Slashdot Mirror
The NSFW HTML Attribute
phaln writes "Over at The Frosty Mug Revolution, PJ Doland makes a compelling case for a new HTML attribute in the spirit of the highly-regarded 'nofollow' attribute promoted by Google — the NSFW attribute (rel='nsfw'). His original idea has been refined and expanded by positive comments from readers, resulting in a semantic solution to the issue he raises in the original post. From the article: 'Content creators can apply the attribute to paragraph tags, div tags, or any other block-level element. Doing so will indicate that the enclosed content is not safe for work. Visitors will be able to configure their browsers to block display of just the content enclosed by the flagged block-level element. This isn't about censorship. It is about making us all less likely to accidentally click on a goatse.cx link when our boss is standing behind us. It is also about making us feel more comfortable posting possibly objectionable content by giving visitors a means of easily filtering that content.'"
Powerful technologies which can be part of a "censorship pack" are always presented as harmless components. Then when that piece is accepted, the other one slides by.
"Not clicking on a goatse link when the boss is standing behind you... " ???
Any graduate from Newblet doesn't click *anything* when their boss is nearby.
What would a HACKED variant of this technology be capable of?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
...from the oft-proposed, yet always shot-down, "XXX" TLD? Although I support the idea of a "NSFW" tag, as I support the XXX TLD concept, I expect failure for the exact same reasons.
I do not get this. Would this really work? This relies on the people making links to use the NSFW tag or the guys making content to use it. Frankly, I don't see it ever being used properly.
On a side note, if one wants to add to the html tag collection, how about a universal close tag for the last opened tag, </>. Just so we don't have to type </b> </a> </img> </i>, etc. so much.
Skiffy is Spiffy, but Ort is tort.
Exactly. For example the 4chan /a/ image board is officially "safe for work", but that is interpreted as "no nipples or genitals". In a strict workplace you could easily get fired for content considered acceptable there.
his needs a sitewide solution, too - "nofollow" has robots.txt, so why not have nsfw.txt?
Or for some sites, just:
Could be useful.
perl -e 'foreach(values %SIG){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
At first glance, this almost sounds reasonable, until you stop and think about it. It relies on the content creator to somehow guess what's "objectionable," and put the tag in the appropriate place. That's always assuming they're going to bother, and that every browser is going to go and put the ability to properly render this in.
If it passes, I can see a whole new range of "NSF" attributes. "Not safe for children.(NSFC)" "Not safe for (fill in the blank)". Now that I think about it, the NSFC tag would have a certain appeal, but it's still a dumb idea.
Kind of like ROT13 is used in traditional newsreaders? I *like* it. It isn't marking it as "nsfw" (whatever that means), it is merely something that the poster has decided (rightly or wrongly) that some people might not want to see without specifically flipping a switch/menu/preference option to do so (and a properly designed browser could be set on "always show" or "never show", as desired). It prevents casual viewing.
Your suggestion makes much more sense than a "nsfw" tag, because the poster isn't stuck with the impossible situation of trying to judge whether or not something is safe for everybody else's workplaces, and it is more broadly useful (e.g., spoilers).
I don't think mandating it is a good idea, but I do think it is nice to have. There is nothing with wrong with giving people a tool to be responsible as a net citizen. Yes, you are still going to have the putz that still won't use it even if provided. I think you are doing people a tremendous favor by adding two whole tags to your page. I know adults that use parental controls on sites they visit because they don't want to hit porn or whatever. I know people that take life a little more seriously than I do, and have a hard time with such things. If the tag existed it would be wildly adopted immediately because right now objectionable content is effecting site hits. Imagine if you could go to your favorite joke site at work and not worry that something not safe would come up. Imagine how many ad hits these sites are gonna get if they put that ability in their page. 'Nuff said. Hits motivate everything for web sites.
Wow. You sound angry. I am going to have to point out that saying this:
...with a straight face requires some highly-evolved muscle control. You speak of fallacy but do not even read the case law you claim is moot. In MPAA v. 2600, the court actually issued a preliminary injunction requiring the website to remove the offending HTML tags. This was a court order issued by the government requiring action be taken under the law. If the legal order had not been followed (under the law), a criminal contempt citation may have been issued (as it is, 2600 complied). You are not really proposing that a civil lawsuit has nothing to do with the law?
.XXX TLD is a bad idea for the same reason. To respond to your "impossible" reasons, point by point:
It has nothing to do with the law, only with the right for one private citizen to sue another private citizen.
I am happy you do not see it ever happening because you believe it is impossible it will happen (that seems to be the gist of your argument). I see it as being the likely outcome and so agree with those who believe the
1) Impossible to enforce on pages, due to global nature of internet.
1) When has it being impossible to enforce on the internet prevented bad law from being written?
2) Impossible to clearly define content to be tagged, due to fuzzy definition of obscenity.
2) Simple. The government uses the community standards test. See United States v. Thomas. I do not agree with this ruling by any means, but the government already has a solution to your problem.
3) Impossible to enforce software compliance, due to open source and extra territorial software vendors.
3) What does software compliance have to do with HTML authors being required by law to include the NSFW tag on inappropriate content? Oh, you mean web browsers and such respecting the tag. Not necessary. The content can and will by government mandate be filtered before it ever reaches your home or place of business.
So here we are again. The topic is the proposed NSFW attribute. Continuing to go off-topic by calling me a troll (or alleging my response post was a first post) does not increase the chance I will respond to your next post, if at all, in a civilized and respectful manner. Please stop it.
Regarding video games, is there any place in the US that's
1) Within a one-hour drive of a Wal-Mart but...
2) Amazon.com won't deliver to?
I'm genuinely curious. When I can't find something local (which is quite often), and I can't drive out a bit further to get it, I try to get someone to ship it to me.
My Blog: http://nic.dreamhost.com/
The problem becomes defining SFW and NSFW.
You can't define it that easily (especially where work is involved.. most places I've been at the only rule has been 'if anyone objects then it'll be removed' - so windows desktops featuring large breasted women are commonplace).
In other places NSFW might be someone saying 'fuck' on a web page.
In still others it may be going to the website of an 'unfriendly' country.
Work-wise it's far better for the company to define the policy and enforce it in the proxy.