(no subject)

[case]

Since there's been some debate about which secrets get linked and which don't, I'd like your input!

Unfortunately, I can't link everything that's NSFW because what's NSFW varies. In some cases, things as commonly found in secrets as profanity in large text would be considered NSFW.

Things currently on the "link" list:
- explicit guro
- explicit nudity (of the pornographic type; art is fine)
- anything containing outright porn
- images that contain common triggers in visual (that is, not text) form (e.g. signs of self-injury, images of dub/non-con between characters, pictures of emaciated human beings. Things like images of real murders and genocide victims have also been used before)
- flashy "seizure" gifs
- anything in which children are sexualized (yes I did go back and link the Boku no Pico one, I'm sorry about that)

None of those things above are up for debate.

But there are times when it's not so clear cut. Like something that is censored but barely, or something that is definitely sexual but isn't explicitly showing any body parts. For example, there's a secret in this week's batch of two half-clothed people, and one is about to reach (consensually) into the other one's pants and is halfway there but hasn't quite made it yet, and there's kissing and touching that makes it obvious where it's heading. There's another secret of a character in a dress pulling the skirt part up, with a small censor over the genitalia but otherwise overtly sexualized.

What about things like that?

[Poll #1673008]

Remember, nothing is going to be censored - the secret will be posted like any other, in the body of the post, not in the bar at the bottom - just linked instead of embedded. And some people are more likely to pay attention to secrets linked for being porny anyway, so there's that!

Comments

[mirai-gohan.livejournal.com]

Personally, I think that the tiny-half-assed censor bars like you find on imageboard porn still qualifies as explicit and should probably be linked along with the rest of the porn. (I personally don't have much problem with the NSFW pictures, but I certainly understand why some people would.) But an image where nothing explicit is happening, I don't see why it would need to be linked. Even images where sex is imminent but not actually happening are not explicit.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as no one's going to glance over your shoulder and say "OH MY GOD IS THAT (insert name for genitalia here)", I don't think it should have to be linked.

[case]

Oh, yeah, if things can clearly be seen through the censors they're not censors.

I personally would tend to agree with what you said, but I'll go along with whatever the majority says.

[dethtoll.livejournal.com]

I feel like it's ultimately a judgment call. The two examples you provided are pretty clearly distinct from one another; one is implicit, the other is pretty plainly explicit while laughing in the face of those who would censor. The line's pretty easy to draw there.

[dethtoll.livejournal.com]

or you know i could go fuck myself and just say mirai_gohan said it better than i did

[astrokittie.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I don't bother clicking/reading secrets that get linked. I have always assumed that F!S is not for reading at work/school/in the presence of others who are not F!S readers and that some secrets would be explicit, so I was rather confused as to why certain secrets were suddenly linked after what, about two years of not having been linked?

[case]

As far as I know, things like explicit guro or explicit sex have always been linked (at least, after '08). It's just rare that we get any.

[lovelylytton.livejournal.com]

On an unrelated note: thank you for running this comm, I love this place and have so much fun here. The fact that you care so much about making sure that it's a safe place for everyone is an added and very appreciated bonus.

[case]

Fffff awww thanks, I'm glad to hear you enjoy it! (:

[(Anonymous)]

People shouldn't be looking at LJ while they're at 'work' :P

[case]

Could be on break? HAHAHA give 'em the benefit of the doubt!

[hezul.livejournal.com]

I...never read the linked ones anymore, I'm too lazy.

I tend to think that the questionable ones perhaps shouldn't go above the cut, but underneath, I'd rather just see them posted normally. Above the cut, it'd be nice to be spared potential embarrassment if someone happens to be around when the post pops up on your flist; below the cut, though, I tend to assume that you clicked it knowing that you're going into a wretched hive of scum and villainy anyway, and you'd know better than to do so in front of someone who's going to gasp and clutch their pearls about impending sexytimes.

[(Anonymous)]

Agreed.

[baby-c15.livejournal.com]

Those two images are very different though, I don't think there is enough on the first image to call for censorship, it still SFW and not explicit.

Images with character touching and kissing, as long as there is no explicit nudity or a hand posed over intimates areas in a sexual manner (both under and over clothes), shouldn't be linked. In short, anything that children can see on network television should be okay. On the other hand, an image with a censor bar should be linked. The bar doesn't hide what any onlooker could see over your shoulder, a woman with her legs open and a censor bar covering her doesn't hide the explicit nature of the image and suddenly makes it SFW.

[amusesme.livejournal.com]

Whatever the majority wants I'm cool with, but I don't really see the point in linking either of the examples you mentioned. I always read secrets at work and it's not that hard to keep the bad shit off screen.

/shrug

[maskitheclown.livejournal.com]

I think, sadly, if genitalia is visible it's not safe for work, even if it has a kinda-censor over it.

[(Anonymous)]

stop reading the internet at work and get on with your job then, fucking slackers.

[(Anonymous)]

I really don't think anything should have to be linked, tbh. Are you walking around with a sign around your neck saying HEY DON'T BE TOO SKINNY IT'LL TRIGGER ME!! ...? Real life doesn't come with a "trigger filter", so why should anything else?

[case]

Because it's a nice thing to do? We don't have to have a trigger warning here, but it's considered courteous. Why not be courteous when we can?

[rhiannon-s.livejournal.com]

Personally I lean towards the policy of "Caveat Lector", reader beware, don't link to any of them and put them all on the main page regardless. There should be no links at all, because, well grow the hell up and live in the real world not some little bubble filled with cotton wool.

[rabidsamfan.livejournal.com]

In the real world, the porn is either in specialty shops which say they're about porn, or behind the counter with a plaque over the porniest bits so that people who might be offended will still shop for their sodapop and crackers in that store. So yes, there is some cotton wool out there too. Which is a good thing.

[oaktree89.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't bother linking non-pornographic nudity, but I definitely want any guro or sexualized children linked. And yes, it's definitely a good thing anything that could trigger a seizure is linked.

[aethre.livejournal.com]

I've seen nothing questionable show up unlinked on this site - I mean, stuff that's obviously almost-sexual (about to reach in pants, or whatever) is all shown in clothing/perfume ads, y'know? Seems like most ads for clothes involve a person wearing as little as possible.

But, yes, the censor-that-really-isn't-a-censor probably isn't SFW.

[karel]

This. A lot of ads you see on billboards can get pretty borderline... Or maybe that's just here (Las Vegas, haha)

[sashwizzled.livejournal.com]

I agree with the stuff that flatly could be illegal to be linked and warned for (vore, Captain Picard) and porn just in case someone happens to look over your shoulder (my parents won't look twice at randomass artwork of people making out - penis, even with a useless censor bar? I might be 23, but that's just awkward, man), but I don't see why it needs to go any further than that.

[misscherri.livejournal.com]

I guess only things that are offensively explicit (e.g. hardcore porn) should be linked, but I kind of think hardly anything needs to be linked, because you have a warning with every post that says "some secrets are not worksafe." What's the point of having that if you're going to just link every secret that actually is NSFW?

[cyren-2132.livejournal.com]

I agree. Triggery secrets, I'm okay linking, but when it comes to NSFW (and puritanical parents, which I think is kind of implied) -- the warning is there and has always been there, and either it means something or it doesn't. I don't feel bad for people who willfully click past the cut and then get "caught."

[culpeper.livejournal.com]

I mostly agree with mirai_goran. Also, I think triggery images, gore, "seizure" gifs and so on should be linked, not posted. I do know some secrets are NSFW, but one thing is seeing an anime character who wears a bikini, another is seeing a mutilated corpse, it's not everyone's cup of tea and it's way beyond regular NSFW.

[karel]

I voted "don't link," but if you do, can you please differentiate between the lighter things and the heavier things? Haha, I have a feeling you would anyway, but I JUST

Like if it's one of those "pixelated" censors, though... that could still be considered explicit, since at "boss distance," it's harder to tell it's "censored" at all. Er... not that anyone should be on F!S at work. But like say computer lab or something.

[(Anonymous)]

So, what you're saying is, in addition to compiling 60some secrets each day, labeling for fandom, text-based-triggers and spoilers, and linking for porn and visual triggers...technophilealso should be assigning the linked things a point on a scale of reasons to be linked?

Doesn't the poor man do enough for us?

[tymaporer.livejournal.com]

Link, link, link. Please. Some of us just don't want to see that, regardless of who else might be around.

[(Anonymous)]

Then you shouldn't be on the internet in the first place.

[lil-miss-choc.livejournal.com]

Generally, I would say that if you wouldn't want someone glancing over your shoulder at work to see it, it should be linked.

[(Anonymous)]

Generally, I would say if you're worried about people at work seeing it, you shouldn't click on a post that says some images may not be safe for work.

[lady-lilith.livejournal.com]

I teach elementary school and I wouldn't read F!S at school. Period. I read it at home where it doesn't matter what I'm looking at. I think if you're irresponsible enough to read it somewhere that it could get you in trouble, you deserve what you get. That being said, I wouldn't link any of them.

[(Anonymous)]

THIS, sfm.

[fisher-queen.livejournal.com]

I usually watch FS from home so I'm okay, but thinking about what might happen if I tried to access it at work makes me inclined to suggest linking those just in case. I know some people can only access from office computers or what have you.

[rabidsamfan.livejournal.com]

I'd prefer that they were links, even if I'm reading at home. Gives me the option to say "I'm in the mood for this/I'm not in the mood for this". And discourages (hopefully) any troll who wants to play with trying to figure out how far they can go before raising a stink.

[(Anonymous)]

Since I saw a few people say they're too lazy to click on linked secrets... What if the explicit stuff are nested in the comments? Maybe under "Name the Fandom, Repeats, etc"

Post 1: Name The Fandom, Repeats, Explicit Secrets
Post 1a: Explicit Secrets Here (Comment subject)
Replay to post 1a: (Post all explicit and questionably explicit secrets here)

Or you know...something similar. That way instead of clicking many links, they click one.

[(Anonymous)]

*The "one" being the Expand link for the comment.

[avocado-love.livejournal.com]

It feels like we're sliding down a slippery slope, here. I completely agree and understand the precautions for blatantly triggery things and nudity/porn. But if we start censoring ourselves for something that could be sexual even if it's not showing body parts... I think one person's sexual is another person's non-sexual.

It's hard to define between the two at times, and I think Technophile is opening himself up for a lot of grief.

Besides this site has never been safe for work. It never stopped me from reading it on my smartphone during breaktime, but I have less common sense than most. ;D

+1

[baka-deshi.livejournal.com]

I normally don't like slippery slope arguments, but I agree with you here. I have visited this comm on and off for a long, long time, and I am getting increasingly concerned about how much this "say anything" space has turned into "say anything socially acceptable".

If people are offended or upset by a secret, never fear, they will tell the OP. I don't see why it's poor technophile's job to screen.

[netbug009.livejournal.com]

I think any secrets using that image of that guy pouring yogurt or whatever it is on his face should be linked.

[netbug009.livejournal.com]

Also, in before somebody replies with that image just to spite me. XD