Proposed Fix for the NSFW issue (SFW) (1418 hits)
Category: NoneRating: -0.52 on 32 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by garconfou <durantjunkmail at adelphia.net> (View user info) at 2005-02-27 10:18:08 EST
After reading about this little debacle:
http://www.ubersite.com/m/60656
Let's face it, you can't trust NSFW. Sometimes people forget, and sometimes people post goatse pictures and forget it on purpose so they can make a run at "most heated".
I would like to propose a change for Ubersite that would solve the problem.
Perhaps we could have a little icon next to each post that contains an attachment? This is no original idea, your email program does the same thing when an email contains an attachment.
Just a thought.
User Reviews
Submitted by Ivy (user info) at 2005-02-28 08:25:03 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Woah, everybody at my work is pretty chilled out. You're just complicating things by adding icons, NSFW, this, that and the other.
Submitted by grandturismo (user info) at 2005-02-27 21:36:48 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
What's NSFW?
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-02-27 21:26:06 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Nuh.
Submitted by Envenom (user info) at 2005-02-27 20:42:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Besides, my neighbor works at a gas station and I made substantially more than he does on unemployment. :)
Submitted by Envenom (user info) at 2005-02-27 20:00:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2005-02-27 18:14:41 (#)
Ranking: 0
You could get a job at a gas station.
__________________________________________
Heh, heh, not if you want to browse uber at work you can't. Maybe in another 5-10 yrs.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2005-02-27 18:43:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Jeebus, Spook.
Shut the fuck up.
EVERYONE HAS BEEN OVER THIS TWIVE NOW.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2005-02-27 18:37:47 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Perhaps you shouldn't get caught fucking off at work in the first place.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2005-02-27 18:25:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeah, yeah, I know.
But I work in a field that prides itself on being rule-based and strict.
Security is what it is.
BUT... I'm gonna let Vegas be my "mind-clearing, life-fucking, end-all-be-all mindfuck" and maybe get a little self-clarification on my life.
Or I might just jump into the canyon, I haven't decided yet.
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2005-02-27 18:14:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You could get a job at a gas station. You could start your own business. You could even mow lawns for a living.
My point is that you cannot rely on other people to let you be free. Bill Clinton was an adultering hippie, George Bush is a bible banging cokehead, John Ashcroft lost an election to a dead guy and got placed as Attorney General of the US.
If you're going to get fired for looking at a picture of a girl in a thong, you're trying too hard.
Submitted by Envenom (user info) at 2005-02-27 16:45:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
By continuing to contribute your efforts to the growth of a company that pushes such a policy of zero tolerance on potentially naughty material, you are part of the same thought control machine and I offer you no sympathy.
______________________________________________________________
Bart, you're hilarious, but as someone who was recently out of work for over six months I'd like to point out that not everyone can afford to be as discriminating in their job selection as you suggest.
Submitted by Snark (user info) at 2005-02-27 16:43:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Firetrucks are cool.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2005-02-27 16:39:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
HI Bart.
Short n' shit.
I know I was in wrong(-ish) for being on Uber at Work, and I (as said multiple times) am not NEARLY as mad as I was Friday...
And I am AGREEING that it's pointless to change anything...
Etc etc etc...
I was just pissed as hell, and am shocked it's still got a head of steam.
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2005-02-27 16:29:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Christ, you people are psychotic.
First off, the picture in question was not by any possible definition of the word "porn" porn. It was a girl in a bathing suit bending over. OH NO! Call the thought police! Satan is taking over our children's minds!
In theory, if there was a little icon next to a title that indicated it had an attachment, you could avoid clicking on those posts. The problem is that:
a) Most posts on Ubersite have some kind of an attachment, so the icon would appear everywhere and you would ignore it anyway.
b) The icon still wouldn't appear in the lists on the left side, which I know is how I do the vast majority of my clicking around.
Then just a piece of advice for you: if you're going to get fired from your job for accidentally having a potentially offensive picture on your screen for a couple seconds, just quit now. I mean, if your boss looked over the exact second the picture showed up on your screen, you closed the page immediately, and he still yelled at you, then quit your job tomorrow. Get a job working for someone who isn't such a prick.
On the other hand, if you're sitting at work staring at the picture jerking off with your pants around your ankles, don't complain to me that the post didn't have a "NSFW" label next to it.
Somewhere in there is a reasonable threshold. The internet has a lot of stuff on it that could be offensive to a lot of different people. If your office has a zero tolerance policy towards potentially offensive material, sorry, then Ubersite isn't the place for you.
By continuing to contribute your efforts to the growth of a company that pushes such a policy of zero tolerance on potentially naughty material, you are part of the same thought control machine and I offer you no sympathy.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2005-02-27 15:39:33 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
And... Am I "running around compaining"?
No. I had an emotional, pissed off reaction to an issue. Then I went back and forth for an hour or so, then I went home, and haven't been at a computer for almost 36 hours.
Now I'm back on, and actually shocked at the AMOUNT of talk it's generated, as well as the contect of talk, and I'm rejoining the conversation.
ANYWAY, I am willing to bet any astronomical amount that Bart won't change ANYTHING about Uber because of this, and it's a pointless discussion, because we have NO SAY WHATSOEVER IN THE DAY TO DAY OPERATION OR THE MANAGEMENT OF UBER.
Christ on high people.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2005-02-27 15:30:49 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Electro (user info) at 2005-02-27 13:58:29 (#)
Ranking: 0
you mean a checkbox that when checked, will automatically add the (NSFW) thing?
actually, thats not a bad idea.
----------------------------
NO Mist, ya ninny.
He means a checkbox you must check.
Christ, read more than one review at a time.
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2005-02-27 15:12:33 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
no.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-02-27 14:51:42 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Stupid.
Submitted by mystiamoon (user info) at 2005-02-27 14:36:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2005-02-27 14:08:12 (#)
Ranking: -2
So a checkbox that people might forget to check, or decide to not check?
Saving you the whole 2 seconds of typing NSFW?
No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moron. I'm fairly sure he means the icon would appear AUTOMATICALLY when a picture is attached.
Just like with an e-mail attachment.
Quit running around yelling at everyone cause you opened a bikini picture that wasn't even porn.
I don't care for Electro either, but I can see where he didn't consider a bathing suit photo to be offensive.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2005-02-27 14:08:12 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
So a checkbox that people might forget to check, or decide to not check?
Saving you the whole 2 seconds of typing NSFW?
No.
Submitted by Electro (user info) at 2005-02-27 13:58:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
you mean a checkbox that when checked, will automatically add the (NSFW) thing?
actually, thats not a bad idea.
but thats up to bart to decide.
Submitted by lush (user info) at 2005-02-27 13:48:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by RamJetMax (user info) at 2005-02-27 11:26:00 (#)
Ranking: 0
The only way our boy "Jay Whatever" could have gotten in trouble is if someone walking by his computer saw the picture on the screen.
------------
Haha that's what happened smarty. Anyways, I feel sorry for the guy, but it's his own fault in the end. He should take responsibility for his actions rather than blaming someone else.
Submitted by youarsoghey (user info) at 2005-02-27 13:23:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Not a horrible idea, but in all honesty, there is no real good solution to this problem. People will be assholes. The only way you can protect yourself from not clicking on bad links at work is to not go on Ubersite at work.
Submitted by FelizJbirth (user info) at 2005-02-27 13:06:05 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
If you work at a place where you can get in trouble for seeing a goatse, well I just feel sorry for you. I got a raise last week after my boss caught me looking at a photoshopped picture of George W Bush being gangfucked by a flock of seagulls. Now I make 2 dollars an hour!
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2005-02-27 12:49:36 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Even I don't like the idea.
NOw that I'm a bit more sober, and have had a day of Madden 05 to calm down...
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2005-02-27 12:38:36 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Fuck this. What should be more worrying to management? The fact that someone accidentally clicks on a link to some hardcore horsefucking midget or the fact that they obviously weren't doing any work to begin with.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2005-02-27 12:03:32 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Pipe down, sonny boy.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-02-27 11:36:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Or don't look at this site when you aren't supposed to.
Submitted by garcon_fou (user info) at 2005-02-27 11:36:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I definitely agree with the personal responsibility argument here. However, I used to browse the internet and check my mail during lunch break, which was my free time but definitely had to be "SFW".
Don't start worrying about "thought police" either. We're already there - this is Bart's site, and he bans whoever he wants to. I don't feel that my freedom of expression will be more restrained by a system that notifies readers that I've attached an image.
And RamJetMax - that's exactly what happened - someone walked by his desk and saw porn on his monitor.
Ultimately, now that I'm self employed I don't give a flying fuck what I see online, so this isn't for my benefit.
Submitted by RamJetMax (user info) at 2005-02-27 11:26:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Listen all you computer dumbasses:
An internet monitoring program would only pick up on the web site address as a red flag for "accessing porno", not a picture with a post. No matter what the content of the .jpg image is, it is still just a .jpg image, that's it.
The only way our boy "Jay Whatever" could have gotten in trouble is if someone walking by his computer saw the picture on the screen.
Most likely he has some sort of spyware that brings up porno pop-ups. Problem solved.
Submitted by PlaguedByMurphy (user info) at 2005-02-27 10:50:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
When you deviate from work-related sites to anything else, you take the risk of seeing something NSFW.
You take the risk, you take the punishment.
The last thing we need are more guidelines, restrictions, or anything else that starts the process of making this a moderated message board where the Secret Uber Police monitor everything and pull posts or comments they find inappropriate.
Don't want to get into trouble at work? Read a book (Without pictures or controversial/offensive/NSFW title on the cover)
Submitted by Faithless_Whisper (user info) at 2005-02-27 10:23:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Not a bad idea, but would Bart go for it? And hey, what are you doing at Uber when you should be working, anyway? ;-)
Submitted by standardeviant (user info) at 2005-02-27 10:20:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Or just have it on the dropdown with the subjects.