Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Firefox Addon to Filter NSFW Content

addons.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 80 posts

Re: Show HN: Firefox Addon to Filter NSFW Content

#61

Post by cstrahan »

Sakos wrote: post #54
User23 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That reminds me of repackaging a traditional historical male dominated marriage, including occasional corporal punishment, as a BDSM kink to make it normal again. You think you’re seeing a woman in a dress, but actually it’s fetish gear showing her submission.

What are you talking about? There are plenty of male subs looking to be dominated by women. And either way, it's generally understood to be primarily a sexual kink only consented to by both parties. If it's not consensual, then it's not BDSM, it's abuse. BDSM is also wildly different from marriage of any kind - you might be thinking of 24/7 power exchange?

I don’t know if comment you are responding to was edited after response, but you may want to reread it:

> That reminds me of repackaging a traditional historical male dominated marriage, including occasional corporal punishment, as a BDSM kink to make it normal again. You think you’re seeing a woman in a dress, but actually it’s fetish gear showing her submission.

That’s clearly a joke about normalizing historically traditional roles between men and women, with the man being dominant and woman being submissive. Says nothing about there being men wanting (or not wanting) to submit.

Re: Show HN: Firefox Addon to Filter NSFW Content

#62

Post by _zephyr »

ivanmontillam wrote: post #15
jaimex2 wrote: post #11

I'm guessing this will never run on Chrome, especially after manifest v3?

Your guess is correct. By killing the filtering possibility, Chrome made itself a weaker browser from the NSFW-prevention standpoint as well.

While this addon can never run on Chrome, you may find this other project to be of interest: https://github.com/nsfw-filter/nsfw-filter I've talked with the developers there from time to time.

Re: Show HN: Firefox Addon to Filter NSFW Content

#63

Post by _zephyr »

laputan_machine wrote: post #7

Maybe I am being stupid, but I cannot see anywhere where you describe what you consider to be "NSFW"

The "About this extension" section has in the top paragraph:

  It targets pornography, borderline sexualized content, as well as other graphic images that are not safe for work (NSFW) or may be inappropriate for children.
And then more details as the other commenter pointed out: https://github.com/wingman-jr-addon/model#dataset

Your response is interesting because it tells me you maybe expected it to be in a different spot - was there a specific spot you were looking at? Might help me improve the descriptions.

Re: Show HN: Firefox Addon to Filter NSFW Content

#64

Post by _zephyr »

bsnnkv wrote: post #45

Looks like a great tool for recovering addicts everywhere. I hope to see more innovation in this space, particularly on mobile.

What kind of innovation would you hope for on mobile? In theory this can work for Firefox for Android but ... the experience isn't very smooth yet.

Re: Show HN: Firefox Addon to Filter NSFW Content

#65

Post by chownie »

gjm11 wrote: post #48
IgorPartola wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dollars to donuts, I bet porn has a lot more demand than porn addiction help.

To be a bit more explicit than badrabbit about why the symmetry isn't there: The problem a filter like this is meant to solve is: You go on the web reading random stuff, and occasionally you run into something pornographic when that isn't what you're after, and it's unwanted (because you're at work, because you find pornography disturbing, or whatever). So the problem its inverse would solve would be: You go on the w…

> So far as I am aware, those are not problems anyone has.

Rare moment I can chime in to the opposite, this is an issue and there is an anti-sfw filter built in to some sites.

The use case is for imageboards primarily where trivial arguments spring up easily, the "fap time" sfw filters remove text only posts and posts without nsfw imagery.

Re: Show HN: Firefox Addon to Filter NSFW Content

#66

Post by bluefirebrand »

_8j50 wrote: post #39
gcr wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

do you see the difference between "user stumbles across sexual content" (the previous conversation topic) and "showing porn to people against their consent"?

How do you mean? Presuming a person give consent by default and making it public and accesible without warning and explicit consent is the same as ... well not asking consent . Same logic as nude texting and flashing.

You give consent to be served search results that match best fit with some content filtering based on best intentions.

Implied is an understanding that despite best intentions of the search provider, stuff may slip through.

This is vastly different than being flashed.

Re: Show HN: Firefox Addon to Filter NSFW Content

#67

Post by Scharkenberg »

PenguinCoder wrote: post #57
Scharkenberg wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

General reminder: BDSM does not imply "man dom, woman sub". In fact it doesn't even imply how many people are involved and what their genders are. Edit: Why am I being downvoted for pointing out something objectively true?

Why are you asking _why am I getting downvoted _ ? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Because I was at -1 after just 10 minutes and no one was engaging in discussion about why what I said would not be correct?

And, please, let's not pretend to be socially inept machines - everyone here chooses to ignore a guideline or two when it's convenient - at least I was looking for actual feedback, as I was sincerely puzzled by the situation.

Re: Show HN: Firefox Addon to Filter NSFW Content

#68

Post by User23 »

Sakos wrote: post #54
User23 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That reminds me of repackaging a traditional historical male dominated marriage, including occasional corporal punishment, as a BDSM kink to make it normal again. You think you’re seeing a woman in a dress, but actually it’s fetish gear showing her submission.

What are you talking about? There are plenty of male subs looking to be dominated by women. And either way, it's generally understood to be primarily a sexual kink only consented to by both parties. If it's not consensual, then it's not BDSM, it's abuse. BDSM is also wildly different from marriage of any kind - you might be thinking of 24/7 power exchange?

It’s entirely possible to view a traditional patriarchal marriage as a fully consented to 24/7 power exchange with domestic service and impregnation kinks to round it out. That’s not abuse, it’s just a kind of scene you may not personally be into.

Re: Show HN: Firefox Addon to Filter NSFW Content

#69

Post by _8j50 »

alphabettsy wrote: post #60
_8j50 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No no no! You and the parent comment are ansolutley twisting what I am saying and turning it into a personal attack. I can't believe this, are you saying naked people don't sexually please other people? That's basically all I said. Internal shame my ass. How about I use the samw logic and claim you have an internal perversion and desire to abuse others against their will, would that be fair? It works by your messed u…

People are offering their perspective and refuting your claims. You don’t think hyperbolic statements like “porn is the most addictive thing known to man” weren’t going to be challenged? Sexuality is a very normal part of human life, even if someone does get aroused in the image example (I don’t always from images even with a very high libido), what is the problem with that? I’ve been places where nudity is normal su…

Challenged is of course fine but the challenge being accusations and attacks is not fine.

My claim about the addictiveness of porn was an opinion based on what I have leanred and observed. Of course I welcome anyone to show me anything more addictive than your own body and mind.

There is no problem with getting aroused or with sexuality, you and others so far keep twisting what I am saying to be an attempt to police sexuality. Rule #1 of any sexual interaction is consent. If you want to see naked people go ahead. If you want to show your naked self and arouse others, get their consent or at least do it in a way where others can be forewarned and decide to choose or not choose to be part of that experience. Don't take people's choice away so you can feel validated or whatever your reason is.

If you want to go to a nude beach, you are consenting to do that, I am clearly not talking about that. I am talking about getting nude at a normal beach where people who chose to avoid a nude beach go to and force that experience on them, if they get aroused then you just made them part of a sexual encounter without their consent. This is sexually abusive behavior.

Moreover, you people are sociopaths if you don't understand the simple fact that you live in a society and you have to function without harming or harassing others. No significant burden is places upon you other than to get consent from people who you know have a good chance of experiencing sexual arousal with you as the subject before you make them part of that interaction. I mean, I even understand a city where public nudity is allowed so long as visitors to that city are notified when they travel there. I am not even complaining about porn sites that ask your age and let you know the site contains nudity before you see the content.

Re: Show HN: Firefox Addon to Filter NSFW Content

#70

Post by _8j50 »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #66
_8j50 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you mean? Presuming a person give consent by default and making it public and accesible without warning and explicit consent is the same as ... well not asking consent . Same logic as nude texting and flashing.

You give consent to be served search results that match best fit with some content filtering based on best intentions. Implied is an understanding that despite best intentions of the search provider, stuff may slip through. This is vastly different than being flashed.

My comment was more general than search results. All the major search engines as you said make best effort to exclude nsfw content by default and I have no problem against that.
Post reply on HN