If it were to mean “I’m wasting time on the company dollar” then much of the internet should have the NSFW label slapped on it. LOLcats included. But there is generally nothing “offensive” on that site. The majority of people won’t get sacked for looking at pictures of cats, even if they should be working.

Erotic nurses – that’s another story.

I think this is a really thought provoking post – thanks!

In different lines of work, the standards of what is accepted in the workplace are necessarily different based on both the public facing front and the scope of that workplace’s work. A kid working at McDonald’s has no internet access beyond checking his/her iPhone while on a potty break, so at that extreme it becomes a non-issue because the workplace is so restrictive. At the other extreme, a person working for an adult film studio probably won’t face suit for viewing something on the internet just given the scope of the company’s work.

But internet sites like this one are available to both (what? you don’t think McDonald’s employees are regular contributors?) and so we play by a lowest common denominator rule. It’s no different than broadcast TV in that regard i guess, but I still find myself going back to that old thought: why isn’t the protection afforded to free speech extended to the freedom to hear (or view) it? I know it’s naive, but really, without such protection, corporate culture is slowly killing free speech by killing the freedom to hear it.

Maybe i’m taking this too far, but it seems like every cycle of the economy has the net effect of pushing us to work more hours than we did before. Will we reach a point where our social lives slowly dry up? If our personal lives eventually disappear, will free speech go with it?

If we follow Nancy’s generalization about people who sit at desks, then 911 operators aren’t doing anything useful. Maybe she hates them because the rapid response allows people to arrive at the hospital alive rather then dead. If they arrive dead it’s less work for her. If they arrive alive it actually creates more work for her and it eats into her Grey’s time.

1: If you’re at a desk you aren’t working.
2: If you are, it isn’t useful.
3: If you’re at a desk you’re probably an insurance exec.
4: All bloggers are fat guys in shorts with cheetos stains.
5: Bloggers aren’t sexually valid humans.

Fortunately there aren’t any stupid stereotypes about nurses. You know, like all they’re doing is trying to lasso a doctor so they can spend the rest of their lives on the couch watching Oprah and eating bon-bons.

Now that we have THAT out of the way, did you have anything intelligent to add?

In fact I don’t think I’ve ever seen NSFW in any context other then nudity. For example I’ve never seen a webcomic labeled as “NSFW” but if my boss saw me looking at comics at work, I’d be in deep trouble for not doing my job. Same thing if I was reading an article about the latest computer game complete with screen shots, and no “NSFW” label there.

I do find it interesting that we label it “NSFW” and not “Not Safe for Public” because lets be honest, the stuff that’s labeled NSFW you probably also don’t want your elementary school kid standing behind you viewing, or the librarian, or the cute barista that you’re pretty sure is in high school and feel a bit dirty for checking out.

Lara Amber

The point is, things labeled NSFW tend to be more visually eye catching… like a half naked woman, or the word ‘fuck’ (either repeated enough times to warrant easy notice or in big, capital letters). A news article or a sports score is a little less innocuous.

Let’s say anything you’re doing online that’s not work gets you yelled at (checking on your fantasy football team, maybe), things labeled NSFW are more likely to get you fired or yelled at more severely (say, looking at a picture of a highly sexualized female with her hand in between her legs).

The NSFW tag doesn’t say, “That picture is shameful, and you should be ashamed for looking at it.” Nor does it say, “This is porn, not art.” It just says, as I said before, “This is something that will be more likely to catch the eye and when it does, be more likely to get you yelled at (or, yes, potentially fired). This ain’t no hockey score.”

@mentalswitch: The doll one I remember, and yeah, if your the type of site that gives NSFW warnings (and not all sites do — if you want your site to be known as a place where any content might be of that nature without warning, that’s fine), then yes, I think it probably would need one. A lot of regular Digg submitters would add one, I think.

The fishnet picture I don’t recall… so I can’t comment.

This whole thing started when the post was relabeled NSFW and while not making a stink about it I was really confused. Really? This pic is NSFW? There is more provocative stuff on CNN, MSNBC, HuffPo and none of that stuff bears the same label. I was confused about what actually made it earn that label and other than ‘my company might fire me’ I didn’t really get an answer. That’s not a lot to go on and the notion of that pic putting someone in that predicament, given the fact that they are already on this site at work, blew my mind.

As for the target, my last post was a creepy doll faced girl with the caption of “I ate your soul”. That’s more work safe? And my post before that one was a shot of a girl in a corset and deteriorating fishnets holding a a knife. Also, no objections on that one.

I don’t mind my stuff being labelled NSFW when it’s appropriate. The site with the rest of my work is most decidedly NSFW if you wander into the Models gallery or some of the Events galleries. Sometimes the front page is NSFW. In this case I was shocked because I had made my decision to post that picture with the guideline of ‘not pushing the PG-13/R rating boundary at all’ and it still caused a fuss.

I don’t want people to get fired, I don’t mind putting my stuff under a cut, I simply didn’t understand the NSFW label in this case and my subsequent questions appear to have pushed a Bonesparkly button.

From my experience, NSFW content is more likely to match Boney’s interpretation than it is your own, Josh.

Reading this post a second time, it becomes a bit more clear the point you’re trying to make is that society is too puritanical. But your snark around the term NSFW doesn’t play well with me. NSFW isn’t a judgment of artistic merit nor does it, as you say, “convey a general social verdict that shame should be attached to the work.” That’s wrong… it’s a warning for people looking at this stuff at work. That’s all.

Which is why tying the term NSFW into your argument muddies your points about, for example, the NSFW-ness of prime time television. Most of us don’t watch prime time TV at work. Of if we do, we have the type of job where NSFW warnings mostly don’t apply.

Sooo… good points, poorly argued, in my humble opinion. Sorry.

Not Safe For Work, loosely translated, means, “This link will take you somewhere that contains something that will catch the eye (such as a picture or colorful language) that will make it more likely that someone glancing over your shoulder will notice it isn’t related to your job. So if your boss is the type to get upset about you goofing off at work and looking at things that aren’t work related, avoid this one until you get home.”

It doesn’t imply, “This is something you shouldn’t be looking at.” Rather, it implies, “If you’re not being paid to look at stuff like this, this one is probably more likely to get you in trouble with your boss.”

For many people, their boss might look over and see CNN.com and not think twice. But they see a half clothed woman and that’s when they say, “Johnson, quit goofing off and get back to work.”

That’s all NSFW means. Now if you want to argue that more people in charge in corporate environments should be open to letting employees look at provocative art during office hours, then fine. But that’s not really what you argued here. (I think you picked the wrong target…)

Thanks for the support and the enlightenment as to the classification of that post. it’s so true. I can only imagine someone delivering a Victoria’s Secret catalog to said colleague’s place of employment. Are they gonna 86 the mailman?

I will be working on a related article of my own here shortly, maybe post Halloween.