Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

The NSFW HTML Attribute 273

Posted by Zonk
from the thought-provoking dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The NSFW HTML Attribute

Comments Filter:
  • Good idea (Score:2, Insightful)

    It sounds like a good idea to me, like the spolier tags you get on forums and stuff.
    • WTF (Score:5, Funny)

      by jolyonr (560227) on Friday December 29, 2006 @10:22AM (#17397832) Homepage
      Much of the content I see on the web would be better tagged with a 'WTF' tag.

      Jolyon
    • Re:Good idea (Score:5, Informative)

      by KillerCow (213458) on Friday December 29, 2006 @10:42PM (#17405562)
      It's been done before and is not a new idea.

      PICS labels [w3.org] have been around since 1996, and were proposed [w3.org] to label for language, violence, and sexual content (among others).

      ASACP RTA [asacp.org] is another labelling scheme from 1996.

      ICRA labels [icra.org] have been doing the same since 1999.

      RTA and ICRA are in active use today. PICS fell mostly away (to my knowledge) -- probably because it wasn't just for filtering, but for any kind of content tagging. Being a general solution doesn't get the "save the children" mouth-breathers behind you.

      The problem with the rel=nsfw is that it is binary. I can't establish any kind of scale for what I want to see (nudity is okay, sex acts are not), and it only filters in one dimension (I can't say that I am okay with sex, but not with violence, or vice-versa for the U.S.A.).
  • The trolls... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bert64 (520050) <bert AT slashdot DOT firenzee DOT com> on Friday December 29, 2006 @09:35AM (#17397480) Homepage
    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... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by lanswitch (705539) on Friday December 29, 2006 @09:44AM (#17397524)
      This sounds like an idea from the same guy(s) that gave us the Evil Bit [ietf.org].
    • Re:The trolls... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Dunbal (464142) on Friday December 29, 2006 @09:46AM (#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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by adrianmonk (890071)

        For this to work would require everyone's cooperation.

        For it to work perfectly would require everyone's cooperation. For it to work well enough to have some positive benefit would only require the cooperation of a lot of people.

        Of course, it won't make it impossible for people to look at NSFW items while at work. But for those people who want to avoid looking at NSFW stuff because they have a sense of professionalism, it will help them do that.

        Basically, this could work reasonably well for the c

    • 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.

    • 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...
      • by idontgno (624372)
        Which will work BEAUTIFULLY, because no one would every lie and tag, for instance, tubgirl, SFW. Ambush linkers would never go that far.
      • 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... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by apt142 (574425) on Friday December 29, 2006 @10:16AM (#17397806) Homepage Journal
      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... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jandrese (485) <kensama@vt.edu> on Friday December 29, 2006 @11:09AM (#17398290) Homepage Journal
      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.
  • Irrelevant (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TuringTest (533084) on Friday December 29, 2006 @09:39AM (#17397494) Journal
    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.
    • by AEton (654737)
      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?
  • 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?
    • by Lehk228 (705449)
      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
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by lawpoop (604919)
      "What would a HACKED variant of this technology be capable of?"

      I don't know, but I was unable to read this article after it was tagged 'NSFW'!
  • ...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? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Zashi (992673)
    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: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Blakey Rat (99501)
      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.
      • by garcia (6573)
        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.
        • by Blakey Rat (99501)
          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.
    • by kalidasa (577403)

      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? O

      • by kjart (941720)

        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?

        • by kalidasa (577403)

          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 f

          • by Lehk228 (705449)
            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? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Bogtha (906264) on Friday December 29, 2006 @10:59AM (#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.

    • by springbox (853816)
      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, </>
      I'm not sure why you would want this aside from not wanting to type a few extra characters. HTML is not a black box, and most modern editors make it easy to locate the opening tag if you need assistance. Plus, introducing something like this would make HTML harder to read by humans.
  • 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.
  • ambiguous (Score:4, Informative)

    by j00r0m4nc3r (959816) on Friday December 29, 2006 @09:49AM (#17397580)
    NSFW doesn't really have a concrete meaning. What's safe in one workplace may not be safe in another.
  • Two problems (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MarkusQ (450076) on Friday December 29, 2006 @09:49AM (#17397584) Journal

    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

    • Nobody intends the nsfw attribute to solve all nsfw situations for precisely the reasons you mention. Will it solve enough situations to be worthwhile? On the face of it, it sounds like it will. There are plenty of non-corner-case situations where it would help people. Within a given culture, there are things that are clearly nsfw that occasionally appear on otherwise acceptable-for-work sites.
  • by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Friday December 29, 2006 @09:50AM (#17397586) Homepage Journal
    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?
    • by arkanes (521690)
      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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29, 2006 @09:51AM (#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: (Score:3, Funny)

      by slughead (592713)
      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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by apt142 (574425)
      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 co
  • Why doesn't /. just disable links to goatse.cx in posts? I guess they fear alienating the all-important juvenile jerk-off bloc.
  • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Friday December 29, 2006 @09:52AM (#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.
    • 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 tha
  • 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 peopl
    • by kjart (941720)

      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.

    • 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 reviewi

  • Move over <BLINK> tag - we have a new winner.
  • by kurtmckee (870398) <contactme@kurtmckee.org> on Friday December 29, 2006 @09:54AM (#17397628) Homepage
    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.
    • by Bogtha (906264)

      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.

  • 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.
  • by JeanBaptiste (537955) on Friday December 29, 2006 @10:03AM (#17397694)
    my boss _is_ the goatse guy =(
  • by mogrify (828588) on Friday December 29, 2006 @10:05AM (#17397708) Homepage

    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.

    • by cortana (588495)
      Finally, a sensible solution. But why stop there? You may as well go the whole way and re-discover PICS [wikipedia.org].
    • by Bogtha (906264)

      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.

    • by Chapter80 (926879)
      It should also have an ALT or a redirect tag:

      <NSFW ALT="http://www.google.com">

      This would redirect you to google, if you are browsing in NSFW mode.

    • by RAMMS+EIN (578166)
      Oh great, yet another file that is going to be requested a bazillion times a day, even if it doesn't exist.
  • by Stalyn (662)
    You gotta be fucking kidding me.
  • by NorbrookC (674063) on Friday December 29, 2006 @10:06AM (#17397718) Journal

    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.

    • by JMZero (449047)
      This naturally wouldn't be a universal solution - but I see where it would be useful. For example, say a blog like BoingBoing. They sometimes post NSFW or vaguely NSFW stuff. I'd appreciate it if they had some way of flagging this so I could filter these posts out at work.

      Naturally it wouldn't protect everyone from everything, but it would be a great tool in situations like this where there's a reasonable consensus on what's going to be tagged and why. It's a way for an author to share a greater variety
  • 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: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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 stuc
  • by Shrubber (552857) <pmallett@@@gmail...com> on Friday December 29, 2006 @10:17AM (#17397814) Homepage
    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.
  • by bytesex (112972)
    Is it april already ?
  • by AutopsyReport (856852) on Friday December 29, 2006 @10:27AM (#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!
  • by hhghghghh (871641) on Friday December 29, 2006 @10:29AM (#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.
  • 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?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Bogtha (906264)

      Because 99% of the time, there's a perfectly good attribute that already exists for the purpose. In this case, it's class. No extension to HTML is necessary.

  • 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.
  • by frisket (149522) <peter AT silmaril DOT ie> on Friday December 29, 2006 @11:20AM (#17398402) Homepage
    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

  • There have been a lot of posts that rightly point out that the definition of acceptable varies from workplace to workplace. Where these statements go awry is with the assumption that the NSFW tag would therefore automatically fail, however. The reason why there is so much variance from place to place isn't because every single workplace has thought it out carefully and diligently and has determined that their own needs are special; this isn't true at all. Every company in the U.S., for example, faces the
  • We combine this with the 'evil bit' identifying bad packets and the net will be safe for corporate America!

    Of course I am being sarcastic. As other posters pointed there are many problems with this. Not the least being what constitutes 'not safe'.
  • reminds me of the evil bit.

    http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3514.txt [ietf.org]

  • 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.

    And if it gains momentum, various providers and blocking services will start requiring it, and content providers will have to implement it if they want to reach a wider audience; and voila, it's about censorship! R
  • Fallacy #1: it's obvious that this wouldn't be universally used. It wouldn't be used by anyone malicious. Or, it would be used maliciously to confuse stuff, tagging all the stuff that's OK to see as NSFW and the not-OK stuff remains untagged.

    So, that leaves us to assuming each website will decide to use it or not use it. And this really applies only to sites where all content is just internally created, not externally. So, BoingBoing could use it (no reader comments) but not Slashdot (reader comments: see F
  • Where does it stop? Why only NSFW and nothign more?

    You want a solution? Put [NSFW] in your link text, and possibly explain it in the TITLE="" attribute of the link. So people can see it right there. I mean, why would you want anything else?
  • I do not know how diverse the idea what is "safe for work" is within the US, but we here outside the US think that people should know what they click on and bosses should be able to communicate what sort of browsing behavior is not wanted, and for what reason.

    Bad enough how stuff similar to this is used to stop children and parents from thinking. Now an utterly idiotic attempt to stop employees from thinking.

    Apart from this, who really believes that somebody who wants to lure to goatse will honestly label t
  • How is this useful if the client has already received the objectionable data?

    How many people are browsing sites that have potentially NSFW content with a boss standing over their shoulder? I'm guessing not many.

    The problem with NSFW content is the big brother problem. How many corporate gateways are monitoring traffic?

    If the content is still being sent to your computer and passing through the corporate gateway, big brother is still going to assume you are looking at it on company time and utilizing company
  • by Jugalator (259273) on Friday December 29, 2006 @01:53PM (#17400352) Journal
    Talk about totally missing out on the already existing adult content rating standards.

    Instead of inventing something redundant here, just have browsers installed at work block access to pages rated as "breast exposure", or whatever. There is already a standard with very fine-grained control of exactly what a web page contains, if it's "visible sexual touching", language, or whatever, and the administration can then decide on exactly what they wish to allow. You can even tell that it's "nudity, but in a medical context" if you intend to loosen up the regulations in special cases.

    http://www.icra.org/label/generator/ [icra.org]

    ICRA is supported by Internet Explorer and while strangely enough Firefox don't seem to have built-in support for these schemes to aid for website classification, there should be extensions like ViQ for Firefox [unimi.it] to add this support, although I haven't tested it.

    Of course, few sites today use this system well, but that's still being vastly better off than inventing some new inflexible "nsfw" HTML attribute, and modifying the HTML standard. Wow...
  • by mad.frog (525085) <.moc.knilknirc. .ta. .nevets.> on Friday December 29, 2006 @03:01PM (#17401320)
    What's safe for work varies across the world.

    I'm guessing that NSFW in my San Francisco office is different from NSFW in rural Alabama, or Germany, or Saudi Arabia, or China...

    The germ of a good idea, but completely unworkable.

When you don't know what to do, walk fast and look worried.

Working...