There also is some degree of differentiation between the classic NSFW and gore, which is either to tag it as gore or NSFL.
This whole post just seems like someone trying to get upset about something no normal person has a problem with. This trend of trying to normalize everything to the point where we can’t even differentiate between safe and unsafe content for typical workplaces or polite company, is much more problematic than the NSFW tag. I’m so tired of these types of takes.
For French see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_Fran%C3%A7aise
latexr•1h ago
> It is, IMHO, a lazy, unhelpful, even stigmatising, shorthand.
So is “IMHO” (lazy and unhelpful, not stigmatising), and I’d argue even more so. You’re posting about a subjective matter, to your own blog, under your own name. Of course it’s “your opinion” (if it were not, you could link to sources), and why is it “humble”?
I don’t recall ever seeing a helpful use of “IMHO”. “NSFW”, on the other hand, may be imperfect but at least carries a signal. We can debate if it is lazy or stigmatising (perhaps it is) but what it definitely is not is unhelpful.
> If the goal of the use of the “NSFW” tag is to help users decide whether or not to view the tagged content
It’s not. Or at least it’s not its only goal. The clue is in the words: Not Safe For Work. What it means is that if you want to look at the content, consider your environment. The initialism is there so you are not caught off guard seeing something risqué which may get you in trouble if anyone were to look over your shoulder at that exact moment. The term concerns itself with corporate desk work, it’s for content which could be problematic in strict work environments.
Furthermore, it exists precisely to be used in situations where a better tagging system isn’t available. Argue for social networks to have better tagging of fringe content, sure; but when they don’t, having a a vague and imperfect but instantly recognisable signal is extremely useful.