I linked to this page from the New York Post in an Elections thread.
Tabloids are a bit racier than other newspapers and two images appeared on the page that might be considered salacious.
One was a picture of legal brothel owner Dennis Hof with some of his prostitutes, somewhat newsworthy because he had been running for and won a state legislative seat despite his dying before the election.
The other was clickbait about kinkiest sex scenes.
Neither showed any nudity, bikinis in one and bare shoulders in the other, both of females.
I’ve worked from home for two decades and I no longer have a sense of what work safe means today beyond the obvious of actual nudity and sex scenes. The *Post *is major newspaper and legitimate news source. It’s not the Times, but few papers are.
Those used to be sufficiently safe. Are they still? Where are the lines and what should we be looking out for?
I don’t think that’s relevant to whether it might include an image that might be considered NSFW. National Geographic is a legitimate publication that might include images that are NSFW, as well as any number of medical journals.
When was that, exactly?:dubious:
The NSFW rule is intended as a courtesy to your fellow posters who may be accessing the board from work (obviously). Any image that might give pause to a supervisor seeing it on your screen might be considered NSFW. Basically, if you have to ask, you might consider not making it a direct link.
Obviously we rely on posters in general to make the initial judgement call. If a link gets reported as NSFW, then we may edit it so it complies with the two click rule.
I doubt we can give any brighter-line guidelines than that.
Then was back in the days when newspaper article pages weren’t plastered with huge numbers of advertising images for sites that were pages of “43 right clavicles you don’t remember seeing on The Brady Bunch.” It wasn’t all that long ago.
What about the images on the linked page? Are they NSFW or not?
And there are plenty of Wikipedia and other legitimate articles with explicit images of genitalia and other images that would not be safe for work. The fact that an image appears in a legitimate publication doesn’t have a lot to do with whether it is safe for work.
I’m sure that there are many workplaces (including my own when I am not working from home) where pictures of lingerie-clad prostitutes would raise an eyebrow. Like I said, if you have to ask, you might want to flag them. This said, there are lots of places where just surfing a site called “The Straight Dope” could make your supervisor do a double-take.
I really can’t give you more guidance than to say, “when in doubt, flag it.” If you don’t, and it is later flagged as being NSFW, the likely result is that a mod will edit it to conform to the two-click rule. We normally don’t issue warnings for minor violations of the rule. A warning might be warranted for linking to blatant pornography or for persistent violations of the rule.
As it happens I did indicate the page as a possible NSFW when I posted it in Elections. I also reported the post so that the mods there could remove the link if they saw fit. Crickets. (Elections mods are tomndebb, Jonathan Chance, and Bone, for those who don’t read the fine print on the Forum pages.)
Since you think it’s “borderline” mind sharing with us what “borderline” means? Or what we should do with borderline? Indicate it? Spoiler box it? Flip a coin and hope it doesn’t land on edge smack on the borderline?
Colin thinks we should use our judgement. Good one. Funny guy, that Colin.
I’m not sure what exactly you’re after here. As I said, we can’t give bright-line guidelines. Evidently the Elections mods decided that your indication that the link was possibly NSFW was sufficient. Do you really want to make this more complicated than using your best judgement? If you don’t feel your judgement is adequate, do you want to send the mods your link in advance so we can OK it? What?
I wouldn’t have tagged it as NSFW, myself. But the indication that such things are in the link is helpful to your fellow posters.
Really, if it can appear in a television commercial that could appear in an office, doesn’t that sort of indicate it’s SFW? That’s not a firm guideline, of course. But the reason for that is that there can’t be.
I think that NSFW ads are a different matter than a page’s primary content. For one thing, ads change, so you can never know what someone else is going to see. If the OP had happened to see innocuous ads when he viewed the page, he’d have no reason to expect anyone else would see prostitutes. Also, everyone knows what ads are like nowadays, so a co-worker or supervisor seeing inappropriate ads over someone’s shoulder, attached to what’s obviously a news story, wouldn’t assume anything from them.
I saw this thread and must ask, is it really considered “safe” these days for a supervisor to see anything besides a spreadsheet or computer code on your monitor?
Depends on the place of work, but as I said in many places it might be risky just to browse this site at all. Posters do have to make their own judgement of how cautious they need to be if browsing from work.
Right, but there’s warnings and there’s showing up with HR and a box, you know? Even just searching on women’s shoes can get a fetishist canned if it happens four hours per day and/or during hours charged on the time-sheet.
I’ll try to define a general continuum and let’s see if that’s helpful. If nothing else, it will help illustrate the impossibility of the task.
From “worst” to “iffy-est” (each includes realistic drawings or depictions of such) I would personally mark all of these NSFW:
Racial Supremacy/Misogyny sites
Forums which specialize in violent or manipulative skills/instructions
Hard Porn
Soft Porn
Nudity - Full Frontal
Racially offensive or gender insensitive humor sites
Simulated sexual acts
Nudity - e.g. above the waist or men’s behinds
Language - F-bombs or worse
State of undress - e.g. lingerie or backless “chaps”
Language- lesser curse words
Photo cropping - e.g. fully dressed but zeroed in on specific body part
Provocatively dressed - e.g. low-cut blouse, tight short shorts
Suggestive images - e.g. It’s really her knees, or a rock formation
Cartoons or line drawings
