We just launched a couple new features. 1.) Auto NSFW tag for users who want to filter out matured content. 2.) The ability to pin one of your all-time-favorite Plurk in front of your timeline (only coin users for now).
I have questions about that first feature. When you launched it a couple of days ago, it came with this warning that NSFW plurks have to have the flag or it's a ToS violation now, but last I heard this wasn't accessible through mobile.
Furthermore, given the life-or-death level of emphasis you put on its usage, you've buried it a little much even in Plurk's regular interface. Do you mean to address this feature's accessibility?
Second question: it's possible for a discussion in a plurk's replies to take on NSFW qualities later on, but unless one has plurk coins one can't add the NSFW flag to a plurk after the fact. Would that be a ToS violation too?
Third question: Your timing concerning the addition of this feature is troubling in light of recent controversy about how women are treated in the US, and the inherently NSFW nature of that controversy. Please tell me your intent here isn't to silence women...
Striving Spark
: Mm, and last I knew privacy settings (which 18+ is lumped in with) were only editable if you have coins... If that's changed, that's one thing, but...?
Pteryx
: I used the privacy settings in a browser window to set a post to 18+, and I don't have coins, but that was when I posted, don't know about editing an existing post.
(Plus how to edit privacy settings in an existing plurk might not be readily apparent enough in the context of "use this flag as appropriate on penalty of permanent exile".)
The Tos violation thing is probably an excuse for them to ban porn/spam bots. If your plurk is already private, it doesn't really matter unless someone on your timeline decides to report you for some reason.
as an fyi, right now the nsfw tag isn't showing up on the official mobile app even if it shows up on the site. I think that will be solved once they push out an update.
afaik editing it in after the fact by opening the plurk up in its own window, you should be able to edit it. even before coins were introduced you could change the settings on a plurk this way:
hmmm. I just went and looked and yes, it does say privacy settings. but idk if that includes this new NSFW tag? since if it's a TOS violation to not have it marked, it would be quite unfair to penalize people whose plurks turn NSFW...
Mm, that is another concern. Attempts to censor NSFW content have hurt medical discussion on the Net before. (See the time back in the 90s when AOL trying to censor the word "breast" shut down discussions of breast cancer.)
FenrigealOdinson: Yes, you have to mark it. But they're saying if you post something that is deemed, somehow we do not know, to be "18+" without marking it as such, that it is a violation of TOS.
yellowpaintt: superorbital: People tending to call this kind of discussion "dramatic" and "fearmongering" is exactly the kind of thing that makes people more afraid of being silenced.
there's a wild difference in tone between raising the very reasonable question if whether discussion of sexual assault, especially considering the current climate, should fall under that tag and making transparent accusations that the plurk team are trying to chase that sort of discussion off the site and silence women
superorbital: Except that when it was first announced via popup, it said not using it as appropriate was a ToS violation. So what's "appropriate"? How will it be enforced? If someone reports a plurk without the flag, what kind of content will result in a ban?
the intent here to just hide discussion of adult materials and such, or could someone report a woman's accusations of misconduct and get her banned for her "impudence"?
I'm not saying they necessarily mean harm. I am saying it's unclear whether they do or not, the timing is uncomfortable, and that even if they do mean well a poorly-considered policy could be harmful anyway.
Um no. Asking questions about how something is intended to work, when zero information was given, and warnings about TOS violations was given, is not accusations.
a thinly-veiled accusation: Your timing concerning the addition of this feature is troubling in light of recent controversy about how women are treated in the US, and the inherently NSFW nature of that controversy. Please tell me your intent here isn't to silence women...
like it'd be a nifty thing to just give us the functionality + the ability to filter out adult content but the TOS warnings makes the whole thing a bit more stressful than strictly necessary
true, my thing though is that in that case the tag itself becomes useless again, because things marked nsfw might be totally okay, and anyone on your flist who doesn't want to opt into adult only all of a sudden will never see plurks again
Just typing nsfw into the top plurk will do it automatically! It's no different than when you edit and put [ nsfw ] in the heading. And if your timeline is private, it doesn't really matter either way.
my TL is private, but I still just want to mark my whole TL adult-only so I don't need to type it every time and even risk someone on my friends list flipping out over an untagged nsfw
236 bees
: sorry i phrased that a little more flippantly than i meant, but basically my position is like. if someone is uncomfortable with the possibility seeing adult content then...it's kind of their responsibility to decide whether or not it's worth following someone who might have a lot of it?
misuse definitely can happen, which is why so many people have every right (imho!) to be suspicious, when there's no real transparency. If you're going to wave a banstick as a threat, you better make it clear what sort of thing is crossing that line, and what isn't. that some people think others are making too big a deal of it only tells me that those
Could the existence of the NSFW filter, and how to use it when first making a plurk - and how to add it to a plurk that gains NSFW content - be added to the FAQ?
it constantly surprises me, what sorts of things I take for granted, that others apparently never even thought of. people are even somehow still divided on whether a mother breastfeeding her baby is considered "indecent" or not. (apparently, because omg boobies or something.)
I think you guys might have better luck using plurk's official contact instead? If someone asks there, they might get a more concrete response. The TOS itself is actually pretty vague on the matter, which is probably a little intentional
Ok I don't mind the tag but.... How do you 'turn off' the adult content filter? I have the option not to show it, but it's not turned on... and it's still blocking content? Um wtf?
Plurks with adult content (R18/NC17/NSFW/Pornography) this is on the page where you can elect to not see NSFW plurks, that's what they consider part of the filter
they don't mean stuff that a random plurk could like, veer into unless your conversations are just that wild. they're talking about literally pornography
again, "common sense" is not universal. in some places, holding hands in public is against the law/ordinances. people could be fined or thrown in jail for it. is that a silly example? sure. there's a diff between "hard porn" (excuse me, I left out that qualifying adjective) and cute fluff, at least in the USA. Plurk is not USian.
I'm not actually seeing where in the TOS it says you can be banned over this though (it does say they can ban you at any time for any reason without notice so I think if they really wanted to shut someone up they wouldn't need an extra rule for that)
the tos talks about removing "Content that we consider in our sole discretion being unlawful, offensive, threatening, obscene or otherwise objectionable or violate any party's intellectual property"
again: those that think wanting clarity is equatable with conspiracy theories probably haven't dealt with people in positions of power being arbitrary.
we're not saying it is. we're saying they waved a ban-stick in mentioning a new thing they're putting out, and would like to know just where they're drawing a line for using it.
so, what horse do you guys have in this race, that "we'd like the policy to be made a lot clearer than this; some users have concerns due to past screwups elsewhere" needs to be argued against?
Cookie Politics
: The mentions of the rating are in the timeline settings, on the checkbox for filtering out everything with the flag. The mention of ToS violation for not using the flag was on the popup that showed up on the desktop version.
honestly i think we could probably benefit from some clarity on how these rules are going to be enforced but suggesting that a taiwanese company instituted a rule in order to silence sexual abuse victims in response to a bunch of american controversies is pretty profoundly stupid
that having been said, in the mean time anyone who is worried should make their plurk private at least until the policy is clarified. TOS violations are addressed when they're reported, privatizing your plurk should prevent reports from happening
Oh look, while I was away there came several more idiots than the first one to throw on my block list.
obdurate
: Thank you, that's a lot more clarity than their official response has, too.
Your timing concerning the addition of this feature is troubling in light of recent controversy about how women are treated in the US, and the inherently NSFW nature of that controversy. Please tell me your intent here isn't to silence women...'Sail : Thanks.
Plurks with adult content (R18/NC17/NSFW/Pornography)this is on the page where you can elect to not see NSFW plurks, that's what they consider part of the filterI'd like to hear "by 'NSFW', we mean porn."the thing says porn.Plurks with adult content (R18/NC17/NSFW/Pornography)original links are here and here
obdurate : Thank you, that's a lot more clarity than their official response has, too.