Hacker News Reader

Comment by stuartjmoore | Hacker News Reader

I know this is an April Fools post, but still:

YES, I've been thinking about this kind of thing for a while. But <nsfw> doesn't seem like enough.

What if an entire page or website is nsfw? Maybe some kind of header information would be more appropriate. Or inside the root element (<html nsfw>). How about specific ratings? <nsfw rated:"urn:mpaa:R">

There are still plenty of problems--kids getting around the browser settings--but it's 10x stronger[citation needed] than "what's your birth date?".

View on HN

There are still plenty of problems--kids getting around the browser settings

Why not just let the kids look at the damn porn?

If they can't see boobs on the Internet, then they are going to see them in a context that results in the creation of children. It's almost like we're programmed to reproduce, or something...

I don't disagree, but a <nsfw> tag while browsing at work would be helpful.

For some varieties of NSFW, I agree with you. However, I would prefer it if my 9 year old didn't see a lot of the stuff out there. Playboy spread, sure. A woman being choked by an enormous cock? Not so much....

There's much worse out there than breasts. I wouldn't mind my kids seeing certain things at the appropriate ages, but there's definitely stuff I wouldn't want them exposed to.

I don't think it's a good solution for internet filtering, however, I think it's a good solution to prevent accidental porn exposure (APE).

I work in a rather open office environment now. Our management has no problem if employees blow off some steam by surfing to a site that might not be work related as long as its not excessive (just like they don't punish people for going to the break room to get a candy bar from a machine, or going outside to smoke).

However, click the wrong link and end up with porn (or something otherwise seriously inappropriate for a typical work environment) and you get noticed very, very quickly.

I have said this before, and I will say it again: There are other things than just boobs on the internet. My primary job function is to build classifiers to categorize Internet content and yes, porn is a big one, but not the only one. BTW, most of the porn that people are concerned about is not nudes, but hardcore porn, rape simulation, U15 stuff, child porn, etc. Also there is the category of illegal content (child porn) that is just ruins your day to find. Other categories that parents are commonly concerned with is violence, drugs, abortion, etc.

Or maybe that .xxx thing that's been discussed on and off for the last couple of decades. It would really be effective, I think. I don't think one could legitimately try to enforce that all porn producers switch to it, but many would comply voluntarily to cultivate a cooperative and friendly image, and those would be really easy to block if you didn't want them, and really easy to find if you did want them. Everyone's happy!

Yeah, but the arguments against are difficult if impossible to sell:

Define porn.

Travel to another country.

Define porn.

In the US, periodicals don't post pictures of naked men/women (at least not the defined "naughty bits"). The ones that do are considered pornographic and require the purchaser to be a certain age.

In Europe, nude women in periodicals is not unusual.

In Muslim countries ... well, if you can figure all of the nuances of the most restrictive Muslim countries, I owe you a beer.

You're correct that there is gray area. There's also a ton of stuff way beyond the gray area.

Moving depictions of sex off into a .xxx domain would not be very hard. Just because something isn't perfect, doesn't mean it's not a good idea.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com