Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The NSFW HTML Attribute

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the thought-provoking dept.

273

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.'"

cancel ×

273 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good idea (2, Insightful)

supersonicjim (1043458) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397476)

It sounds like a good idea to me, like the spolier tags you get on forums and stuff.

Re:Good idea - No, bad idea. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17397746)

It is a bad idea to codify an official way to designate a particular online expression as objectionable. Similar to the .XXX top-level domain, having such an attribute will only lead to so-called moral police passing laws mandating the use of such tags. And then same material will automatically be filtered at the ISP level for libraries, schools, and, as our government becomes more and more like China's (while China's is slowly becoming more and more like ours used to be), the home. Do you really want the government deciding what is "not safe for work" on your computer screen?

WTF (4, Funny)

jolyonr (560227) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397832)

Much of the content I see on the web would be better tagged with a 'WTF' tag.

Jolyon

The trolls... (3, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397480)

Do you reallt think the goatse trolls will bother using these tags if they're going to decrease their chances of getting people to follow the links?

Re:The trolls... (4, Insightful)

lanswitch (705539) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397524)

This sounds like an idea from the same guy(s) that gave us the Evil Bit [ietf.org] .

Re:The trolls... (5, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397546)

Do you reallt think the goatse trolls will bother using these tags if they're going to decrease their chances of getting people to follow the links?

      Exactly. For this to work would require everyone's cooperation. I think that, if anything, the internet has proven that you are guaranteed to run into any amount of uncooperative people. What's next, a law mandating the use of this flag? :-/

      If you're at work and just clicking on random links in front of your boss, well, you deserve what you get.

Re:The trolls... (1)

Xiph1980 (944189) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397588)

Nope, but you could make a server-side script that adds the NSFW tag automatically when it finds known goatse or gnaa or similar links...
These links could be mined from a public database where everybody that finds such a link can add it etc.

Re:The trolls... (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397624)

Couldn't you do that now, without this tag? And doing it via javascript or CSS would make it work in current browsers, as opposed to this NSFW tag, which would maybe get supported by IE in 10 years or so.

Re:The trolls... (1)

Xiph1980 (944189) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397752)

Yes, that would definately be possible, however now you'd have to have set the nsfw preferences for each site which has to be saved in cookies (so you've got to (be able to) allow cookies aswell), And the hiding should be done by messing with hiding div frames and such. If it's a browser option you'd only have to set it once in the browseroptions, so there's less chance of being surprised by a new site.

Re:The trolls... (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398042)

I was referring to it being a server-side option. You can have a "safesite" setting at the top of your page similar to the way Google does the "SafeSearch is off" link on its image search page.

I don't think that many adult advertisers or forum pranksters would voluntarily use an "NSFW" tag, so a browser option wouldn't be that useful IMHO. Fact is, running Firefox with NoScript and AdBlock is very, very effective at blocking most adult images unless you are on a site that specifically is oriented towards adults, which you shouldn't be on at work ;p It's actually gotten bad for me, since I'll send out a funny link without turning on javascript and disabling AdBlock first only to find out that all of the Explorer users got pop-ups and porn ads... oops!

Re:The trolls... (1)

ubergenius (918325) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397738)

Or you could just block those links. It's much simpler, and just as effective.

Re:The trolls... (1)

Xiph1980 (944189) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397818)

Yeah, but that wouldn't block spamposts in a forum with big goatse images flashing on screen, or 50pt font text screaming about some odd sexual preference based on leather and latex...

Re:The trolls... (1)

ubergenius (918325) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398144)

It may not get rid of the text, but you can definately block a host entirely, including embedded images and content. And it's not hard to do, and does not rely on reconstructing pages.

Re:The trolls... (1)

Fenrisulfr (1006771) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397748)

I just don't trust someone else to determine for me what is objectionable content and what isn't. And who pray tell would be managing this database? The idea is for users to be self-governing not externally censored. To be honest, the whole idea sounds a little too Thomas More to me.

Re:The trolls... (1)

Xiph1980 (944189) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397810)

You might not trust it but these kinds of systems are already widely used, like with peerguardian or spammail filters etc.
Who would be managing the database? Everyone and noone. Managing it could/would be based on a system like google pageranking etc.

Site-specific solution (1)

GeekDork (194851) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397618)

For a site like slashdot, the solution would be to serve all comments in a big <div rel="nsfw">. That way, content that has been controlled by an editor gets through, but the uncontrolled content is blocked. Finer-grained controls would just extend the link tags by that attribute.

whitelist it then (1)

aapold (753705) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397756)

instead of NSFW, create a SFW tag, and configure your browser to display only that which has it.

"God its a barren featureless wasteland out there..." - Lt. the Honorable George Colhurst St. Barleigh, looking at the wrong side of a map...

Re:whitelist it then (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397998)

Which will work BEAUTIFULLY, because no one would every lie and tag, for instance, tubgirl, SFW. Ambush linkers would never go that far.

Re:whitelist it then (1)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398096)

Incorrect attribution. It was General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett looking at the wrong side of the map. Also the quote is wrong; "God, it's a barren, featureless desert out there!"
Nice job on getting Lt. George's complete name right though.

Re:The trolls... (3, Insightful)

apt142 (574425) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397806)

Actually, once this gets up and running, it would be really easy to search for NSFW links. In which case, it benefits them greatly to have it on their site.

Re:The trolls... (4, Insightful)

jandrese (485) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398290)

It's not designed to stop Goatse trolls, it's designed for the thousands of people who already put "NSFW" on stuff they think might be objectionable. It's a tag to help the good, not a tag to punish the wicked. I think it would work fairly well actually, assuming people know about it.

Will it also... (1)

laejoh (648921) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397484)

... help us search more easily for objectionable material?


"It is also about making us feel more comfortable posting possibly objectionable content by giving visitors a means of easily filtering that content.'"

Irrelevant (4, Insightful)

TuringTest (533084) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397494)

The guys at goatse.cx will be the ones willingly NOT including the NTSF tag in their design, because they want you to see the goatse when in front of your boss.

In order for this to work, it should be included in third party descriptions of the site. And then, you can rely on standard content filters for that.

Re:Irrelevant (1)

AEton (654737) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397700)

I'm trying to figure out how 'NSFW' became 'NTSF'. Did you think it was some kind of bizarre video signal? Are you using a magically remapped Optimus keyboard?

Re:Irrelevant (1)

rah1420 (234198) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397760)

I'm trying to figure out how 'NSFW' became 'NTSF'.

NoT SaFe.

Re:Irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17397830)

It's not really the goatse trolls that are the issue. If you're randomly clicking on links in eg. Slashdot comments, you're gonna get what's coming to you. But occasionally there will be some link in the main Slashdot story that leads to content you'd rather not load at work and there the tag would be useful.

This looks familiar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17397506)

Anyone else think "evil bit" when they first read this?

Re:This looks familiar (1)

Dik Zak (974638) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397634)

No, you don't understand the purpose of the evil bit. Pages that intentionally leave out the NSFW tag to fool people into opening objectionable content at work should have the evil bit set.

Re:This looks familiar (1)

x_MeRLiN_x (935994) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397784)

Actually, they did [slashdot.org] . :P

It's never about censorship when it CAN be. (2, Interesting)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397512)

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?

Re:It's never about censorship when it CAN be. (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398252)

improperly marking regions as NSFW, and hiding additional content untill you notice what is going on and stop filtering NSFW or click to display the covered regions

Hold on a darn minute... (1)

eighty4 (987543) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397514)

...where's the foot icon?

Now that is a dumb idea if I've ever seen one. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17397520)

Who in their right mind would want to exclude the office clowns from their website, other than the people who don't post objectionable material in the first place?

would you trust it? (1)

ch-chuck (9622) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397522)

a lot of porn content creators probably wouldn't care if you're at work or not.

If someone depends on the nsfw tag to protect them and then goes wading into the porn/pirate/gambling underworld at a public terminal they're likely in for a suprise.

Re:would you trust it? (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398344)

that's not the point, the point is so reputable sites and blogs can post more risque content without causing problems for their readers who are at work.

NSFW HTML! (1)

GlitchCog (1016986) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397526)

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tr><td width="150"><center>oooo
<marquee width="100%"behavior="alternate" direction="left">
3=========Ð</marquee> O</center></td>
<td width="40">
<marquee width="100%" behavior="scroll" direction="right">~ ~ ~</marquee>
</td></tr></table>

How is this any different... (1, Interesting)

fudgefactor7 (581449) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397528)

...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.

uh.. what? (2, Interesting)

Zashi (992673) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397532)

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.

Re:uh.. what? (1, Insightful)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397656)

Please. We can't even get browsers to agree on how to tell javascripts about which event triggered them. There's no way in hell this tag will be supported by enough browsers to actually be useful.

Re:uh.. what? (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398016)

There's no way in hell this tag will be supported by enough browsers to actually be useful.

Huh? It only needs to be supported by two. Even if it's just supported by one it's cornered most of the market.

Re:uh.. what? (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398406)

I count three:

IE (the default browser in Windows)
Safari (the default browser in Mac OS X)
Firefox (the default browser everywhere else)

Obviously, IE has the lion's share of the market, but Microsoft is also the least likely company to implement this idea.

In any case, it's really a stupid argument since the idea isn't even any good. I'm just voicing my disdain for horrible unorganized web "standards" that aren't worth crap in practical use.

Re:uh.. what? (1)

kalidasa (577403) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397710)

It also depends upon the vendor who writes the web client you're using at work to provide support both in the rendering engine and in the configuration (i.e., depends upon a user interface to turn the feature on or off). Now, a good percentage of business still "standardize" (and I use that term loosely) on IE. Do you really think that Microsoft, the company whose business model is all about pandering to IT departments, is going to add a feature that will be used to protect employees from their employers? Or that if they do, there won't be a way to use Group Policy to shut the feature off (one of the bits of particularly useful pandering to IT departments that has helped MS build its market share), rendering the whole thing useless?

No, the way to do this is to write a proxy service that can filter out pages rated (by third parties) NSFW.

Re:uh.. what? (1)

kjart (941720) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397762)

is going to add a feature that will be used to protect employees from their employers?

So a feature that prevents you from looking at porn at work is protecting employees from their employers? More like protecting employees from their inadvertent stupidity.

Regardless, I doubt this would be something implemented by any of the major browsers. Extensions/addons maybe?

Re:uh.. what? (1)

kalidasa (577403) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398226)

So a feature that prevents you from looking at porn at work is protecting employees from their employers?

Yes, because in theory, you shouldn't be looking at anything on the web that would even accidentally lead you to pr0n (he says as he posts to /. from work), and so if you are caught with something NSFW on your screen, it will be painfully obvious that you aren't working (unless you have a job that requires you to read e.g. /. everyday - yeah, I know, I've used the "but it's one of the best channels for information gathering" excuse too).

Re:uh.. what? (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398310)

actually it protects employers from employees, you see, the sexual harassment suit from someone offended by seeing porn at work will cost the company more than lost productivity of a single employee.

Re:uh.. what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17397726)

If that was implemented, you could count on IE to interpret that as the tag half of the time, regardless of where the tag actually was.

Re:uh.. what? (4, Informative)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398194)

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.

There's plenty of places where NSFW is specified in link text already. This is just a way of making it machine-readable.

how about a universal close tag for the last opened tag

Such shortcuts [w3.org] have already existed since HTML 2 [ietf.org] . These have been universally ignored by browser developers.

What problem does this solve? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397554)

If you're going to a NSFW site without knowing it's NSFW, the chances are 99%+ you're getting suckered. And the person suckering you will easily find millions of such URLs missing the tag. Or is this about blocking? Because I imagine getting yourself *into* block lists should be easy as hell.

How we terminate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17397560)

We fire employees by examining their visited site history later with monitoring software.
  Then , managers visit what looks objectionable or possibly disallowed.

At the employees exit interview, we show them why their being terminated against company policy
What they saw live isn't a factor .
What we see as to where they went is what matters.
this tag won't stop us from terminating employees
The intent is everything , saying they didn't see it of no matter

Re:How we terminate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17397856)

As much as you like to think you're Arnold fucking Schwarzenegger, you aren't "terminating" anyone. You're firing them, or terminating their employment at best.

I'd also like to know how exactly you ensure that the site they visited the first time around contains exactly the same content as it does when your "managers" review it. We wouldn't want you to wrongfully fire -sorry- "terminate" someone because some one just posted boobies on a blog they viewed a couple of weeks ago.

For that matter, how can you say that the "intent" is everything then go on to say that the tag won't work? The whole point of the tag is to keep people from downloading content they don't "intend" to see when they follow a hyperlink or visit a website or something.

Re:How we terminate (1)

dr_dank (472072) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397960)

We fire employees by examining their visited site history later with monitoring software.
    Then , managers visit what looks objectionable or possibly disallowed.


Sounds productive to me, carry on!

ambiguous (3, Informative)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397580)

NSFW doesn't really have a concrete meaning. What's safe in one workplace may not be safe in another.

Re:ambiguous (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17397698)

Exactly. For example the 4chan /a/ [4chan.org] 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.

Two problems (5, Insightful)

MarkusQ (450076) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397584)

I see two problems with this right of the bat.

First, what's "not safe for work" varies from place to place. Not only from country to country (there are government sponsored pro-breast feeding billboards all over the place where I am that I'm sure would be considered "not safe for work" back home) but from employer to employer as well. Two jobs back (in the states) people would occasionally have risque material showing on their monitors and nothing much was said, while one co-worker got a serious dressing-down for shopping on-line for a competitors product.

And probably more importantly, in many cases no one is looking over your shoulder but IT is still logging your web traffic (e.g. at the proxy). And it often isn't just (or even mostly) boobies they're worried about. I've seen more flags raised over warz, drug-related material (don't search for "how to beat drug tests" from your desk), stock trading concerns, cracking tools, and so forth.

It's a cute idea, but I don't think it's going to go too far.

--MarkusQ

Re:Two problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17397936)

First, what's "not safe for work" varies from place to place. Not only from country to country (there are government sponsored pro-breast feeding billboards all over the place where I am that I'm sure would be considered "not safe for work" back home) but from employer to employer as well.

This is why the font size attribute doen't work -- didn't anyone know that you could have big fonts or little fonts? Sure, it seems like you could have NSFW1 through NSFW6 or something, with different levels of restriction, but I'm sure there is some obvious reason why this wouldn't work.

I can't se any good coming of this. (5, Insightful)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397586)

The "NSFW" thing has always been a courtesy on the part of the poster, and in those cases it works because you can read the warning about the link before clicking.

Do we really want to just start trusting links and clicking whatever because the invisible tags will surely protect us from doing something we shouldn't at work?

I see Good from this. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17397736)

This is GOOD in a few ways.

* No need for the .xxx domain as we'll police ourselves.
* A content rich site like fark (www.fark.com) can serve questionable content both to users and nsfw-users.

The drawbacks tho do exist.

* Proxys will still eat the questionable keywords.
* Kids can uncheck the box

Some sites have SFW content while having NSFW banners. Uncool!!!

I still want the .xxx TLD. :(

Re:I can't se any good coming of this. (1)

arkanes (521690) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398350)

Your sig is particularly appropriate, because I was interested in the good cause, but am at work and am not so sure about the ladies - clothing part.

I propose a slew of such tags (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17397602)

nsbb: Not Safe Before Breakfast
nsbc: Not Safe Before Coffee
nsbl: Not Safe Before Lunch
nsfc: Not Safe in Female Company
nspt: Not Safe to Print on a Tee
nswc: Not Safe While drinking Coffee
nswe: Not Safe While Eating
wcwd: Warning Chick With a Dick
dne: Do Not Eat

Re:I propose a slew of such tags (2, Funny)

slughead (592713) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397666)

nsbb: Not Safe Before Breakfast
nsbc: Not Safe Before Coffee
nsbl: Not Safe Before Lunch
nsfc: Not Safe in Female Company
nspt: Not Safe to Print on a Tee
nswc: Not Safe While drinking Coffee
nswe: Not Safe While Eating
wcwd: Warning Chick With a D**k
dne: Do Not Eat


They need a WCWD tag at stileproject.com

No amount of therapy will heal my fractured mind.

Goatse2.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17397788)

They need a WCWD tag at stileproject.com

No amount of therapy will heal my fractured mind.


I bet reading the WCWD one caused a particular image to flash into your mind. Who needs to post a link to an actual image when this durdenesque technique works so well?

Re:I propose a slew of such tags (2, Insightful)

apt142 (574425) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397962)

While, that's pretty funny, you do have a point. The NSFW tag is not precise or measureable. If something like this is going to work it has to be discrete and objective. NSFW has got a value assessment with it.

A NP (Nude Photos) or PF (Profanity) tag would be functional. Neither of those tags propose any sort of value judgement but when used properly could perfectly describe the content.

Even a MOSA (May Offend Some Audiences) tag would be more useful than NSFW. And given the tags describe the content, it can be used in search engines for people who are interested in that material.

But, I'd go a step further and say, why have this tag on html elements at all? You could just as easily include it in the meta data descriptors and be done with it. All that has to be done then is to set a standard. Hell, if google decided tomorrow that it would single out all "MOSA" sites with a gold star, middle finger icon or whatever that would be incentive enough to get people interested in following the standard.

For a start... (1)

windowpain (211052) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397604)

Why doesn't /. just disable links to goatse.cx in posts? I guess they fear alienating the all-important juvenile jerk-off bloc.

Re:For a start... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17397682)

Ther are millions of possible disallowed sites based on Company policy organizational policy.

It is very labor intensive to block all sites , we do this to some extent, but just disallowing various activities broadly in the company manual is the best way

a history of disallowed site visits is usually required .
The first few get them warnings,
Only continued violations result in termination
Most companies do not fire employees for one or 2 policy violations,
  unless a manager wants them out for other reasons.
It can however be used as a last straw.

Re:For a start... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17398390)

Why doesn't /. just disable links to goatse.cx in posts? I guess they fear alienating the all-important juvenile jerk-off bloc.
That's what the kids today are jerking off to? Truth is stranger than real.

Not about cenorship... (4, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397606)

Remember back when there were no ratings for video games? The pro-ratings argument said that going to a voluntary system would prevent mandatory censorship by the government, that it would just make it easier for the customer to choose appropriate titles, nothing more.

Well, it hasn't worked out quite like they said it would, has it? Illinois did pass a law anyway, fortunately it was shot down by the courts - but guys like Jack Thompson are still out there just looking to befriend any politician that needs a little censor-happy rabble-rousing to get himself re-elected.

Meanwhile Wal-mart now refuses to carry any games with too extreme of a rating, effectively brow-beating the game authors into self-censorship if they want to have any hope of enough sales to recoup their investment.

It isn't too hard to see something like this proposed standard turning into the online equivalent of that sort of thing -- unless your website is certified by an ESRB-like agency as 'properly' using this NSFW flag, you'll be black-listed by all the big net-nanny commercial filters - thus putting yet another unnecessary burden on a website's author to comply or be left out of the corporately accessible world.

Under such a regime, most discussion sites would end up filtered because it would be impossible to enforce an NSFW tagging requirement. If you value being able to read slashdot at work, you don't want to support this proposal.

Re:Not about cenorship... (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398258)

Meanwhile Wal-mart now refuses to carry any games with too extreme of a rating, effectively brow-beating the game authors into self-censorship if they want to have any hope of enough sales to recoup their investment.

Or take it another way, a retailer choosing what they want on their shelves. This isn't government censorship, it is strictly market forces now. Wal*Mart can only carry so many games anyway, there is no entitlement to game developers to have their products on those shelves. I'm not saying that Wal*Mart doesn't abuse their market dominance, but I'm not seeing this as something that justifies rolling out the Sherman act.

I don't see a video game law passing muster. Those are clearly a waste of money.

Shouldn't that be: NTSFPWTSMAM Tag (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397608)

NTSFPWTSMAM - Not Safe For People With The Same Morals As Me

While not RTFA this tag seems to be all about setting a level of moral standards in order to protect people from "Objectional" material. And thats my objection. It's such a huge generalisation that anything I would want to be protected from is the same as what other people would want to be protected from. But in using the proposed tag it is the website that is setting what everyone is supposed to think is "bad".

As an extreme, what would the people who produced goatse.cx or tubgirl think if they are at work and saw that their own sites were marked as NTSFW??

Its not safe for work
But *I* made it at work
You shouldn't look at it at work, its not safe to do
But it's *my* work
Its not ... bzzt .. %$#$&%#$%$# .. (head explodes)

Re:Shouldn't that be: NTSFPWTSMAM Tag (1)

kjart (941720) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397724)

What the heck is the first T you keep throwing in for?

In any case, I think the whole point would be having the browser hide the content while indicating that said content was hidden, possibly along the same lines as a popup blocker. You could then choose whether to display it or not. Doesn't seem so mind blowing to me.

Re:Shouldn't that be: NTSFPWTSMAM Tag (1)

Esion Modnar (632431) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397934)

So, is viewing playboy.com NSFW at the corporate offices of Playboy Enterprises? How would their official corporate Sexual Harassment policy handle this? To my understanding, viewing of stuff in the workplace which can be found offensive to others, is said to create a "hostile work environment" which people have used as a basis for lawsuits.

Perhaps the "Yeah, but..." argument is that it can't be hostile if viewing the materials is essential to your performance of your job. For example, a detective reviewing child porn tapes for evidence collection.

Worst HTML addition ever (1)

broothal (186066) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397610)

Move over <BLINK> tag - we have a new winner.

Absolutely /not/ semantic (5, Informative)

kurtmckee (870398) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397628)

The rel attribute is designed to specify a forward relationship with the current document. Google broke that when they proposed 'nofollow' (a nice idea that does not appear to have solved the spam problem except for Google's spidering of blogs). Further, you can't add it to images and paragraphs and everything else this guy is envisioning. The rel attribute is only applicable to a and link tags, and to use it otherwise deviates from the XHTML spec.

Re:Absolutely /not/ semantic (1)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398312)

The rel attribute is designed to specify a forward relationship with the current document. Google broke that when they proposed 'nofollow'

If it were "unendorsed" instead of "nofollow", then the Googlebot could act in exactly the same way and it would be semantic (the relationship being stated is that the page's author has not necessarily approved the link). People were talking about this [philringnalda.com] months before Google launched it on the world as a fait accompli, it's just a shame that they didn't listen.

why not? (1)

cascadingstylesheet (140919) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397690)

It's just some additional semantic information. It shouldn't replace warnings (due to not knowing which clients will support it), but it could supplement them.

As for subjectivity, well, all content creators make subjective judgments in their HTML markup. In practice, we accept the variability of the choices.

this wont help me any (5, Funny)

JeanBaptiste (537955) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397694)

my boss _is_ the goatse guy =(

Re:this wont help me any (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17397734)

You work for a huge asshole too? Join the club.

Take it one step further... (4, Interesting)

mogrify (828588) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397708)

his needs a sitewide solution, too - "nofollow" has robots.txt, so why not have nsfw.txt?

Content-type: nudity
NSFW: /pr0n

Content-type: profanity
NSFW: /forum
NSFW: /lyrics

Or for some sites, just:

Content-type: *
NSFW: /

Could be useful.

Re:Take it one step further... (1)

cortana (588495) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397778)

Finally, a sensible solution. But why stop there? You may as well go the whole way and re-discover PICS [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Take it one step further... (1)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398336)

You mean like PICS [w3.org] ?

why not have nsfw.txt?

Magic URIs are a poor design. robots.txt was a mistaken hack, not something to be emulated.

YGBFKM (1)

Stalyn (662) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397716)

You gotta be fucking kidding me.

Follow-on attributes ? (5, Interesting)

NorbrookC (674063) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397718)

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.

Re:Follow-on attributes ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17398022)

We could simplify and use just Not Safe For Whatever...

Re:Follow-on attributes ? (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398162)

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)".

NSFKFC - Not Safe for Kentucky Fried Chicken, useful for links to pictures of chicken not wearing any feathers.

Isn't this really just CSS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17397728)

And user CSS definitions?

not a bad idea, but... (1)

blindd0t (855876) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397766)

I'm not sure that using the "rel" attribute would be ideal, but I understand that this was likely being suggested in light of the fact that passing standards through the W3C would take way too long, and waiting for the adoption of the standard in browsers would be even worse. Ideally, they would establish some sort of "rating" attribute that could be applied similarly, as this could be a little more robust by defining (using fixed values like media types) "maturity levels" (rather than ages, since this can vary internationally). Even so, there's no practical way to enforce the use of such an attribute; it's tough enough to get people to even consider standards and best practices.

Re:not a bad idea, but... (1)

blindd0t (855876) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398024)

After reading the replies posted while I was typing my initial reply, I almost want to mod myself redundant... geeze!

Alternative suggestion (1)

samael (12612) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397782)

I'd like an "obfuscated" tag, which the browser only displayed if the user specifically asks them to. This could then be used to wrap spoilers, NSFW material and anything else that users might might want a choice over whether they want to see.

Re:Alternative suggestion (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17397968)

Kind of like ROT13 [wikipedia.org] 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).

It isn't *intended* to be a catch-all (5, Insightful)

Shrubber (552857) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397814)

For crying out loud people, stop modding everyone up who says, "But mean people won't use the tag and you'll be fooled! It's a failure!" It isn't *meant* for malicious or even apathetic posters, it's mean for the people who today voluntarily tell you that a link they're posting is NSFW out of common courtesy.

The people who post links so that you'll get embarrassed or even in trouble at work don't even enter into it, they have absolutely nothing at all to do with why this idea is proposed.

That being said I still think it's a niche idea with positive intentions that would never get widespread adoption, I don't think every potential problem should be solved with technology, some things still need human interpretation.

Oh ? (1)

bytesex (112972) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397820)

Is it april already ?

[X] The idea is USA centric (1)

Tei (520358) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397838)

To quote Apocalipsys Now "We train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders won't allow them to write 'fuck' on their airplanes because it's obscene!". On USA sex is more tabbo.
Other people are more openminded, and dont suffer from that tabbo.
Adding this idea to internet is bad, because cultural centric extensions to standards are doomed, because the world is wide and complex. I dont think is a good idea to open this can of worms. Because next you will have the suggestion.

<p>obscene text here </p rel="spanish insiquistion">

My deepest thanks (2, Funny)

AutopsyReport (856852) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397880)

In the spirit of helping those of us at work to avoid inappropriate websites, thank you kindly for linking to goatse on the front page!

Why not use PICS/ICRA stuff? (4, Insightful)

hhghghghh (871641) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397900)

Why not use PICS/ICRA stuff? It's already built into internet explorer and proxy products. Now, PICS is meta data on the page level, but wouldn't a page with several blocks missing just be confusing? If you need block level meta data, perhaps you should just include RDF tags, with the proper namespace, in your XHTML. Whichever route you choose, you still need browser makers to go along with it.

Metadata (1)

Metasquares (555685) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397990)

This sort of thing is why HTML has a meta tag. Rather than proposing extensions to HTML every time an idea like this comes up, why not include meta attributes as well, so metadata can be associated with specific markup rather than an entire page?

Also is good for FF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17398124)

Since sure those IE guys should have to wait for IE8 for had this, then the only safe option to surf the web at the office will be Firefox!

But the point of goatse (1)

Trails (629752) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398202)

Is that someone clicks on it when their boss is standing behind them. It's meant to be embarassing. I don't really get what this will solve. It's not like pr0n sites will use it.

Besides the much populised but low occurence incidents of people getting fired for reading an article with a cussword in it or some such, the kind of sites someone generally gets fired for browsing are exactly the sites that won't use this.

BHO (1)

ryu1232 (792127) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398278)

I'm waiting for the first BHO that interecepts every webpage you view and inserts the the NSFW tag between between tags or /body> (format can vary with syle).
I think the .xxx toplevel domain was a better idea.

If you're worried about the boss ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17398296)

maybe you should ask yourself if it's worth living in fear rather than finding a more ethical work enviroment.

Personally, I became so tired of bs & tyranny, I quit my job and became a contractor. IMPE, corporations breed abuse.

What a great idea. Maybe China can use this. (1)

dethndrek (870145) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398362)

Hey now that's an idea opressive governments might be interested in. Maybe a rel="NSFC(hinese)" or something similar and then they can stop spending so much on censorship. Brilliant!

NSFW proposal considered bogus (4, Insightful)

frisket (149522) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398402)

It would be more convincing if the author and the poster bothered to get their terminology right, and possibly even to understand HTML, before making bogus statements like this.

This isn't an attribute (REL is the attribute); it's an attribute value. REL is already declared as CDATA, meaning it can have any value you want, so what Mr Doland is really looking for is browser recognition of the string NSFW, not any change to HTML.

I wish him good luck: this seems like a sensible solution. A pity that the proposal has been approached in such a manner.

///Peter

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>