Many NSFW have nothing to do with porn. Sometimes are horror contents, some times are crude images, some times are just lazy people who don’t know of the Spoiler tag. Can we have a quick and easy way to filter off all the (very funny but not alway wanted) Porn posts without locking out those other content???

  • Neshura@bookwormstory.socialEnglish
    4·
    1 year ago

    Preffix: someone needs to fix comments disapearing when clicking on literally anything at all.

    Commenting directly since ludrol tagged me.

    CW and NSFW are too broad to be the only 2 types of tags.

    There will be 3: NSFW, CW and Generic. Excuse the passive aggressiveness but this tells me you didn’t read the RFC at all

    The suggestion to use tag urls as ids don’t work with the idea of using ids to share tags across instances. I don’t want the entire threadiverse to decide https://lemmy.world/t/nsfw is the global nsfw tag and smaller instances being forced to use that or risk people facing unsolicited nsfw from their instance.

    Your example makes no sense as people not wanting to see will block the entire NSFW tag type in the settings, not the instance tag. The id’s are for granular filtering, not for blanket blocking

    There is no mention of filtering posts based on their tag category, which would make it impossible to block nsfw posts across instances without using the shared id.

    Is there now? Gee I sure wonder what I wrote in that Outlook section…

    There needs to be platform level tag categories (especially for things people might not want to see) so content filtering works in a consistent and decentralised manner. Then individual instances or communities can create their their own tags based on those categories to fit their needs.

    Preset tags can and will definitely be included, not least of all because functionality of the current borked NSFW system will need to be preserved once it is replaced with the tag system. What you are describing here is pretty much what I wrote in the RFC, again: Did you actually read that thing?

    The author seems to want to replace the spoiler mark with a (cw) tag called spoiler, but things can be both spoilers and fall under other tags (ie an image post, a leak, a discussion etc). Also this would pointlessly filter out regular spoiler content if a user blocks tags with the cw category.

    See my point regarding NSFW filtering, if a user does not want to see some Spoilers they would filter out those Spoilers or Whitelist the ones they want to see (more likely option but both are possible). Problems like this are partly why the Filter System debate is still ongoing. Changing the tags to be limited to certain groups does not really fix this problem, it simply moves the workload from the moderators to the devs.

    Users would be able to choose whether to show, blur or block content with these warnings in the settings.

    Is the plan with my RFC as well, again your idea moves the burden of moderation to the devs which is a horrible idea, there already isn’t enough brainpower behind this project.

    A user creating a post would see a menu to pick the content warnings (multiple if they want) that describe their post. Tags describe content to people who want to find such content. There could be generic platform wide ones like news, qna etc, but the majority would be community specific. Tags could also include default content warnings (eg ‘leak’ tag could activate the spoiler content warning).

    You are almost literally describing my RFC, i ask again did you actually read it?!

    but even what we have now feels better than what is proposed in that link

    lol.

    • Lojcs@lemm.eeEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago
      • There will be 3: NSFW, CW and Generic. Excuse the passive aggressiveness but this tells me you didn’t read the RFC at all

      I thought it was obvious that generic is even broder than nsfw or cw, and is irrelevant since we’re talking about nsfw type not being specific enough. And your writing isn’t passive aggressive, it sounds angry. If you didn’t want comments why name it request for comment?

      Your example makes no sense as people not wanting to see will block the entire NSFW tag type in the settings,

      Your rfc doesn’t mention that, it only mentions blocking tags.

      This is what your outlook section says:

      There have already been several discussions about future expansions, in particular filtering tags has been requested. Given this proposal tag filtering in the feed view should be possible without further changes to the backend.

      Do you see tag type filtering anywhere?

      Preset tags can and will definitely be included… What you are describing here is pretty much what I wrote in the RFC

      You wrote of only having the nsfw and cw (and general) types in the rfc. I didn’t see anything about expanding that to more specific types. And if you mean having an nsfw tag with the name porn, it’s not clear in the rfc that tag names can be used for filtering.

      Using the object ID optional tag federation can also be achieved, allowing for communities across multiple instances to share content via tags

      Makes it sound like only tags with the same id would be considered the same in the interface, so the same preset tag from different instances/communities would not be interchangeable.

      See my point regarding NSFW filtering,

      If your point was:

      Theoretically NSFW could be implemented using a preset “Content Warning” tag but seperating out this tag allows instances to better filter it out for moderation purposes

      Then your point is that it does make sense to have more tag types if they’re important enough, so that’s not a point against having a spoiler tag type. Anyways, I wrote that because I thought every post would be limited to 1 tag like on reddit and didn’t see the news example. Mb.

      You are almost literally describing my RFC, i ask again did you actually read it?!

      Stop being so flippant about it. I read your post. It talks about a single tag system that also takes the role of content warnings. I specifically wrote that (imo) content warnings (for filtering out) should be seperate than tags (for filtering in). Also your post doesn’t mention platform wide default tags.

      • Neshura@bookwormstory.socialEnglish
        3·
        1 year ago

        First of all I want to sort of apologize, my comment was a lot angrier than initially intended because first lemmy erased my first draft (which was not nearly as aggressive) and then my hunger caught up with me. Not meant as an excuse for it but rather an explanation that the anger wasn’t intended.

        Your rfc doesn’t mention that, it only mentions blocking tags.

        Currently ther e is an option to block NSFW entirely, under the tag system that functionality has to be preserved, therefore at the very least an option to completely block the nsfw type tag will be implemented. I did not think mentioning that no feature degradation should occur was necessary, given that it caused some confusion I’ll probably go back and write the implicit parts out.

        Do you see tag type filtering anywhere?

        As quoted by yourself later on:

        Theoretically NSFW could be implemented using a preset “Content Warning” tag but seperating out this tag allows instances to better filter it out for moderation purposes (for example if no admin/moderator is willing to moderate NSFW content)

        Again I did not think I needed to explicitly state that this easier filtering would be done via the type because I thought it was implicitly clear from the context.

        it’s not clear in the rfc that tag names can be used for filtering.

        Same reason as above but this time even more fundamental: I’m not gonna rechew programming basics in a document aimed at other programmers. The ability to filter by name is given since the thing has its own json field.

        Makes it sound like only tags with the same id would be considered the same in the interface, so the same preset tag from different instances/communities would not be interchangeable.

        They would not and that is indeed a minor issue with the entire thing. I don’t really think that will be a big issue since tag filtering will likely be done via type + name and not via id as well as tags being coalesced due to federation. Aside from that the default settings of tags should prevent accidental viewing of content (as mentioned in the RFC both NSFW and CW tags will be blurred by default, meaning until users can select to not blur a cw tag themselves)

        Then your point is that it does make sense to have more tag types if they’re important enough, so that’s not a point against having a spoiler tag type. Anyways, I wrote that because I thought every post would be limited to 1 tag like on reddit and didn’t see the news example. Mb.

        It’s fine, what I think I should include in the RFC is the possibility to include more tag types should real use of tags show that they would be beneficial. It’s a lot easier to add categories there than remove them later on which is why I want to keep the initial amount of types to the absolute minimum needed. In this case that’s 2+1 since NSFW needs to be split off from cw for feature parity with the current NSFW system.

        content warnings (for filtering out) should be seperate than tags (for filtering in)

        Programmatically speaking there is absolutely no difference between filtering in and filtering out, which is why I don’t think splitting CWs and Tags makes sense. From what I can tell the other Fediverse Platforms handle this in a very similar manner. It also assumes that everyone only wants to filter out CWs, but that is not true. Some people want to filter out porn, others want explicitly only porn in their feed. Some users might not want to see gore or spoilers while others like to read through those things. So in the end there is not even a line between clear “filter-in” and “filter-out” labels for posts.

        Edit: forgot to include but to clear up another misunderstanding: RFC means Request for Change, comments are welcome but it is primarily a document aimed at people already somewhat familiar with the debate to find any major issues with the proposal. I wrote the RFC only after my basic idea received approval by the people already involved in the GitHub discussion.

        • Lojcs@lemm.eeEnglish
          3·
          1 year ago

          Okay, thanks for replying. Your points make sense, especially

          It’s a lot easier to add categories there than remove them later on which is why I want to keep the initial amount of types to the absolute minimum needed.

          this one. I also wasn’t aware that the document was a part of a larger discussion and sorry about the rfc meaning confusion😅

          Hope you could have a meal :)