> When I Google something in a meeting or in front of my mother, I do
not want sexual results to appear because some term has an alternate meaning.
The solution for this is to have a cookie to show NSFW content or not, and if you have it set then the content is still there but you get a box in front of it saying "you have chosen not to see this", so that you actually know there is something relevant there that you're not seeing.
> And then there are still countless sites on the internet devoted entirely to sex. Keeping them largely separated seems smart.
The problem with kicking people off the platform or otherwise purposely preventing discovery is that the lines aren't nearly clear enough as would be so convenient.
For example, sometimes sex workers need to get together with civil liberties organizations, or media organizations, or the general public. If you silo the sex workers off into their own universe, how does that happen? They can't come to the big sites because they're immediately banned, because attempting to communicate about their lived experience gets them flagged by an algorithm that isn't smart enough to understand context. But the others can't come to them because their sites are exclusively NSFW, which means companies ban the sites or employees fear being punished for visiting them on company time.
Then we get more garbage like SESTA, which the people it was supposed to "protect" hate because it makes their lives less safe, but they have no voice in the matter because companies decided the public isn't supposed to hear from them.
> And while what happened to Tumblr was very sad, I'm sure other sites will replace it... it's the internet after all.
Sure, after years to rebuild another community. But then what happens when that site gets popular enough for a major company to buy it and decide they want to do the same thing?
Having your community destroyed every time it becomes sufficiently popular is a real problem.