Facebrowser - sensitive content block consistency/removal

[chanel]

Like title says, Facebrowser rule about "sexual content" is very vague. Saying

Quote

• Rule 19 still applies to Facebrowser, you are not to post gore, GTA lore, any form of torture, inciting sexual violence, sexual content, photos that are explicit on the website - this will be deleted.

There is no specified definition of "sexual content" and it clearly depends on what kind of moderator browses facebrowser at the moment.

First spoiler will show you pictures that are uncensored, available for everybody to see, then second spoiler will show censored pictures.

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

Now what really is funny to me is the fact that I bet 99% of the censored pictures are women showing cleavage, but half naked men showing torsos, abs, pecs, weapons, drugs, heiling, having a swastika on their forehead etc. are not. - mods aren't doing anything with admireme ads either, where all it takes to register an account there and have an access to virtual porn is literally an unedited screenshot of /sdl.

So my suggestion is to either ban that kind of content from Facebrowser completely and keep the website PG, by being more specific what sexual content is for Facebrowser's moderation team, or get rid of the censorship completely and leave it as it is.

[Frezemis]

The two in the photo…. She’s wearing a see through top with her nips fully exposing. You can’t possibly be using that as a valid example.

[Frezemis]

Also to add, there’s a warning on the admireme page asking if you’re over 18.

[chanel]

Just now, Frezemis said:

The two in the photo…. She’s wearing a see through top with her nips fully exposing. You can’t possibly be using that as a valid example.

I'm sorry but it's the same level for me as Raen's photo showing whole sideboob, or pubis in her panties.

[WatchingEye]

1 minute ago, Frezemis said:

The two in the photo…. She’s wearing a see through top with her nips fully exposing. You can’t possibly be using that as a valid example.

One bad examples in a sea of good ones doesn't make this less of an argument. 

Please, if you're gonna be senseless on how you censor pictures and posts on Facebrowser, set some specific guidelines for what is accepted or not, it seems like censorship is random and everyone that moderates FB has different opinions. Yes I agree posts should be censored, but it has to make sense. 

Alternatively, much like the beloved AdmireMe platform, go ahead and make the Facebrowser moderation completely IC so we can actually interact or strike against the entity through IC means, which we can't at the moment, or better said we can but it won't result into anything seen as the ones moderating Facebrowser are select admins which may I add are sometimes even worse in erp-oriented situations. 

[chanel]

6 minutes ago, Frezemis said:

Also to add, there’s a warning on the admireme page asking if you’re over 18.

I'll act like you've never pressed you're over 18 years old even when you were a minor in the past. Because we all know, big scary red 18 is the perfect security measure

Spoiler

 

Edited September 22, 2022 by chanel

[Frezemis]

Hi!

 

Before this goes out of hand. This is not going to be one of those public arguments, if you want to go that way then I'll close this topic and future ones if you're looking to argue. If you want a civil discussion? Absolutely. I have no problem with a civil discussion.

 

4 minutes ago, chanel said:

I'll act like you've never pressed you're over 18 years old even when you were a minor in the past.

Not the point. Warning is there. If they violate it then they are breaking the rules.

 

4 minutes ago, WatchingEye said:

One bad examples in a sea of good ones doesn't make this less of an argument. 

Please, if you're gonna be senseless on how you censor pictures and posts on Facebrowser, set some specific guidelines for what is accepted or not, it seems like censorship is random and everyone that moderates FB has different opinions. Yes I agree posts should be censored, but it has to make sense. 

Alternatively, much like the beloved AdmireMe platform, go ahead and make the Facebrowser moderation completely IC so we can actually interact or strike against the entity through IC means, which we can't at the moment, or better said we can but it won't result into anything seen as the ones moderating Facebrowser are select admins which may I add are sometimes even worse in erp-oriented situations. 

One bad example which caused the uproar, yes.

Facebrowser moderation will never be IC. That's a firm no.

 

The censorship is there to censor photos that are deemed sexualizing. The prime example we've been given is if I can publicly scroll through these photos and not get backhanded by my significant other. The admireme advertising was halted and brought to an absolute minimum of them posting links in their status or bios, they are not to put previews and that situation was tackled before it got out of hand. 

 

We can have civil discussions to come to a mutual agreement or a final determination but I'm not going to have you sit there and argue over it. We are adults, we can handle this like adults.

[Steeled]

6 minutes ago, WatchingEye said:

One bad examples in a sea of good ones doesn't make this less of an argument. 

Please, if you're gonna be senseless on how you censor pictures and posts on Facebrowser, set some specific guidelines for what is accepted or not, it seems like censorship is random and everyone that moderates FB has different opinions. Yes I agree posts should be censored, but it has to make sense. 

Alternatively, much like the beloved AdmireMe platform, go ahead and make the Facebrowser moderation completely IC so we can actually interact or strike against the entity through IC means, which we can't at the moment, or better said we can but it won't result into anything seen as the ones moderating Facebrowser are select admins which may I add are sometimes even worse in erp-oriented situations. 

This ^.

 

It doesn't make much sense how IC moderation on other platforms are completely IC but when it comes to Facebrowser, it's apparently OOC? We've been given the reason that it's moderators aren't IC because of how the team is small, yet we can't npc them and if we did we'd get in trouble because they'd see it as if we're insulting the mods OOC'ly?

 

It's stated in the FB rules that the IC mod team take action against posts, yet FB users can't make comments towards the team because apparently "they don't really exist" or that "they're npcs".

 

This needs to change tbh, if the FB mod team is small, it's not the users' fault and they shouldn't really be limited with what they can say if it's criticism directed to the "IC team".

[WatchingEye]

@Frezemis

I don't think anyone's arguing about it and it's a necessary discussion this server needs to have if we are to come to a conclusion that is beneficial for every party. The problem here is not censorship in itself, again, I think it's a great solution to the problem but - the lack of consistency in it, as chanel proved above, and there's countless of other examples to be made but nobody has the time or energy to dedicate into making a montage of every photo that's uncensored on FB while some are censored.

The overall narrative here is, make censorships consistent or let it spiral into absolute chaos. 

[Biscuit]

This is pretty much outdated, I'm pretty sure @Selena has already written up new rules that are going to be released soon, which will have a new better off definition of the rules.

 

I'm gonna move this to Rule Suggestions though, for better organization, since the development team has nothing to do with this. But I'll make a ruling that I'm not removing blurs.

 

Regardless of it, just wanna state this; 

2 minutes ago, chanel said:

I'm sorry but it's the same level for me as Raen's photo showing whole sideboob, or pubis in her panties.

 

I don't mark pictures as NSFW unless they've been obviously reported, or I clearly see it in my feed, if I'm unsure about something I let it be reported before investigating further. If you have an issue with another person's posting, just report the post, it's anonymous and it'll get reviewed. We're only looking for the current rules in terms of marking pictures as NSFW, if you see pictures that you don't want to see: Either block the user or report the image, most of the time, for example, using your exact example, I never even noticed, personally any of Raen's photos or Pubis' photos violating the rules, therefor I never acted upon it, but that's because I probably never saw the photos.

We added censorship to restrict sexual content, so that people can safely browse facebrowser at work, but because we don't use AI like Instagram and Facebook does, it's all manual review and some stuff will slip through the cracks obviously and if you don't click the simple report button then nothing will be done about it.

 

If I see it, I'll act upon it, basically. But I'm not removing the blur function from facebrowser, I worked on it for far too long to do a 180 on it, with the fact that I'm also implementing a function for users to blur their own posts.

 

In my eyes this is what I've observed happening with facebrowser for awhile now, ever since it's launched;

 

Basically, people want change but don't like change, is the best way one of my friends put it.