The future of NSFW

Posted in

#51 by rampaa
2020-02-17 at 13:40
< report >(@Warfoki: NinNinDays)
#52 by skorpiondeath
2020-02-17 at 13:45
< report >@49: you are right, but we spent hours to decide and draw the lines...I expect people to do the same here. I think we just need to adjust the requirement based on the goal we want to reach and not based on personal opinion.
I'm more scared about warfoki issue of "one single issue is enough to be back on that list" since that could be more problematic. I just relied on Yorhel and his 'almost' word -> "Hiding (almost) all of the content they don't like is a good way to achieve that."
If we must ensure that all the content is properly hidden without making even a single error that's another problem.Last modified on 2020-02-17 at 13:46
#53Post deleted.
#54 by yorhel
2020-02-17 at 14:59
< report >@forever-here: I'm just going to delete your posts from now on, you've added nothing relevant on this topic and seem much more interested in pushing a political agenda.

one single issue is enough to be back on that list
And how large is the chance that someone in an enforcement position finds such an image before a large community of contributors does? Not to mention that the same problem applies to *every* community-run site ever. It's not like images uploaded to SFW image boards or databases are always safe (can speak from experience, am a mod on one).
#55 by rampaa
2020-02-17 at 15:18
< report >#54 I believe I've mentioned this before but even if VNDB were to remove every image it has, how would that help if it will have the links for those things anyway? Am I missing something obvious here? Do you think governments that think NSFW underage drawings are basically CP would be fine with VNDB having links for those products? Say we mark every image of Aiyoku Shimai Lolita as NSFW, how would that help if the page will still have the link anyway? Are you planning to remove every 18+ link as well for that crippled VNDB branch?
#56 by yorhel
2020-02-17 at 15:30
< report >
Do you think governments that think NSFW underage drawings are basically CP would be fine with VNDB having links for those products?
They block the product sites and call it a day. Blocking sites for content doesn't work like piracy litigations. It's not a "you're doing something illegal, stop it!", it's a "this content is inappropriate for our poor citizens, let's help them by blocking it". Except maybe for some more oppressive governments, but catering to that may require more than I proposed, indeed. Maybe a separate proxy, if I can bring myself to care. :P
I don't expect those links to be a problem for most of the uni/work/wifi/organizational blocks.
#57 by rampaa
2020-02-17 at 15:43
< report >
It's not a "you're doing something illegal, stop it!"
Are you quite sure about that? link seems to disagree.
#58 by sakurakoi
2020-02-17 at 16:20
< report >did you consider just having images being approved by one or two moderators as either (of the two-three) before being publicized? if you already have a select few calling the shots on what should be a tagtrait and what not, then for the sake of not getting blocked, this manual work and not outsourced work should be natural.

and for that it is inevitable to make a mirror side since being an option or cookie does not matter for blocking. Mirroring could work on conditions like excluding all 18+ only, questionable&unsafe and works with loli heroines, panchira and whatever tags. Like only works marked as safe would be copied which also only mods can do to reduce work and prevent TBD works from being copied.

There is no low effort solution if you want to reach that goal. Moderators have to do that work to prevent malign abuse and if you would like a "boost" (for existing works), you could still make it into a voting feature (for whole novels and images) shortly accessible for accounts that existed for some time and launch the mirror site after a little longer while to ensure it is safe for most.

then there should only be discussion on how to be the most efficient but welp, if ya wanna do little, ya sure gonna achieve little
#59 by alto
2020-02-17 at 17:57
< report >IMO other than a proxy that strips images and a word censor, VNDB can't avoid getting on some block lists.

A three tier system using something like the definitions in #32 would be a good middle ground from where we are now. If I had to guess, I'd predict a reduction in edit wars - I doubt most people care if an image is suggestive/questionable or safe as they can likely have them shown by default everywhere. If you can't and need the censorship, you'll be glad if people err on the side of caution. The most explicit tier would mostly be obvious and less open to interpretation (I think?). Though, anything that gets rid of the "NSFW" term is a step forward, it's just too subjective.
#60 by PabloC
2020-02-17 at 18:12
< report >I don't think such 'safe' mirror site would work if we left marking NSFW images up to the users. For one simple reason - it's only a matter of time until some asshole purposefully uploads an inappropriate image without any flags and immediately reports it himself to get the site blocked.
Cartoon p0rn seems to be a pet peeve of pretty much every single fringe extremist under the sun, from far-left sociopaths to religious fanatics, and those guys simply love censorship. I can totally see them doing stuff like this.

On the other hand, simply getting rid of all images does seem like a bit of an overkill. But the only safe way to include pictures would be moderation.
I see it like that: images are uploaded to main VNDB site as normal. All pictures that weren't marked by users as NSFW are then automatically submitted for review and when they are approved by mods only then they are enabled on the mirror site.
The obvious downside is that it means a fuckton of work for the mods. But I don't see any way around it.

As for 3 levels of flags - I think tweaking the NSFW flag to cover a bit more stuff and improving the guidelines would be good enough. 3rd flag means more rules, more confusion, more mistagging and more edit wars.

Well, unless we're going to rely on users to tag images to be included on the mirror site in the end. Then the 3rd, 'questionable' flag could be useful.
'NSFW' would be meant mainly for hiding stuff while browsing the main site, while 'questionable' flag could be made more with exclusion form the 'safe' mirror in mind (though it could be used on the main site as well if someone wants to be extra safe). To make it useful for mirror-inclusion purposes it's rules would have to be as objective as possible though. And that's the tricky part. Maybe something as radical as "no cleavage, butts, visible underwear (including swimsuits, bikini armor and the like) and no anatomical details sticking through clothes"?
#61 by harleyquin
2020-02-21 at 02:30
< report >Since this is an active discussion:

link

The 17th century Puritan is at it again. Based on what's in the guidelines it stays off the filter because it doesn't meet any of the criteria (no genitalia, sexually suggestive poses etc.)

I don't care what the filter is called. The criteria are generally clear cut, with the exception of user discretion when it's not clear cut whether a picture is sexually suggestive. Users like this one make it their life's work to censor everything beneath their lofty standards, so throw them a bone (or not) regarding this issue so that everyone else can get in line behind the final decision.Last modified on 2020-02-21 at 02:30
#62 by ginseigou
2020-02-21 at 04:56
< report >I agree, there's a need for some clarification. Which one of these link link link link link link link link link link link link should be or shouldn't be NSFW and why? And just to remind:
NSFW is solely determined by the graphics: Images that contain suggestive text but are not otherwise NSFW are safe.
Last modified on 2020-02-21 at 07:20
#63 by warfoki
2020-02-21 at 14:06
< report >I'm going to bite and look at these.

1. link - NSFW. Even ignoring the text, nudity isn't the only contributor to NSFW. Torture in any form is also very much NSFW, which clearly happens here. The ahegao face doesn't help either.

2. link - NSFW. Sexually suggestive: she is crunching over her own stained panties with a very embarrassed expression, suggesting being forced to do so as a form of sexual humiliation. Also, direct depictions of urine and or feces are automatically NSFW.

3. link - SFW. They are probably completely naked, but that's at best vaguely implied. Mild kissing like that is very much SFW, you can see much raunchier on any public beach. if we made a suggestive flag, this would be an example for that.

4. link - SFW. You can see a scene like this IRL on pretty much any beach and the last time I checked, even kids were allowed on beaches, so...

5. link - SFW. I wouldn't even think about if this wasn't put on this list. I'm guessing she is drinking cum through that straw? Can't think of anything else that would make this NSFW. Either way, that's not something that you can really figure out without context.

6. link - SFW. Pantyshots in and of themselves don't warrant an NSFW flag. It has to be sexually suggestive (you see vibrator cord going under it, the character is about to remove it as part of a striptease, etc.), wet with some... liquids of questionable source, transparent or so very tight that you can clearly see the shapes underneath. This image fulfills none of those criteria.

7. link - NSFW. I honestly don't know though. My first association was that this is three lolis taking a cumbath, because that white liquid seems to be WAY too dense to be soapy water. However, without actually knowing the context, this can be just my irredeemably corrupted mind making up shit. Still, since that association is very much possible, especially considering their facial expression and blushing, I'd probably set it to NSFW without context. If it is just taking an normal, soapy bath with no dirty-minded shenanigans... well, NSFW would still be somewhat justified, as bath implies nudity, even if all of that is under the (hopefully) water.

8. link - SFW. Perfectly normal kids playing in perfectly normal swimwear, without anything making the scene sexual in any way.

9. link - SFW. See 6.

10. link - SFW. See 6 and this is not even a pantyshot, like come on, just how puritan we want to be?

11. link - SFW. Starting to see the point of a "suggestive" flag here, because this is a good example of that. Technically both of them are fully dressed, but that leotard is so tight fitting that nudity is just a color palette change away. Like, literally, edit the picture so that you recolor the leotard with the same color her skin is and you get a nude image without redrawing anything. Still, based on our current guidelines, this would technically fall under SFW.

12. link - SFW. Same reasoning as 11.Last modified on 2020-02-21 at 14:07
#64 by beliar
2020-02-21 at 16:32
< report >I agree pretty much with everything Warfoki said, with some reservations regarding 1 & 7.
1. We don't judge (or at least haven't done so until now) the NSFW aspect of the text. Without it the picture really isn't that unsafe. Sure, it's not every day you see someone holding a girl's tongue with pliers, bu there is no gore and I would actually be inclined to rate it as safe.
7. It's not really different from 5. You can infer what is in the bathtub, but it's all a conjecture without context. Without it, it's only three girls almost fully submerged in a bath. Frankly, it wouldn't even ping on my radar to rate it NSFW. I would definitely rate it as safe if asked.
#65 by warfoki
2020-02-21 at 16:46
< report >I'm fairly adamant on 1) being NSFW, because I can't see how obvious torture can be "safe" content. Yes, there's no gore, but the content is obvious even without it. same thing as even if we have no nudity, of the pose and content of the picture is sexually suggestive in an impossible to miss way, it'll still be NSFW.
#66 by eacil
2020-02-21 at 21:32
< report >Since when panchira are not sexually suggestive? Their function in anime/etc. is to BE sexually suggestive. A picture never includes a panchira innocently. Having a sextoy cord coming out of your pantsu is not suggestive, it's plain pornography.
Go explain to your friend/teacher/boss that you are not a pedophile because you are looking at 9. Even with an adult, you will get a comment, because you fool no one. We are numbed because panchira are everywhere in anime/stuff, but irl, go look at a woman's underwear and see if you are not a voyeuristic lecher. It doesn't matter if the situation is innocuous like a mom changing in an alleged "normal" situation because the intention behind the picture is clearly not innocuous and everyone with a brain can read the intended cues. Every time a girl is blushing, you can bet it's either romance or something sexual.
It's like 10. How can you be so naive when talking about a kid with a prominent crotch, sweating, as being not erotic at all but just "a kid sleeping"? Welp, the proxy is sure to be banned right away with you guys.

7 is clearly a cum bath. It's the opposite of 5. You can't tell if it is not pornographic. It doesn't matter if it's not, because it looks like it.
Same for 3. They might or might not be naked but it doesn't matter because they might, in any context.

Anyway, we are back to case-by-case with subjective arguments such as "we can see raunchier on my nearby nudist beach". And a flag with no real purpose where you can have MILF lined up, inviting you for sex, and girls playing in panty with spread legs, coz, you know, "they are at home".Last modified on 2020-02-21 at 21:35
#67 by zakashi
2020-02-21 at 21:52
< report >
Torture in any form is also very much NSFW, which clearly happens here

Sorry but the guidelines don't say anything about torture, are you saying i edited wrong here?->link
I don't feel uncorfortable seeing blood in public, so i think any kind of gore content is safe, this is my opinion.
#68 by warfoki
2020-02-22 at 01:33
< report >Yeah, gore might not be in the guidlines, but gore images have always been NSFW, so I reverted that one.

Also, Eacil, I'd appreciate if you didn't put words that I DID NOT say in my mouth, thank you very much. You can see that the dude has no clothes on his upper body, you cannot see if the woman has no bra on or something. And you can see a couple simply kissing like that on the NORMAL beach, I said fuck all about nudists.

Also, I have said before and say it again: the proxy will ONLY ever work if we purge images altogether, along with most sexual tags and traits, other than that, there's no point in making one. This not about a proxy, this is about setting guidelines for the normal site. And sure, if you've seen enough hentai, you can easily tell where most of these images are going, because you know the context. But without that preemptive knowledge providing you the context, those images in question do not provide anything particularly unsafe. It's like playing the PornHub chime in the school radio: if you recognize the theme, you have no moral highground to complain about it. And without the context, there's nothing erotic or sexual about it, it's not different than any random ringtone.Last modified on 2020-02-22 at 01:44
#69 by eacil
2020-02-22 at 03:12
< report >Weird, I was sure you talked about your experience with nudist beachs...
I know the proxy and the flag are two distinct things but I am not that sure the proxy will not rely on some capacity on the flag (why would you want to purge images altogether if they are rightly flagged?). My point was that if you design the rules for the proxy like you design the rules for the flag, it won't work.
You know, puritans are the biggest sick fucks you can think of. Like they can't make the distinction between fiction and reality, they suppress all "dirty thoughts" as being impure *acts*. You know how it ends: their mind end up being filled to the brim with what they try to avoid. If you think that a puritan can't recognize the "devil", you are seriously mistaken. It has nothing to do with hidden knowledge like the pornhub chime or whatever. Knowing what sperm looks like is no hidden knowledge (you just need to be a man or have sex once in your life) and you don't need to be depraved to think that a girl splashed with "ice cream" looks like she got a bukkake, as intended. Anyway, the flag is not trying to preserve children but to preserve us in front of someone with average knowledge of sexuality and who will be able to get the cues, whether they are real or not.Last modified on 2020-02-22 at 03:14
#70 by ginseigou
2020-02-22 at 04:55
< report >I find it hard to find any huge difference between link link link , why one is NSFW while the other two are safe? And, by the way, are you sure that pantyshots of underage loli characters are safe? Some people start edit wars saying they're not.Last modified on 2020-02-22 at 05:46
#71 by zakashi
2020-02-22 at 05:21
< report >#70 you can fix it yourself, just edit it ;)
#72 by yorhel
2020-02-22 at 06:34
< report >My takeaways from this thread: A "suggestive" middle ground option is definitely useful - if we changed the current NSFW flag to include all suggestive images then there'd not be a whole lot left, even though there are (I think) enough situations where browsing suggestive images is fine but where you or your surrounding is not in the mood for outright porn.

My other takeaway is that making this part of the edit history is unlikely going to work. We do need a few good rules to help with defining the borders between "safe" - "suggestive" - "explicit", but even then I don't see people agreeing on every image. Voting it is.

Fortunately, I think getting at least 10 votes on each image is quite feasable if we approach this slightly differently from the rest of the DB. I'm currently thinking about a simple "flag these images" interface with random images from the DB for people to flag. Still may require some intervention here and there, but the randomness ought to make it pretty hard to abuse and this does seem like a problem where numbers and statistics will help.
#73 by forever-here
2020-02-22 at 07:01
< report >
at least 10 votes

and one person makes 10 accounts. what now?Last modified on 2020-02-22 at 07:01
#74 by ninigi
2020-02-22 at 07:04
< report >Ban them and put all their votes in the ignore list.
#75 by yorhel
2020-02-22 at 07:05
< report >
and one person makes 10 accounts. what now?
They'd have to go through 100k+ images to vote on the same ones. And by that point their votes stand out like a sore thumb in the stats.

but the randomness ought to make it pretty hard to abuse