Robin Adams

@admin Again, you keep saying content warnings are not enough, but not offering an argument why not.

I completely agree that people who do not want to be exposed to pornography should not be.

Content warnings ensure nobody sees a pornographic image unless they have chosen to see it.

Why is that not enough?

@admin @staff

"Adding the NSFW hashtag, a CW and blurring images is not a sufficient firewall.

I support free expression, but free expression still needs sensible boundaries so public social spaces remain usable for people who do not want explicit sexual material in their feed."

So, this is the most important point. It's still not clear why you think CWs and blurring is enough.

I think a tagging and content warning culture is a wonderful thing. It is a consent model, instead of a top-down "everyone follows these rules" model.

Those who want to see a type of porn and those who want to make it can find each other. Those who do not want to see it can rest assured they will not be shown one without their consent.

Content warnings are a consent check. "Hey, do you want to see a gay porn image? I won't show it to you unless you say yes."

If you click past a content warning, then click again to unblur an image, you have said twice "Yes, I really really do want to see this picture".