NSFW - What Does It Mean to You? [ ed. title chg per OP request ]

Great Debates
1

Based on the post I made on Wednesday in this thread, a pit thread was started accusing tomndebb and the SDMB of homophobia.

In essence, I posted about the possibility that a previously-posted link, to a non-sexual, gay-oriented sports message board with advertising and with “no explicit images or language,” might be NSFW. A moderator added a note next to the actual link explaining my post, but not agreeing that my link was NSFW. A poster subsequently raised the possibility that homophobia raged rampant here at the Straight Dope. In the link, visible ads included possibly half-clad men, standing in intimate juxtaposition to one another, but nothing more. Occasionally, if I remember correctly, the site might feature gay-oriented dating and cruise ship offerings with similar pictorial illustrations.

Suggestion was further made that this was a double standard and that neither the “NSFW” statement, nor the explanatory note would have been necessary for websites featuring heterosexual or mixed race couples, or even couples made up of people of color or websites with a Christian theme. In the back and forth with the OP of the Pit thread, he raised the same question about a website devoted to Muslim texts.

While there is no indication that any of the accusations are true, I thought the main issues raised were worth discussing.

Would you, as an authority figure in the workplace, be alarmed, offended or feel some form of action needed to be taken upon seeing such a window open on a monitor in the workplace (or discovering visits to such a site)? Would the theme of the website make a difference in your reaction?

If you were a colleague in said office, with equal internet and surfing privileges, what would your reaction be? What would you do about it, if you were offended and felt company policy was being breached? (Note: not talking about non-offense to breaches of company policy.)

What are your thoughts on both original threads in general?

2

No more than I would upon seeing the SDMB open. Neither are work-related, and I don’t care if it’s gay porn or a parenting message board – if my policies forbid non-work-related surfing, then my response is the same in all four of these cases.

It happens all the time where I work. People browse the net casually during our downtime, and no one really cares where anyone else is surfing. If it were a violation of company policy, why should I do anything? It’s not my job to police internet usage as it relates to company policy.

If you mean how do I feel about your post, it didn’t set off any alarms on my end. I did think the NSFW disclaimer was frivolous – then again, I think many are. In this case, there’s nothing really “not safe” for work in the article you linked to. NSFW tags should be saved for blatant porn, loud audio, and the like.

3

I’m glad you opened this. Although I don’t find homosexuals offensive in any way I think doing so, although it’s none of my business what others think, is wrong. It is just another example of ways that we as humans segregate others into groups for the prurpose of despising them in one way or another. I feel this is true of any difference, whether it is color or ethnic origins or even something like a persons weight. Although I do not judge others, I don’t feel I need waste my time giving them any attention other than being generally polite. I have no patience for hate and the people who perpitrate it.

4

My workplace has a NO PORN/NO Gambling rule about internet use. (I do not make the rules.) Doesn’t matter if it is gay or not, we get fired for either, first strike and your out. A picture of two men, fully clothed but cuddling, is not porn, and wouldn’t get you fired. If a shirtless couple were seen, an investigation gets launched…

Wouldn’t care. I am only concerned about my own sex life. (Or lack thereof…)

5

Based on the description of the rules in your workplace, the pictures in the link should not have been a problem. The only skin showing was from the waist up, although there is the occasion swimsuit shot, with more skin but still clothed

Same here. :wink:

I appreciate the humor in this last sentence, but I was specifically asking about open websites that were non-porn related, but might be dealing with ideas or images others might not be accepting of, which you did answer in your opening.

Now, if only more people were like you and 'tended to their business and stayed out of mine, this world would be a better place indeed.

6

I may not be as noble as first impressions may lead you to think…

I am a little more squickish about pedophilia. There is a recent story out of California where a man was caught by a librarian looking at child porn on the library computer.

http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/NEWS01/803140331

If I was a “passerby” in the library, and saw someone looking at child porn, I would notify the staff. (Who may or may not decide to do anything.) I wouldn’t confront the guy, but I would tell the staff.

Still like me now? :wink:

7

By the way, I realise that your OP is about NON-porn stuff… sorry for the hijack.

However, you should see my google-ads at the bottom. heh.

8

Oh, no, I don’t mind a bit of a hijack into that area.

Where internet usage is concerned, the topic of porn sites can be useful to fully delineate your company’s or your position as regards you response(s) to my basic questions, or it can be useful to contrast a point made by you or someone else.

9

My take on this is that different approaches may be necessary for different situations. yes, homophobia is stupid and wrong (IMO), however, it exists, and the best way of dealing with it is not always going to be that of smashing your head against it.

You do not necessarily need to meet every challenge head on - because sometimes that’s not the best way to prevail, or it may just not be appropriate for other valid reasons, such as the collateral harm it may cause to other innocent parties.

10

I think the mod was spot on. Homosexuality is not a protected class under federal law, and if your boss would catch you looking at web sites that were geared to homosexuals, he may, right or wrong, fire you for that, so the NSFW warning could very well be appropriate.

11

A reasonable and seemingly evenhanded response.

Again, a reasonable response and I assume this applies to sites that contain content or information with which you don’t agree or might be personally offended, but does not violate company policy.

I problably misapplied the “NSFW” label and probably should have been more explicit about why I thought any warning was necessary. Like I’ve said (probably because “acceptance” was being discussed in that thread), my thinking went beyond the interaction we have here at the SDMB and the people viewing the content, to forces outside of our accepting-for-the-most-part environment. The warning may not have been strictly necessary, but I don’t think from a consideration point of view, it was frivolous.

12

Per request of the OP, the title has been changed to
NSFW - What does ir mean to you?
from
Homophobia on the SDMB
[ /Modding ]

13

Aside from the fact that the OP of the Pit thread was simply yanking chains, the issue he attempted to raise was misdirected in terms of the SDMB.

The web site was a sports-oriented site targeted to the homosexual community. There was not a thing on the page linked that would have triggered the SDMB “two click” rule regarding nudity or sexual displays. Therefore, there was no point in breaking the link.

OTOH, the ads displayed might very well have caused an issue, at work, in some places in the U.S. where homophobia is enforced in corporate policies. Therefore, a notice that the site was potentially NSFW with a brief explanation regarding the reasons was a legitimate interpolation. Since the author’s notice that it might be NSFW was placed on a separate post that was not immediately visible while reading the post with the link, I decided that a short comment that changed no text of the author, was an appropriate response to the situation.

Comparisons to ads in which persons of different perceived races appear really missed the point. No one is going to get in trouble for have a screen up advertising Costner and Barry in The Bodyguard unless the place has rules against all non-work-related sites.

14

Thank you, Omegaman. I think you’re saying that reacting in a negative way to actual work-safe content you may see is wrong and, extending that to life in general. More people need to think things through and apply them that way to life in general. As I read your posts around the Dope, I get that you are of Christian persuasion, but also get that you seem to apply it’s principles in the way that’s intended. Thank you for that.

I think I like you even more. I may also now seem “not accepting” but I think it goes without saying that this sort of thing (non-adult, non-consensual, sexual content) is outside the purview of safe to lpull up/overlook anywhere.

I wouldn’t actually confront the person but woudl definitely let them know that the staff is watching and let him know about “what I had seen happen to another person doing the same thing.” If it persists, I’d tell the staff.

Should I live and let live?

Not in this case.