seemed to be offering a complicated explanation of why “NSFW” is just fine and my objections to it are dopey.
But it’s not just fine. It doesn’t even do what it supposedly promises to do, namely mark things that someone would get in trouble with their employer for having up on their screen at work.
Because “NSFW” is used to mean “porn, and maybe gore” it doesn’t even succeed at marking other things that are not, y’know, safe for work.
And it’s still not a great idea to use “some generic (but probably American) employer’s standards” as part of the core rules for social interaction online.
Maybe rambling a bit, tired and drunk, sorry not sorry.
Have you considered the possibility that the general public’s social standards have been inherited by offices, and not the other way round?
Like it or not, I feel that the general public’s social standards have historically been dictated mainly by religion, and therefore are (1) different in certain areas/countries; and (2) slow to change. Think of, for example, Sunday trading, holidays for Christmas and Easter, the wearing of certain items of clothing, the use of certain words in public, to name a few. What was common and acceptable 20 or 50 years ago in a white christian country may be NSFW now, and vice versa (such as girly calendars in the workplace, the hiring and treatment of ethnic minorities). Even within a country, different areas may have different social standards.
NSFW makes a direct reference to the workplace, but could also refer to material (not necessarily just visual media) that you might not want your child(ren), parent(s), partner, general public to see on your screen, and as someone else pointed out, could also refer to NSFL.
What could offend one person or group could be fine and acceptable to another; but a discussion of “political correctness”, “wokeness”, and reaction to being offended, is probably better suited to another time and place.
For these reasons, I think that NSF[WL] is too narrow a category; on the other hand I can’t think of a better, unless you use a completely different system, for example video ratings (adults only, [extreme] violence, mature themes, supernatural, parental guidance required).
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !programming@programming.dev
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person’s post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you’re posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don’t want to watch videos
Have you considered the possibility that the general public’s social standards have been inherited by offices, and not the other way round?
The “work” aspect of the phrase makes sense because it’s generally understood that a great many people browse various websites in an office where it’s easy for other people to glance over and see what’s on your screen.
You’d be ostracised (or even fired) in most workplaces if caught viewing content we currently mark as NSFW, much like you would be in any other public place like a library or a park (though people seeing your screen in these locations may be less frequent).
Work is chosen for the phrase because a) it’s the most likely place you’ll be when viewing content, and b) the place you’ll get in the most trouble for doing so.
Knowing this, it makes sense.
I think you’re taking the acronym a bit too literally here. Plus I already explained why it it is the way it is above.
In any case, what else would you have everyone call it? “Content you wouldn’t want people looking over your shoulder and seeing”? Or perhaps “media that you would be embarrassed if your phone blasted it in public”? It’s a bit long winded, don’t you think?
Hmm. When was the last time you saw a discussion of race hatred or religious bigotry labeled “NSFW”? Those things are also “bad” in American workplaces.
I haven’t seen any labelled NSFW. In fact, I luckily haven’t seen any at all. Though if I were to take a guess: the reason such discussions aren’t marked NSFW is because the people who take part in them don’t care about anyone but themselves and their own opinions. Asking them to be considerate and correctly flair their posts is meaningless as they are seemingly incapable of considering others.
I’m not sure what any of that had to do with what I said before though.
You seemed to be offering a complicated explanation of why “NSFW” is just fine and my objections to it are dopey.
But it’s not just fine. It doesn’t even do what it supposedly promises to do, namely mark things that someone would get in trouble with their employer for having up on their screen at work.
Because “NSFW” is used to mean “porn, and maybe gore” it doesn’t even succeed at marking other things that are not, y’know, safe for work.
And it’s still not a great idea to use “some generic (but probably American) employer’s standards” as part of the core rules for social interaction online.
Maybe rambling a bit, tired and drunk, sorry not sorry.
Like it or not, I feel that the general public’s social standards have historically been dictated mainly by religion, and therefore are (1) different in certain areas/countries; and (2) slow to change. Think of, for example, Sunday trading, holidays for Christmas and Easter, the wearing of certain items of clothing, the use of certain words in public, to name a few. What was common and acceptable 20 or 50 years ago in a white christian country may be NSFW now, and vice versa (such as girly calendars in the workplace, the hiring and treatment of ethnic minorities). Even within a country, different areas may have different social standards.
NSFW makes a direct reference to the workplace, but could also refer to material (not necessarily just visual media) that you might not want your child(ren), parent(s), partner, general public to see on your screen, and as someone else pointed out, could also refer to NSFL.
What could offend one person or group could be fine and acceptable to another; but a discussion of “political correctness”, “wokeness”, and reaction to being offended, is probably better suited to another time and place.
For these reasons, I think that NSF[WL] is too narrow a category; on the other hand I can’t think of a better, unless you use a completely different system, for example video ratings (adults only, [extreme] violence, mature themes, supernatural, parental guidance required).