Show HN: Firefox Addon to Filter NSFW Content
addons.mozilla.org
addons.mozilla.org
The problem a filter like this is meant to solve is: You go on the web reading random stuff, and occasionally you run into something pornographic when that isn't what you're after, and it's unwanted (because you're at work, because you find pornography disturbing, or whatever).
So the problem its inverse would solve would be: You go on the web reading random stuff, and occasionally you run into something non-pornographic, and that spoils your fun. Or maybe: You go on the web looking for pornography, and occasionally you run into something non-pornographic, and that spoils your fun.
So far as I am aware, those are not problems anyone has.
Variations on the theme: You might be looking for some specific variety of pornography and keep finding pages with different kinds. I don't think this sort of tool would help with that; all it can do is filter out unwanted bits of pages you've already found. Or you might be successfully finding pornography but not want to see any other clutter -- e.g., advertisements on your screen distracting you from it. But I'm pretty sure the only people advertising on pornographic websites are highly NSFW themselves, so I wouldn't expect a reverse-NSFW-filter to help with that either; what you want for that is an ad blocker.
Rare moment I can chime in to the opposite, this is an issue and there is an anti-sfw filter built in to some sites.
The use case is for imageboards primarily where trivial arguments spring up easily, the "fap time" sfw filters remove text only posts and posts without nsfw imagery.
Edit: Why am I being downvoted for pointing out something objectively true?
And, please, let's not pretend to be socially inept machines - everyone here chooses to ignore a guideline or two when it's convenient - at least I was looking for actual feedback, as I was sincerely puzzled by the situation.
> That reminds me of repackaging a traditional historical male dominated marriage, including occasional corporal punishment, as a BDSM kink to make it normal again. You think you’re seeing a woman in a dress, but actually it’s fetish gear showing her submission.
That’s clearly a joke about normalizing historically traditional roles between men and women, with the man being dominant and woman being submissive. Says nothing about there being men wanting (or not wanting) to submit.
I'm having trouble seeing where you see criticism in that post. Could you help me understand?
> BDSM has no preference about which gender is submitting or which is dominant.
Where does OP suggest otherwise?
> I don't see how it's a joke.
I'll expound below, but in short: I see the original comment as being a joke at heterosexual men's expense, in particular those who wish to dominate their wives.
For posterity, here's the whole quote:
> That reminds me of repackaging a traditional historical male dominated marriage, including occasional corporal punishment, as a BDSM kink to make it normal again. You think you’re seeing a woman in a dress, but actually it’s fetish gear showing her submission.
And this is how I understand it:
> [...] traditional historical male dominated marriage, including occasional corporal punishment
So what we're talking about here is marriage, and one premise is that, historically speaking, men are in a dominant role. I don't read this suggesting any judgement (good or bad), only that it has, historically, been the case.
Also, corporal punishment was not uncommon (and, sadly, domestic violence is still a serious issue). If if we find (as we will in the proceeding text) a suggestion that corporal punishment, or some facsimile thereof, should be preserved, we have two interpretations that we can proceed with: 1) the poster is a flagrant asshat and is being serious, or 2) comedic irony is about to be employed. To each their own choice, but I'm going with option 2, as I suspect most people would have enough sense to keep assholery to themselves: Occam's Razor suggests the second option.
Zooming out a bit:
> That reminds me of repackaging [...] marriage, [...] as a BDSM kink to make it normal again.
The use of repackaging here means, roughly, "same essence internally, different outward appearance". So we're talking about "repackaging" traditional marriage -- that is, preserving the "traditional" role of men dominating their partner, but under new pretenses.
> [...] as a BDSM kink to make it normal again.
I see that this could be taken as a slight. If we're making it "normal again", that implies its not normal now, which could be taken as a negative judgement toward BDSM. While I can anticipate this interpretation, I think its a stretch, and an uncharitable interpretation.
Regrettably, just about all kinks (and often, sadly, sex itself) is considered taboo. That's the reality of our modern (and historical) views on sex. So a proposal, whether in seriousness or in jest, to make BDSM "normal again" doesn't imply any positive nor negative sentiment towards BDSM.
> You think you’re seeing a woman in a dress, but actually it’s fetish gear showing her submission.
This is the "repackaging" referred to earlier, and the punchline of the joke. The butt of the joke is heterosexual men who would like to dominate their wives.
In the interest of diversity, I suppose OP could have picked any other pair of genders -- for instance, they could have spoken of a woman dominating her husband or wife in the same manner... but the joke wasn't about BDSM in the first place, the joke was about a subset of heterosexual married men, and their penchant for being dicks to their spouses. It's not like there aren't any abusive women, but rather that it would make for a bizarre joke if structured that way: men are usually the aggressors. Humor is essentially the combination of a banal setup with an absurd, unexpected conclusion.
Anyway, that's how I read the original comment, and, aside from the interpretations I rejected as unlikely, I can't think of any other way to read it. If I'm missing something, or you have a different perspective, I would legitimately be interested in hearing it. Thanks in advance!
[0]: https://github.com/wingman-jr-addon/wingman_jr/blob/79a1a882...
[1]: https://github.com/wingman-jr-addon/model/blob/master/sqrxr_...
It targets pornography, borderline sexualized content, as well as other graphic images that are not safe for work (NSFW) or may be inappropriate for children.Your response is interesting because it tells me you maybe expected it to be in a different spot - was there a specific spot you were looking at? Might help me improve the descriptions.
In some countries it's not NSFW to see a naked breast, I am going to assume this software does not take that into account.
Am I right?
A bigger point one could make is that this is projecting your cultural norms onto the internet as the "default".
It's a cool idea, though.
By killing the filtering possibility, Chrome made itself a weaker browser from the NSFW-prevention standpoint as well.
It's been quite a journey since then! I developed the bulk of the code but have had a bit of community help as well. There is now a small but steady user base, and I've learned so much.
* NSFW content detection is a hard task - I believe much harder than just general image recognition, and whereas many think of of image recognition as "solved", I would argue that NSFW content detection is far from it.
* Having your own dedicated toolset to assist in creating and managing the dataset is invaluable. I was surprised to see that as a single individual it was quite feasible to create a fully-curated dataset in the hundreds of thousands.
* Servers are more different than laptops/desktops than one might think. I had a good time setting up an old Supermicro with K80's on a budget.
* For this problem at least, even several hundred thousand images was still not enough to see an advantage on training from scratch vs. tuning a pre-trained model.
* Fun ways to slice up GIFs at a "transport" layer to allow for good-enough filtering on frames.
* Character encoding detection is a hard problem, and the existing filtering API's don't do a good job of helping the developer down the right path.
So with development being relatively stable for quite some time, why share now? Well, I've kept the addon fairly "primordial" in the sense that I haven't tried to cater too heavily to narrowed use cases yet. Three general use cases seem to be represented based on user feedback - there are others but so far this is what is being said:
* Adults casually enabling it for daily browsing. Think things like browsing stock photo sites, Google Images, etc.
* Adults struggling with pornography and looking for tools to help.
* Adults looking for an extra safety net when their kids browse the web.
I'm contemplating adding more specific feature sets in one or more of these areas, but thought that it might be a good time to put it out there and get some perspectives. The tech is far from perfect, but it seems that it is good enough that it is helpful for some users.
It's also my hope that there's potentially some things to share here that the HN crew might find of interest. (Although I can assure the UX is not currently one of them!)
* The addon itself (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/wingman-jr-fi... and https://github.com/wingman-jr-addon/wingman_jr) - maybe it's not your thing, but if you're like me, there's a good chance somebody in your family might find it useful
* The model (https://github.com/wingman-jr-addon/model) - I've tried to make a competitive model for its size, such that enterprising individuals can try this as an alternative to paying for API calls. It does not use NSFW.js as a base. Both .h5 and TF.js models are provided. Maybe it'll be good enough for your use case?
* Real world examples of the webRequest.StreamFilter API. In particular, the bit about character encoding is probably worth a short read if you're thinking of using this API yourself. See https://github.com/wingman-jr-addon/wingman_jr/blob/79a1a882...
* Examples of image-based logging for Firefox.
* Some fun GIF parsing stuff!
Thanks!
I want to read the news, but lately there has been so many news along the lines of "X person was murdered in a city far away" that it's becoming unusable.
is this selfhosted as in no external connections?
Much worse than adult content is addictive content that forms obsessive behaviors (things like Tiktok or more lightly social media in general).
The other thing to be wary about is when it's possible for a child to give their private information away to someone in a way that can harm themselves. i.e. make sure cameras are non-functional on any child's device. That wasn't an issue when I was a kid but is very much a danger today.
Shame on people who would even fathom forbidding access to certain content on the devices that they likely pay for, internet that they pay for, homes that they pay for, and to children who they raise. Shame.
> Much worse than adult content is addictive content that forms obsessive behaviors...
There is literally nothing more addicting than porn. Not only that but the long term social and behavioral issues that result from porm addiction are far more harmful than for example cocaine or lsd (which isn't addictive).
But let's say porn is not harmful or addictive, showing porn to people against their consent is a form of sexual abuse much like exposing yourself in public is (despite nudity laws). It boils down to the fact that biologically speaking naked people arouse a sexual reaction and sexual interactions of any kind must be between consenting parties. Period.
This isn't about policing morality but consent and it is a shame that it is neccesary to begin with.
Citation?
> biologically speaking naked people arouse a sexual reaction
Have you never been to a nudist beach?
-------
> not [...] morality but consent
"morality" is not distinct from consent: it's more that your/my/our position on sexual morality is grounded in individual consent. "morality" as a word is not shorthand for (Western) Christian or Victorian traditional attitudes and prejudices.
let's look at the statement: "biologically speaking, naked bodies arouse a sexual reaction".
i'm wary of this way of thinking. here's one possible consequence: "anyone who chooses to be naked around me is trying to interact in a sexual way"
when boiled down, the same root of thought leads to dark conclusions, like
- "she was asking for it because she wore revealing clothing"
- "i was sexually aroused and therefore couldn't control myself"
I can't believe this, are you saying naked people don't sexually please other people? That's basically all I said.
Internal shame my ass. How about I use the samw logic and claim you have an internal perversion and desire to abuse others against their will, would that be fair? It works by your messed up logic but I know it is an unfair thing to say so I would never say that.
Facts are facts, let's stick to those. Maybe there are a small minority that feel no sexual desire when they see a naked adult person but since majority are not wired that way (even if they were a minority actually) you have to ask permission first. That's it, ask permission.
And people like you love to blame your upbringing or religion so you can make it about that. Stick to facts. You can pick a random atheist from scandanavia, a chinese buddhist, a muslim from pakistan and an african with a local religion (men that is) and show them a naked porn star and most if not all will be sexually aroused. This is hormones.
You don’t think hyperbolic statements like “porn is the most addictive thing known to man” weren’t going to be challenged?
Sexuality is a very normal part of human life, even if someone does get aroused in the image example (I don’t always from images even with a very high libido), what is the problem with that?
I’ve been places where nudity is normal such as beaches, saunas and gym locker rooms and most times wasn’t aroused at all.
My claim about the addictiveness of porn was an opinion based on what I have leanred and observed. Of course I welcome anyone to show me anything more addictive than your own body and mind.
There is no problem with getting aroused or with sexuality, you and others so far keep twisting what I am saying to be an attempt to police sexuality. Rule #1 of any sexual interaction is consent. If you want to see naked people go ahead. If you want to show your naked self and arouse others, get their consent or at least do it in a way where others can be forewarned and decide to choose or not choose to be part of that experience. Don't take people's choice away so you can feel validated or whatever your reason is.
If you want to go to a nude beach, you are consenting to do that, I am clearly not talking about that. I am talking about getting nude at a normal beach where people who chose to avoid a nude beach go to and force that experience on them, if they get aroused then you just made them part of a sexual encounter without their consent. This is sexually abusive behavior.
Moreover, you people are sociopaths if you don't understand the simple fact that you live in a society and you have to function without harming or harassing others. No significant burden is places upon you other than to get consent from people who you know have a good chance of experiencing sexual arousal with you as the subject before you make them part of that interaction. I mean, I even understand a city where public nudity is allowed so long as visitors to that city are notified when they travel there. I am not even complaining about porn sites that ask your age and let you know the site contains nudity before you see the content.
Heroin.
I made no personal attacks against you. I will say you’re probably not coming across in your comments here the way you believe you are.
Try sticking to facts. Naked people arouse sexual desires in others, yes, myself included and most people from any country and religion (or no religion). If you contest this near universally accepted fact the the burden of proof is on you.
I mean give me a break, even if this was a super religious person keeping themselves or child away from sexual content who are you to tell them they have no right and they must see your dick or vagina whether they like it or not.
Laws are literally getting passed against sending dick pics, how do you feel about that? Is that women who feel shame that support it? Of course not!
grow up and stop thinking about fucking everything you see naked, it’s odd
Somewhat irrelevant, but: do parents actually have a right to enforce a no-meat diet on their kids?
I understand (say) having a "no meat in the house" rule, telling your kids not to buy meat products with your money, and/or only cooking vegetarian food.
But requiring your kid to adopt a vegetarian diet at all times--even when they're away from home--seems excessive.
Maybe it's OK at age 5, but once the kid is old enough to understand the distinction it should be entirely their choice.
But I do think that a good parent would grant their kids a certain level of privacy and autonomy, depending on the child's age and the risks involved.
In this case, the risks of a kid eating meat are fairly low; one kid's chicken tenders aren't going to build a factory farm, and they can always change back to a vegetarian diet later.
(Of course, some vegetarians will have stomach issues if they suddenly start eating meat. The kid should know about that risk, but the reactions in question are usually very mild.)
Funny story though - we have a family relative with younger children who was raising them strictly vegetarian. No meat (the mother insisted), though the dad quietly admitted he eats meat on occasion much to her chagrin. On a family vacation the children were left at the house for dinner, and another relative began preparing a chicken dinner.
The conversation between that relative and the children went something like this:
"Dinner's ready! Come get the chicken!"
"This doesn't have meat in it, right?"
"What? Well, it's chicken!"
"Right, but does that have meat in it?"
"Well... No... Certainly not. This is bona-fide, 100% pure, Grade A Chicken. Now eat!"
Implied is an understanding that despite best intentions of the search provider, stuff may slip through.
This is vastly different than being flashed.
You don't appear to understand what that word means. This has nothing to do with consent.
> For a minor, their parent or guardian must consent to show them adult or other traumatizing content.
Pray tell how adult content is "traumatizing"? Before the internet kids used to pull porn magazines out of the trash or sneak down late at night to watch their parent's adult channel subscriptions. Finding it on the internet is the modern era's version of that. Probably in a few more decades we'll have a new version of it again.
> Despite your personal experience, parents and guardians ultimately have the right,authority and responsibility to do their best to ensure the well being of a minor under their care which could mean no porn or even no meat in their diet. You don't have to agree.
I fully achnkowledge that parents have the _right_ to control content if they so wish, however my argument is that they are absurd for doing so. It's not a matter of the child, it's a matter of the personal morals of the parents.
> But let's say porn is not harmful or addictive, showing porn to people against their consent
No one's talking about showing children porn against their consent.
> This isn't about policing morality but consent and it is a shame that it is neccesary to begin with.
That is absolutely what this is about.
No, that's the strawman you want it to be about. Neither I nor no one else talked about preventing any willing person from interacting with sexual content.