One should not think of the NSFW tag as a comment on morality, puritanism or anything else. It is simply a common part of netiquette which developed as a courtesy.
"Hey, there is some stuff in this link such as nudity, questionable content, etc which may be an issue for you if you are at work, sitting in public or somewhere else potentially sensitive. Just a heads up!"
All it is meant to do is let you know. Some people work in schools, libraries or other places where this isn't OK. Not to mention that while many of us don't have any issues with nudity, myself included, we might not want to browse it at work.
Get over the whole "Oh my god $XYZ is so full of prudes, in my country this is totally OK" and appreciate the fact that it's considered polite.
Specifically, it allows you to make an informed decision as to whether, when, where, and in whose company to access the page in question.
For example, I don't care one way or the other about "explicit language" for my own sake, but I'd like to limit my toddler's exposure. An NSFW-language warning on videos is a courtesy to me.
Any place where this is NSFW has some serious issues. Sure, I know such places exists, but you cannot expect submitters to constantly be aware of such outliers any time they submit a link. Otherwise we would constantly have to check a whole list of obscure cultural sensitivities around the planet.
You want an NSFW tag for this utterly harmless link, just ask politely. But don't accuse people for whom it's genuinely hard to imagine why this would be an issue of being impolite.
Once you understand that nudity is a big no-no in some workplaces, it's impolite to leave off the NSFW label.
"but you cannot expect submitters to constantly be aware of such outliers any time they submit a link. Otherwise we would constantly have to check a whole list of obscure cultural sensitivities around the planet"
Of course you know what's not allowed at your work. Do you keep tabs on everything else? I hope so! There are thousands of different cultures out there, better not miss any!
And yet I don't want my wife or any of my colleagues to look over my shoulder and see boobs on my screen. I'm not in any _danger_ if that happens, so it's not strictly _unsafe_ for work. But it's embarrassing and uncomfortable. I would be peeved to inadvertantly click on a link, see boobs (they were decent boobs too, it's not like I hate them), and then be embarrassed in front of people.
I didn't really think I was a prude until this thread. I mean, perhaps in a hundred years we'll laugh about attitudes to boobs the way we laugh about Victorian attitudes to ankles and the like? But today, for almost everyone I know ANKLES ARE FILTH^H^H^H^H boobs are NSFW.
My own "workplace" is home; I'm a full-time parent, and not at all worried about being fired. But I recognize the issues that are common for others, and label my posts appropriately. Please have the courtesy to do the same.
(Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the 'NSFW' tag is quite appropriate in all the main English hubs- USA, UK, Canada, Australia, probably even Singapore)
That's why the NSFW convention exists. Be aware that nudity of any kind, sexual content (including text), and profanity in audio/video can get people into trouble. Given that you are now aware of this issue, it would be impolite not to use the NSFW label in those circumstances.
Is there some element of this site that is legitimately within the purview of links appropriate for HN (http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)?
It is getting enough votes that I am curious if there is some deeper element that I'm missing other than just the ascetic interest of it.
What to Submit
...anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity
Compare this with pg's latest submission: Spotted Horses in Cave Art Weren’t Just a Figment, DNA Shows
It is not about startups, programming, languages, or technolody per se. But it is geeky and does bring some intellectual curiosity.
On the other hand, if you think that something shouldn't be here, please flag. I always trust my fellow HN users to keep me on my toes.
Strangely, pg's submission had only five votes. Maybe, just maybe it is a sign HN has deviated a bit from its creator's intent.
I don't think we've ever done a recreation sort of picture as this site has (some of which are quite striking) but it's fun to look over pix from 10 or twenty years and see how we've changed.
I know this blurs on the internet, as everyone sees different content, but in the last year I've seen at least 3-4 projects with the exact same premise; most importantly, Irina Werning's. Maybe this is the first that HN readers are seeing.
Doesn't this site just display an ascetically interesting element that is easily replicable.
That isn't to say it isn't nice to look at, but is it more than that from the perspective of HN? How does this differ from any other artistic tumbler blog.
(This is not meant as a dig against the creator of this site. Only a question of this sites relevance in regard to HN. After all it is friday, maybe I should just get over it...)
Just because I find the site interesting doesn't mean it belongs here.
I think it's creative and interesting. If one doesn't like it, what is preventing them from either ignoring it or quickly viewing and moving on?
It sure is alot better than great amount of other posts that make the front page throughout the days.
Also, just note, that a lot of the Hackers / Hacker News members I met at Startup School 2010 and in general are very much interested in and do things like this as a side gig or hobby and invest just as much money or more in nice equipment to do so.
The author must have used some photo processing software to correct, crop, and maybe even replace, parts of the pictures. While I really like the creativity of the images I wish that they would have expounded on how the images were created.
I also love how the author kept the proportions of the images almost identical, except in cases where she wanted to convey a sense of growth. For example, the doorway (Fer, Buenos Aires) and the book "Crude Black Molasses" (Alexandra, Paris).
The opposite is true in pictures such as Patrick B (the box has to be bigger to accommodate a man), and Evan in NY).
The lives that wall divided.
[EDIT: Thanks for updating. Nudity, no matter how innocent, should probably have this warning.]
EDIT: Okay, from the comments so far I now understand it's not so much that there's nudity in some of the pictures, but that some of them contain children. Even though it's still nuts I think (not all pictures containing nudity are pornographic, and none of the ones here are even close to pornography), I get the idea now. Thanks again.
[Edit: Presumably just female nipples?]
So the upshot is, if a site isn't careful about identifying links to naked photos, it is no longer safe to read it at work. Even some sites that sometimes have racy ads are best avoided at big companies (who tend to have bigger legal departments, lawsuit exposure, and stricter policies).
What strikes me as odd about that is this:
- Free Speech is (over?)valued, things that are forbidden as insulting/hate-speech etc. over in DE are 'okay' and free to express in the US. Something the people I talked to were proud of and regularly pointed to as the fundamental freedom.
- Careful what you say, it might get you fired. We had the swear words discussion lately, now we're talking nipples / nudity and references to those.
I understand that these issues are not the same. It just feels like the Freedom of Speech is reduced(?) w/o actually touching the constitution, is it really still that free?
I don't hate buddhists. Do you know why? Because they don't go out of their way to bug me regularly.
For example, I'm a public high-school teacher; I'm quite glad I waiting until I was home from work to check out the link. Having that image in my work browser cache is a risk I'd prefer not to take.
I've lived in the UK, Australia and US. I wouldn't want to be seen browsing naked images in any office I've worked at. It's not like I work in stuffy corporate offices either; more than one of them ran "adult" focused services on the side.
Saying that, I've worked in other places were I'd defiantly avoid looking at anything featuring the nsfw flag.
If you look at the pictures there are a lot that show topless or covered-nude young males. They are not child pornography because they do not display "sexually explicit conduct." It's not illegal to take pictures of your naked baby . If the under-age males in the photographs were depicted performing fellatio on a sex toy it would be child pornography, no matter how much clothing they had on. Nudity != Pornography.
Being accused of anything even remotely like this is enough to end one's useful life. Our society can't give two shits that you were exonerated, they just care that you were accused.
It's also important for those of us who browse the internet with our children present. If your first grader tells his friend he saw a naked picture of a little kid on daddy's computer, and an adult overhears, that's probably going to bring child protective services (or SRS or whatever it's called in your area). Once CPS is involved, your entire life comes under intense scrutiny.
Point being: exercise caution. Use NSFW labels whenever you link to nudity, especially child nudity, even if it's totally non-sexual.
Here's an article that stuck in my mind when I read it a few years back:
It discusses (after the writer's personal horror story of being investigated for child porn after taking photos of his kids nude on a camping trip) how the laws intended to keep kids safe are actually causing many unsubstantiated reports, which in turn must be investigated, which in turn has disastrous consequences for many completely innocent parties. It also takes a stab at estimating how many people this actually happens to.
Would you to have all of your co-workers, neighbors, etc. interviewed about you due to child pornography charges? Be forced to take your own children into child protection services to be asked leading questions about good touches and bad touches? That damage isn't fixed when the charges are dropped.
I'm a parent, and perfectly comfortable with breast-feeding, nudity, and all that. My daughter loves running around naked, and that's awesome. But I don't put any photos online that would put me or anyone else at risk, and would never send them to a photo lab, in the US or any other country I've lived in. It's just not worth the risk.
In case you'd like to send your praise to the artist: firstname.lastname@example.org
Take it to reddit/r/particularlyinaptandodiouspolitics
Maybe context would provide some kind of defence - but still the disruption to a person's life (computers seized; suspended from work; possible court cases; etc etc) are still significant.
To post such content without an NSFW warning is stupid.
Yes they are.
> Also millions of family photo albums contain this kind of imagery
and people taking these kind of photos today are being reported to the police.
 at least, a few years ago when people were using film.
One thing I noticed its how good the Argentinians age.
(Also, I expect that there would be a separate copyrightable work for the combination of the old and new pictures, and the compilation of the series as a whole.)
I'm sure that more effort than this was put into the color matching, but the Photoshop color match function allows for statistical sampling of an image/layer and applies those values to an existing image.
It can produce the same results and is one of the hidden gems of Photoshop that few users take advantage of. Not a filter, it's one of the adjustments.
Don't you dare visit the page. There is at least one underage girl in underwear and a pair of developed female breasts.
Also a naked toddler!
Is it SFW if you know the girl in underwear is from Amsterdam?