Is there some extra SFW filter I'm missing?

[Yakamaru]

I try to tag the art I upload with some specific tags, be it species, background, does the character(s) have white, black and/or brown fur, mechanical limbs, etc. It's to make it easier to search for and browse considering a lot of people don't even bother to tag what they upload at all.

 

[quoting_mungo]

2. Is fetish art without any nudity (like feeder, inflation, and vore) considered NSFW?

Generally, no, not in the sense that it belongs in Mature or Adult on FA. The perception of it can vary from person to person. Provided by "vore" you're referring to soft vore where someone is getting swallowed whole with no visible/obvious bodily harm being done to them - if it gets gory that's a different story. The first section of the Upload Policy deals with rating guidelines, and should help a little bit with figuring out where things belong.

3. Will there be a way to specifically sort out fetish content, regardless of whether or not it's NSFW?

There's been no indication that FA will ever have something like a checkbox for "I don't want to see fetish content" that will automatically filter out anything that caters to kinks. But some sort of tag blacklist system is in the works and will eventually be released. Caveat there being it's not a feature FA's database/code was really built for, so it takes more work than if it had been incorporated when the site was originally built. You'd still have to blacklist individual kinks you don't want to see, mind.

 

[Fallowfox]

'fetish' is a broad category that is a little bit difficult to define anyway.

I would not have realised 'vore' was meant to be sexual for a lot of people. I still don't get it.

 

[Inafox]

Blacklists won't solve the issue of people refusing to tag their edge NSFW submissions as NSFW, because they can equally refuse to use tags.
On Telegram, the only people I ever see wanting FA blacklists for clearly SFW content is those who class say "fat", "trans", etc, art as a "fetish". But the base line, when it comes to their reasoning it's their bigotry towards minorities and accusing say trans people like me of being a fetish, which is fundamentally transphobic.

I think the admins should consider that it's only really a small minority of people who consider other minorities gross/fetishistic, and that it is an attack on identity politics to allow people to go around calling random SFW art "fetish" because they don't like certain bodily, dress, affectionate or gender representations.
There is also absolutely nothing in being asexual nor a minor that gives a veritable reason to accuse trans, gay, etc, of being "NSFW" in a clearly SFW piece just for their identity. Likewise, many minors are LGBTQIA+ and some asexual people are trans. LGBTQIA+ identities and physiques shouldn't be shamed/blocked, rather like with anything their NSFW/adult representations should be filtered correctly just as they are currently.

Dear admins, If a blacklist is to be considered, make sure that minorities are not blacklistable, e.g. prevent "trans", "gay", physique ("fat", "skinny") and racial identities ("african", "caucasian", "jewish") from being added to the blacklist, even if blacklisting-prevention is only done for "SFW" art. Please don't allow the censorship of minorities when it comes to SFW art at least. It'd take very little effort to prevent discriminatory blocks relatively to the implementation of blacklisting.

Additionally, it's also possible that the "Adult" filter itself can "blacklist" a preset moderation-agreed list of NSFW tags, e.g. ones that describe graphic, pose/action and body-part. I think this solution is far more correlative as a good solution to blocking NSFW rather than blacklists. Say someone accidentally uploads NSFW content as SFW but it has NSFW tags, this is a very common edge case, and the in-built Adult filter can "screen" for what moderates consider to be adult/graphic tags and prevent it from showing up under SFW. Minors especially shouldn't have to know nor manually type the names of fetishes nor have to manually add them to a blacklist, so please consider this a good safeguard to have. Mature and Adult could have different tags to filter in such a case, but besides gore/violence I can't think of too many tags that would differ between Mature and Adult, so what is Adult is only additive to the tags that would be filtered by the Mature filter for such a method.

'fetish' is a broad category that is a little bit difficult to define anyway.

I would not have realised 'vore' was meant to be sexual for a lot of people. I still don't get it.

I agree there, calling anything a fetish is fairly subjective, not all fetishes are sexual either. That's why it's also important to consider that subjects and identities should not inherently be classed as NSFW. Random people considering a fetish/subject/identity as "NSFW" is different to the desire of blocking specific content at any one time. Things that are clearly NSFW tags are genital, pose, clearly porn-specific terms, etc. At worst, vore is Mature, but the experience of it being sexual for everyone is an unfair and somewhat derisive assumption towards those who just enjoy it as it is. Certainly, there is plenty of PG kids movies with soft-vore. Being grossed out is the true reasoning for the blacklist here, often this affects minorities who are branded inherently grossly sexual, which fundamentally encourages negative attitudes that it's "ok" to censor random identities and subjects. It's like having some AR filter whenever you watch TV that blocks out anyone who is gay that happens to kiss, or anyone who has a physique or race you find distasteful. It's certainly not a progressive concept to blacklist on SFW tags, and like the OP post's sentiment shows, it's quite frankly reactionary and politically incorrect.

 

[Fallowfox]

Well that escalated.
If vore isn't somebody's cup of tea, I don't have a problem with them removing it from their personal search results.

The architecture to remove a potentially large list of categories, based on tags, is the part that I think would be laboursome to implement if
a pre-built code isn't already available.

 

[Ziggy Schlacht]

@Inafox If the only people you ever see pushing for blocklists are wanting to block certain minorities, I question the circles you run in, as that's not usually what folks are asking for. To the first point though - people can use blocklists to also tailor their viewing more to them - one of asian ethnicity might filter out "caucasian" and "african" to get more asian ethnicity in their results. A trans person might pointedly filter out trans art because they don't want to see themselves fetishized in porn. Someone might want buff dudes but not them making out (so they filter gay). There are a lot of innocuous reasons. Some might use a variety of tailored blocklists, swapping as needed, to more quickly find results than:

Winnie the Pooh !China !Xi Jinping !Communist !Asian !protest... (Winnie the Pooh is often used as a stand in to represent the president of China, because I guess they look similar?)

To the point of of thread - none of above is typically *not* why people are asking for this. The last threadnaught on it was someone who was looking to figure out how to filter out "muscle" and adjacent categories, because the art there tends to border on grotesque and body horror. Inflation, rubber, those categories might also be "SFW" but otherwise objectionable due to the same reason. Transformation I could see in this category. You and others have touched on it, but there's no clear line where they differ.

 

[Inferndragon]

'fetish' is a broad category that is a little bit difficult to define anyway.

I would not have realised 'vore' was meant to be sexual for a lot of people. I still don't get it.

From a psychological point of view according to research from a small amount of people vore is for some:

• It could be a power dyamic between 2 people. Dom and Sub in that respect.
• The one getting swallowed whole (while living) getting closer to the one who eats. Feeling more protected... Or to deal with lonelines.
• Curious about the taste of other things (You still get people in real life that unfortunately go to real life cannibalism for that fix)

I don't mind Vore as Assimilation/Absorption is a sub-category of it. Still I would call Vorephilla a sexualised fetish.
If it was my choice, if the main target of the art is a Fetishism then the art should be rated as Mature regardless of content.

To the point of of thread - none of above is typically *not* why people are asking for this. The last threadnaught on it was someone who was looking to figure out how to filter out "muscle" and adjacent categories, because the art there tends to border on grotesque and body horror. Inflation, rubber, those categories might also be "SFW" but otherwise objectionable due to the same reason. Transformation I could see in this category. You and others have touched on it, but there's no clear line where they differ.

Transformation is the main idea behind furries. People wanting to change who they are.
If it shows no process I'd say it is SFW... But any process involving any detail in how the body changes like actual painful looking transformations.
I would consider to be under the Mature umbrella.
If it shows actual gore like tearing/Or visual stimulae like bones cracking... Then it is obviously Adult content.

 

[QueenSekhmet]

From a psychological point of view according to research from a small amount of people vore is for some:

• It could be a power dyamic between 2 people. Dom and Sub in that respect.
• The one getting swallowed whole (while living) getting closer to the one who eats. Feeling more protected... Or to deal with lonelines.
• Curious about the taste of other things (You still get people in real life that unfortunately go to real life cannibalism for that fix)

I don't mind Vore as Assimilation/Absorption is a sub-category of it. Still I would call Vorephilla a sexualised fetish.
If it was my choice, if the main target of the art is a Fetishism then the art should be rated as Mature regardless of content.


Transformation is the main idea behind furries. People wanting to change who they are.
If it shows no process I'd say it is SFW... But any process involving any detail in how the body changes like actual painful looking transformations.
I would consider to be under the Mature umbrella.
If it shows actual gore like tearing/Or visual stimulae like bones cracking... Then it is obviously Adult content.

actually,the main idea behind furries is "i think talking animals are neat".

 

[Inafox]

@Inafox If the only people you ever see pushing for blocklists are wanting to block certain minorities, I question the circles you run in, as that's not usually what folks are asking for. To the first point though - people can use blocklists to also tailor their viewing more to them - one of asian ethnicity might filter out "caucasian" and "african" to get more asian ethnicity in their results. A trans person might pointedly filter out trans art because they don't want to see themselves fetishized in porn. Someone might want buff dudes but not them making out (so they filter gay). There are a lot of innocuous reasons. Some might use a variety of tailored blocklists, swapping as needed, to more quickly find results than:

Winnie the Pooh !China !Xi Jinping !Communist !Asian !protest... (Winnie the Pooh is often used as a stand in to represent the president of China, because I guess they look similar?)

To the point of of thread - none of above is typically *not* why people are asking for this. The last threadnaught on it was someone who was looking to figure out how to filter out "muscle" and adjacent categories, because the art there tends to border on grotesque and body horror. Inflation, rubber, those categories might also be "SFW" but otherwise objectionable due to the same reason. Transformation I could see in this category. You and others have touched on it, but there's no clear line where they differ.

The circles I run in is FA. I've been blocked numerous times for being trans just after making a comment, or because they see me as fetishising trans saying "don't comment on me again, dni if trans/trans-fetishist". The amount of transphobes or "gatekeeper trans" on FA is quite a lot, sadly. As a trans person, the idea that trans can't do the same thing (e.g. sexual expression of their gender identity) as cis-het people is simply bigoted. Regardless of whether they themselves are trans or not, they should not gatekeep, there's many forms of transgender and no one owns LGBTQIA+. Like a cis person, trans people have their own expression. There's no reason for a genuine, stable trans or gay person to blacklist their own identity, especially during pride month. Normal people don't go around blacklisting SFW asexual or lesbian pride art just because they're gay, for example. With NSFW art, searches are perfectly adequate and on-demand if you don't want to see other things. Though I may see even NSFW art may be made for expression or protest, so blocking such forms of expression is also questionable. Similarly, there is absolutely nothing stopping a gay, trans or asian person finding art via the existent search. When it comes to SFW art, the blacklisting of anything is done because you don't want to see it. Blacklisting works constantly, whereas searches work on-demand. "Saved searches" however is may be a feature that is missing, but browser text field-memory are quite good at remembering recurrent searches.

Again, blacklists aren't a treatment for NSFW showing up in SFW, so the existence of a blacklist and the idea that blacklists resolve the issue is different things.
So I get it, you want a blacklist to hide stuff you don't want. Does it resolve untagged, unfiltered NSFW art? Absolutely not.

Transformation is the main idea behind furries. People wanting to change who they are.
If it shows no process I'd say it is SFW... But any process involving any detail in how the body changes like actual painful looking transformations.
I would consider to be under the Mature umbrella.
If it shows actual gore like tearing/Or visual stimulae like bones cracking... Then it is obviously Adult content.

I agree with that, everyone's a human physically here and they're interested in some idea of animals that have human qualities in some way. Humans aren't just "into" anything for no reason, even when we aren't conscious as to why exactly. But if we were all 100% content with being human, certainly fursonas wouldn't be a thing.
The psychology behind furry is transformative, and that makes an interest in furry to be comorbid with other transformative ideas. Humans love escapism and fantasy.
When it comes to TF however, which shows a transition often, the transition isn't "sexual" (except when it is), but rather gory and "Mature". So there's NSFW of two kinds "mature and graphic", and "adult and erotic". I think it's important to make that distinction. Gore is mature, but not erotic. Not sure I'd even say TF is a fetish, it's a subject, "fetish" is a person's affinity towards a subject, which may or may not be subjective. So something being a fetish is determined by the perceived personal connection to the subject. Humans are also explorative, so we can go through a range of ideas and interests quite rapidly, but tend to keep our favourites close to heart.

 

[quoting_mungo]

Again, blacklists aren't a treatment for NSFW showing up in SFW, so the existence of a blacklist and the idea that blacklists resolve the issue is different things.
So I get it, you want a blacklist to hide stuff you don't want. Does it resolve untagged, unfiltered NSFW art? Absolutely not.

The point of bringing blacklists into this discussion is that certain things that some people consider NSFW because to them it's "fetish" content, aren't NSFW as per FA's rating guidelines. Blacklists would then be necessary for them to have access to what they would consider adequately SFW browsing. If FA says soft vore is SFW, anyone who feels it isn't is not going to be able to have what they personally would consider a SFW browsing experience with rating filters alone. That is the issue that blacklists could potentially resolve.

Misrated and mistagged submissions will still happen, sure. That's what the report function is for. You will not find a single gallery site that never gets anything uploaded against TOS or miscategorized or what have you, because people make mistakes (and sometimes people are just jerks and think doing the wrong thing on purpose is funny).

 

[Yakamaru]

A good take: This is not it. Try again.

 

[MonsterTeddy]

Characters in Sexy poses or implied sexual acts probably should go under the "Mature" filter regardless if they are wearing underwear or not.
The other problem you have is that people slowly push the boundaries further and further in general.
Where is the cut off point in general.

Another question that would probably make the most sense for the SFW thing... If i showed that art to your boss then showed it to a customer. Would you get fired (or even a warning for it?)

Fair. The lines are quite blurry when it comes to distinguishing NSFW and SFW, especially when it comes to fetishes that your average person might not know is a sexual fetish (like balloons/inflatables and transformation) or fetishes that aren't sexual to begin with.

 

[KimberVaile]

From a psychological point of view according to research from a small amount of people vore is for some:

• It could be a power dyamic between 2 people. Dom and Sub in that respect.
• The one getting swallowed whole (while living) getting closer to the one who eats. Feeling more protected... Or to deal with lonelines.
• Curious about the taste of other things (You still get people in real life that unfortunately go to real life cannibalism for that fix)

I don't mind Vore as Assimilation/Absorption is a sub-category of it. Still I would call Vorephilla a sexualised fetish.
If it was my choice, if the main target of the art is a Fetishism then the art should be rated as Mature regardless of content.


Transformation is the main idea behind furries. People wanting to change who they are.
If it shows no process I'd say it is SFW... But any process involving any detail in how the body changes like actual painful looking transformations.
I would consider to be under the Mature umbrella.
If it shows actual gore like tearing/Or visual stimulae like bones cracking... Then it is obviously Adult content.

I personally feel a bit uncomfortable that vore ads appear on the mainsite and the forums, knowing that the intent of it is to appease a sexual fetish. I understand everybody has their kinks and fetish, but I agree that at the bare minimum, vore and related fetish content should get a mature tag. I'm not trying to upset those who like the fetish, it's just a fetish I don't particularly want to engage in. Same goes for hyper, macro, micro. Just aren't things I particularly want to engage with and at the bare minimum should be put behind the proper content tag.

 

[MonsterTeddy]

There's no reason for a genuine, stable trans or gay person to blacklist their own identity, especially during pride month.

I disagree. Admittedly, I'm not sure how LGBT got tied into this conversation, but I think the utility of blacklisting and/or filtering out specific tags is getting overshadowed by the kind of content people want to filter out, and it's making the discussion a bit too personal.

I disagree that a "stable" queer person never has a reason to filter out queer content. I'm gay, but I might filter out gay content if I'm looking for straight content, simple as that. I don't typically use blacklists because I'm completely numb however, I joined FAF for character art and references, so I'd like a way to prioritize that kind of content. Filtering out men is a good way to get references of women, and filtering out fetish content is a good way to find reference sheets, adoptables, and general art. It's a tool, not a statement about the kind of content you're filtering.

I'm mainly talking about search filters above, but I think blocklists are useful too. There is some content that I simply do not want to see. Namely, fanart type of stuff. I'm not really into any fandoms, I don't care for Sonic, Pokemon or Zootopia, I want to see original characters. Right now we have the ability to search for those thing specifically, but no way to filter them out and I think it'd be cool if we could filter them out. Again, these are examples of ways this kind of feature is useful and not at all a personal attack, denial or rejection of, or any kind of discrimination against the content being filtered.

Also, I know that FAF is ancient and there is a ton of untagged content, but I don't see that as a reason not to implement tags, blocklists, and filters at all. I'd rather have something that works part of the time than nothing at all. If people don't want to use a blocklist, they don't have to. If people want to use FAF like a way to see the community's unfiltered diversity, they can. I don't believe there is one specific way FAF is intended to be used. Some people use this site exclusively to post their characters, follow one specific artist they like, or look up SFW content. Those same people could be unabashedly kinky on other sites, and you would never know. Would you really go as far as to say those people are living in an echo chamber for using a blocklist on this one specific site?

I simply don't understand how blocklists are hurting anyone who doesn't want to use them.

 

[Foxridley]

It’s kind of problematic, of fetish content being marked mature, since there really aren’t clear lines. A lot of fetish content comes across as innocuous, though perhaps a bit weird, if you don’t know it’s a fetish. In some cases you could find something quite similar in a children’s cartoon. Indeed, that’s probably where many of these fetishes originated. You might have two artists produce drawings with similar content, and it will be a fetish for one but not the other.

 

[QueenSekhmet]

It’s kind of problematic, of fetish content being marked mature, since there really aren’t clear lines. A lot of fetish content comes across as innocuous, though perhaps a bit weird, if you don’t know it’s a fetish. In some cases you could find something quite similar in a children’s cartoon. Indeed, that’s probably where many of these fetishes originated. You might have two artists produce drawings with similar content, and it will be a fetish for one but not the other.

TOTALLY SPIES.

 

[quoting_mungo]

It’s kind of problematic, of fetish content being marked mature, since there really aren’t clear lines. A lot of fetish content comes across as innocuous, though perhaps a bit weird, if you don’t know it’s a fetish. In some cases you could find something quite similar in a children’s cartoon. Indeed, that’s probably where many of these fetishes originated. You might have two artists produce drawings with similar content, and it will be a fetish for one but not the other.

That’s exactly why I don’t think it’s a good idea to say “if it’s drawn to appeal to a fetish/kink it needs to be Mature.” That sort of rule creates a really bad environment for enforcement, as well, as you end up putting volunteers in a position of judging artist intent rather than just checking the image content against a list of concrete rules. The more you force that kind of judgment calls onto staff, the more difficult it becomes to maintain uniform enforcement.

From what I saw when I was on staff, I also suspect that some of the art assumed to be “fetish” art (such as galleries full of repetively similar artwork) may not actually be a product of a sexual interest but rather non-sexual hyperfixation. The possibility of it being either is there, but I do think it’s important to remember that there’s more than one reason someone could be fascinated by a particular subject matter.

 

[Inafox]

It’s kind of problematic, of fetish content being marked mature, since there really aren’t clear lines. A lot of fetish content comes across as innocuous, though perhaps a bit weird, if you don’t know it’s a fetish. In some cases you could find something quite similar in a children’s cartoon. Indeed, that’s probably where many of these fetishes originated. You might have two artists produce drawings with similar content, and it will be a fetish for one but not the other.

Exactly, fetishes that have SFW variants shouldn't be marked as mature/adult. However, what FA considers to be graphic can be caught by a tag-based safety net.
Tags that the "Mature"-filter can "safety-catch" is obvious things well-agreed in spirit of the ToS like "gore", "censored", "nudity + <list of genitals>", "torture".
It shouldn't be considered a full solution but rather an extra catch to protect minors, etc. It makes it so in the edge case "people forgot to filter but tagged correctly" that it doesn't get seen by minors. No blacklist is a solution, but I can tell you for sure that personal blacklists has nothing to do with the issue of bad NSFW filtering.

I think it's pretty bad to remotely suggest that kids as young as 13 should have to remember sexual tags so personalised blacklisting is no method to resolve the issue of minors (and others who want SFW) from seeing NSFW content.

Let's consider the possible form types of blacklist:
1. A predefined mature blacklist: "gore", "censored", "nudity + <list of genitals>", "torture"
2. An predefined adult blacklist: "<list of genitals>", "<list of adult objects>", "<list of sex acts>"
3. A personal blacklist that aims to blacklist mature or adult ends up identical to the obvious above, and like the above "is a NSFW filter".
4. A personal blacklist that aims to blacklist fetishes ends up censoring fetishes regardless of the NSFWness, and unlike the above "is not a NSFW filter".

Since most arguments in this thread by the supporters of blacklists are following the notion of 3/4, when 3 and 1/2 have the same effect. Then I think it's clear to conclude there is most definitely an ulterior reasoning to have blacklists than "NSFWness", which people have said is to a) blacklist fetishes (which search already can do), and b) blacklist identities they don't like. Types 1 and 2 work well for safety nets to protect minors, 3/4 do not, as said minors/etc would have to each manually enter a blacklist full of NSFW terms which isn't minor-friendly. To resolve (b) within 4, is to prevent the blacklisting of identities, at least with SFW content.

So while 1/2 and 3 are identically effective, 3 puts the burden of responsibility of making NSFWness-guaranteeing blacklist lists on the user (e.g. minors/etc having to know sexual terms which isn't very PG) which doesn't at all protect kids (or adults who are triggered by NSFW and its terms) from interacting with NSFW at all.
While 3 + 4 or just 4, is equally effective as 1/2/3 with the addition of the caveats such as oppression blocking and apartness on everyday users, while the search system already provides adequate solution to 4. Type 4 is irrelevant to preventing NSFW leaks (unlike 1/2/3) and shouldn't use NSFW leaking into SFW as an argument as it's a false-equivalence.

It doesn't resolve NSFW content leaking into SFW mode. 9 in 10 times when someone sees a NSFW piece in SFW, it's when someone forgot to filter (or is unsure about the rules for the filter) but remembered to tag with NSFW keywords. I think this is because they use poster bots like PostyBirb which have a user interface/template-system that is confusing to some as it has been a complaint. Often it leads to a user entering the right tags but forgetting to select the right template setup. Both failing to filter and failing to tag happens, however, so the solution is not as trivial.

In the end of the day, blacklists won't at all fix the issue at all of minors seeing NSFW in the SFW sections, but least those with pet-peeves towards certain subjects will be happy. These complaints won't cease after blacklists exist.

 

[Nexus Cabler]

Exactly, fetishes that have SFW variants shouldn't be marked as mature/adult. However, what FA considers to be graphic can be caught by a tag-based safety net.
Tags that the "Mature"-filter can "safety-catch" is obvious things well-agreed in spirit of the ToS like "gore", "censored", "nudity + <list of genitals>", "torture".
It shouldn't be considered a full solution but rather an extra catch to protect minors, etc. It makes it so in the edge case "people forgot to filter but tagged correctly" that it doesn't get seen by minors. No blacklist is a solution, but I can tell you for sure that personal blacklists has nothing to do with the issue of bad NSFW filtering.

I think it's pretty bad to remotely suggest that kids as young as 13 should have to remember sexual tags so personalised blacklisting is no method to resolve the issue of minors (and others who want SFW) from seeing NSFW content.

Let's consider the possible form types of blacklist:
1. A predefined mature blacklist: "gore", "censored", "nudity + <list of genitals>", "torture"
2. An predefined adult blacklist: "<list of genitals>", "<list of adult objects>", "<list of sex acts>"
3. A personal blacklist that aims to blacklist mature or adult ends up identical to the obvious above, and like the above "is a NSFW filter".
4. A personal blacklist that aims to blacklist fetishes ends up censoring fetishes regardless of the NSFWness, and unlike the above "is not a NSFW filter".

Since most arguments in this thread by the supporters of blacklists are following the notion of 3/4, when 3 and 1/2 have the same effect. Then I think it's clear to conclude there is most definitely an ulterior reasoning to have blacklists than "NSFWness", which people have said is to a) blacklist fetishes (which search already can do), and b) blacklist identities they don't like. Types 1 and 2 work well for safety nets to protect minors, 3/4 do not, as said minors/etc would have to each manually enter a blacklist full of NSFW terms which isn't minor-friendly. To resolve (b) within 4, is to prevent the blacklisting of identities, at least with SFW content.

So while 1/2 and 3 are identically effective, 3 puts the burden of responsibility of making NSFWness-guaranteeing blacklist lists on the user (e.g. minors/etc having to know sexual terms which isn't very PG) which doesn't at all protect kids (or adults who are triggered by NSFW and its terms) from interacting with NSFW at all.
While 3 + 4 or just 4, is equally effective as 1/2/3 with the addition of the caveats such as oppression blocking and apartness on everyday users, while the search system already provides adequate solution to 4. Type 4 is irrelevant to preventing NSFW leaks (unlike 1/2/3) and shouldn't use NSFW leaking into SFW as an argument as it's a false-equivalence.

It doesn't resolve NSFW content leaking into SFW mode. 9 in 10 times when someone sees a NSFW piece in SFW, it's when someone forgot to filter (or is unsure about the rules for the filter) but remembered to tag with NSFW keywords. I think this is because they use poster bots like PostyBirb which have a user interface/template-system that is confusing to some as it has been a complaint. Often it leads to a user entering the right tags but forgetting to select the right template setup. Both failing to filter and failing to tag happens, however, so the solution is not as trivial.

In the end of the day, blacklists won't at all fix the issue at all of minors seeing NSFW in the SFW sections, but least those with pet-peeves towards certain subjects will be happy. These complaints won't cease after blacklists exist.

What you are doing here is really nasty. There is no reasoning to conclude that people here who want to have a system that filters out kinks, subjects, or themes, is really looking for a way to be transphobic, racist, or sexist.

People who want to listen to music shouldn't be forced to hear to thousands of random songs from random genres till they come across what they are looking for.
People who want to watch a movie shouldn't be forced to sit through days of films that they don't enjoy.
People who want to date shouldn't be restricted from looking for qualities in a partner they like.
People who want to eat shouldn't be made to settle for the closest thing that is edible.

Your argument boils down to removing people's ability to choose what they want to see freely, and for something so minor and harmless as a block/blacklist.

It's ridiculous.

 

[Inafox]

What you are doing here is really nasty. There is no reasoning to conclude that people here who want to have a system that filters out kinks, subjects, or themes, is really looking for a way to be transphobic, racist, or sexist.

People who want to listen to music shouldn't be forced to hear to thousands of random songs from random genres till they come across what they are looking for.
People who want to watch a movie shouldn't be forced to sit through days of films that they don't enjoy.
People who want to date shouldn't be restricted from looking for qualities in a partner they like.
People who want to eat shouldn't be made to settle for the closest thing that is edible.

Your argument boils down to removing people's ability to choose what they want to see freely, and for something so minor and harmless as a block/blacklist.

It's ridiculous.

Netflix doesn't have that, Spotify neither. Successful sites value diversity and exposure. Blocks on such sites are towards individuals not identities/subject, nor do they entertain those who foster objections to diversity. Blacklisting is archaic, just like its questionable etymology. I don't think it's worth re-evaluating the moral danger of blacklists as it has been already above. It is possible to prevent blacklists from blacklisting at least legally protected identities, however.

Blacklists simply don't resolve the problem, as I showed. You want a blacklist, to block what you don't want to see. That has absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic which poses the wrong assumption that blacklists would somehow prevent NSFW content leaking into SFW spaces when they do not.

 

[Foxridley]

Netflix doesn't have that, Spotify neither. Successful sites value diversity and exposure. Blocks on such sites are towards individuals not identities/subject, nor do they entertain those who foster objections to diversity. Blacklisting is archaic, just like its questionable etymology. I don't think it's worth re-evaluating the moral danger of blacklists as it has been already above. It is possible to prevent blacklists from blacklisting at least legally protected identities, however.

Blacklists simply don't resolve the problem, as I showed. You want a blacklist, to block what you don't want to see. That has absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic which poses the wrong assumption that blacklists would somehow prevent NSFW content leaking into SFW spaces when they do not.

The idea here is that there does not seem to be a universal agreement of when kinky/fetish content becomes nsfw, so letting people select what they don’t want to see is an alternative. Other sites do let you mute topics. I’ve done this myself to avoid movie spoilers. As it is, the kinks I’ve seen attract the most complaints, at least in my experience, are vore and babyfur.
Soft vore and “clean” babyfur might count as sfw by FA’s guidelines, but are objectionable to enough people (perhaps effectively nsfw for some) that allowing people to filter them would be reasonable.

 

[Dragoneer]

'fetish' is a broad category that is a little bit difficult to define anyway.

Fetish and kinks are not inheritly sexual. They can be, but by definition are NOT a sexual item. Plus there's the whole issue of "who's fetish is are we forcing to be mature" we took that route. People have shoe fetishes, uniforms, etc. If we forced somebody inflating to be mature, but not somebody who only draws furries in uniforms, or body builders, or athletes, or has a gallery full of Spyro-themed fanart, then all we're really doing is punishing one person's particular interest.

This is a reason why we define what the ratings are in our rules. Because for the most part, inflation, weight gain, vore, and lots of weird things are common tropes in animation. If they're good enough for Disney then they're good enough for FA.

 

[Rimna]

Netflix doesn't have that, Spotify neither. Successful sites value diversity and exposure. Blocks on such sites are towards individuals not identities/subject, nor do they entertain those who foster objections to diversity. Blacklisting is archaic, just like its questionable etymology. I don't think it's worth re-evaluating the moral danger of blacklists as it has been already above. It is possible to prevent blacklists from blacklisting at least legally protected identities, however.

Blacklists simply don't resolve the problem, as I showed. You want a blacklist, to block what you don't want to see. That has absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic which poses the wrong assumption that blacklists would somehow prevent NSFW content leaking into SFW spaces when they do not.

Except that when I type in the name of the singer or band in Spotify, I get their songs, and I don't get a random list of songs to scroll through, while they all play at the same time until I click on the one I want.

When I type in "orc" in FA, I may get a crapron of different things that aren't exclusively orcs, and I will certainly get results of fetishes that make me sick.

And blacklists *are* a filter - it literally filters content you don't want to see, which is the entire point of this thread. Of course blacklists depend on users tagging their shit correctly.

What you're doing is trying to gaslight people who want to have more control in what they search for, in a website that is known for having badly tagged fetish art. This has nothing to do with homophobia or transphobia or racism.

 

[Yakamaru]

Exactly, fetishes that have SFW variants shouldn't be marked as mature/adult. However, what FA considers to be graphic can be caught by a tag-based safety net.
Tags that the "Mature"-filter can "safety-catch" is obvious things well-agreed in spirit of the ToS like "gore", "censored", "nudity + <list of genitals>", "torture".
It shouldn't be considered a full solution but rather an extra catch to protect minors, etc. It makes it so in the edge case "people forgot to filter but tagged correctly" that it doesn't get seen by minors. No blacklist is a solution, but I can tell you for sure that personal blacklists has nothing to do with the issue of bad NSFW filtering.

I think it's pretty bad to remotely suggest that kids as young as 13 should have to remember sexual tags so personalised blacklisting is no method to resolve the issue of minors (and others who want SFW) from seeing NSFW content.

Let's consider the possible form types of blacklist:
1. A predefined mature blacklist: "gore", "censored", "nudity + <list of genitals>", "torture"
2. An predefined adult blacklist: "<list of genitals>", "<list of adult objects>", "<list of sex acts>"
3. A personal blacklist that aims to blacklist mature or adult ends up identical to the obvious above, and like the above "is a NSFW filter".
4. A personal blacklist that aims to blacklist fetishes ends up censoring fetishes regardless of the NSFWness, and unlike the above "is not a NSFW filter".

Since most arguments in this thread by the supporters of blacklists are following the notion of 3/4, when 3 and 1/2 have the same effect. Then I think it's clear to conclude there is most definitely an ulterior reasoning to have blacklists than "NSFWness", which people have said is to a) blacklist fetishes (which search already can do), and b) blacklist identities they don't like. Types 1 and 2 work well for safety nets to protect minors, 3/4 do not, as said minors/etc would have to each manually enter a blacklist full of NSFW terms which isn't minor-friendly. To resolve (b) within 4, is to prevent the blacklisting of identities, at least with SFW content.

So while 1/2 and 3 are identically effective, 3 puts the burden of responsibility of making NSFWness-guaranteeing blacklist lists on the user (e.g. minors/etc having to know sexual terms which isn't very PG) which doesn't at all protect kids (or adults who are triggered by NSFW and its terms) from interacting with NSFW at all.
While 3 + 4 or just 4, is equally effective as 1/2/3 with the addition of the caveats such as oppression blocking and apartness on everyday users, while the search system already provides adequate solution to 4. Type 4 is irrelevant to preventing NSFW leaks (unlike 1/2/3) and shouldn't use NSFW leaking into SFW as an argument as it's a false-equivalence.

It doesn't resolve NSFW content leaking into SFW mode. 9 in 10 times when someone sees a NSFW piece in SFW, it's when someone forgot to filter (or is unsure about the rules for the filter) but remembered to tag with NSFW keywords. I think this is because they use poster bots like PostyBirb which have a user interface/template-system that is confusing to some as it has been a complaint. Often it leads to a user entering the right tags but forgetting to select the right template setup. Both failing to filter and failing to tag happens, however, so the solution is not as trivial.

In the end of the day, blacklists won't at all fix the issue at all of minors seeing NSFW in the SFW sections, but least those with pet-peeves towards certain subjects will be happy. These complaints won't cease after blacklists exist.

This comes off as if you're just one step short of saying "consent is a Conservative thing. We don't do that thing here".

 

[LameFox]

Netflix doesn't have that, Spotify neither. Successful sites value diversity and exposure. Blocks on such sites are towards individuals not identities/subject, nor do they entertain those who foster objections to diversity. Blacklisting is archaic, just like its questionable etymology. I don't think it's worth re-evaluating the moral danger of blacklists as it has been already above. It is possible to prevent blacklists from blacklisting at least legally protected identities, however.

Blacklists simply don't resolve the problem, as I showed. You want a blacklist, to block what you don't want to see. That has absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic which poses the wrong assumption that blacklists would somehow prevent NSFW content leaking into SFW spaces when they do not.

Movies and songs take time to watch and listen to. Seeing them in search results does not actually show you their content.

Also, you might want to reconsider using for examples super mainstream sites like netflix lol. Down that road, sooner or later you find out they don't really need blacklists not because they are promoting 'diversity' but because they are sterile corporate environments which wouldn't host the kind of content found here to begin with.