nude photos, of 8, 18 or 80 year olds are NSFW... doesnt matter if theyre famous, porn or medical, its NSFW.
What you just said is irrelevant.
(,
Fri 18 Jan 2008, 17:57,
archived)
What you just said is irrelevant.
Why is this rule so difficult for some people to understand?
NSFW is anything that looks like porn. A grainy 35 year old black and white photo with Vera Duckworth's head badly pasted on it (sorry lynx :P) does not look like porn.
I can't believe I've got to quote from the 'holy' FAQ, but it says it better than I could:
"This means 'Not Safe for Work' or in other words it's porn. We like to keep b3ta free from any images which are, or could be mistaken as pornographic. Lots of employers take a dim view of people using their work computer to look at porn and in some places it can get you sacked on the spot.
We don't want to censor people, or make a moral judgement about what they should be looking at, we would simply ask that any pictures which could be mistaken for porn are linked with an appropriate warning for those viewing at work. Same goes for any links to sites with porny content (watch those banner ads), please give fair warning about the content."
I suggest you gain a perspective if you think a grainy photo of a terrified 8 year old who's had her clothes burned off is considered porn. It's lots of other things, but porn it aint.
(,
Fri 18 Jan 2008, 18:04,
archived)
NSFW is anything that looks like porn. A grainy 35 year old black and white photo with Vera Duckworth's head badly pasted on it (sorry lynx :P) does not look like porn.
I can't believe I've got to quote from the 'holy' FAQ, but it says it better than I could:
"This means 'Not Safe for Work' or in other words it's porn. We like to keep b3ta free from any images which are, or could be mistaken as pornographic. Lots of employers take a dim view of people using their work computer to look at porn and in some places it can get you sacked on the spot.
We don't want to censor people, or make a moral judgement about what they should be looking at, we would simply ask that any pictures which could be mistaken for porn are linked with an appropriate warning for those viewing at work. Same goes for any links to sites with porny content (watch those banner ads), please give fair warning about the content."
I suggest you gain a perspective if you think a grainy photo of a terrified 8 year old who's had her clothes burned off is considered porn. It's lots of other things, but porn it aint.
"its ok boss, people on the internet said its SFW."
(,
Fri 18 Jan 2008, 18:12,
archived)
b3ta does not operate a generic NSFW policy, it relies on self-policing to ensure that images posted can not be mistaken as porn by people passing your monitor.
What you are having a problem with is your personal moral outrage which has nothing to do with b3ta and it's policy on images. Sorry but that's just the way it is.
(,
Fri 18 Jan 2008, 18:19,
archived)
What you are having a problem with is your personal moral outrage which has nothing to do with b3ta and it's policy on images. Sorry but that's just the way it is.
or that our bosses derive their moral stance from an online FAQ...
i don't know what to say.
(,
Fri 18 Jan 2008, 18:25,
archived)
i don't know what to say.
since each employer is different.
If you truly feel that any kind of nudity is for your situation NSFW then keep off the net while at work.
(,
Fri 18 Jan 2008, 18:36,
archived)
If you truly feel that any kind of nudity is for your situation NSFW then keep off the net while at work.
Many images are not safe for work but here on b3ta only those containing porn are asked to be linked. If you have a problem with the content on b3ta that could get you into trouble with your employer then here's a plan? Go earn your wages and stop fucking around on the net
(,
Fri 18 Jan 2008, 18:37,
archived)