There is a big difference between mild NSFW and full on porno. Suppose there is a News story with photo/video but it's a little bit graphic or violent. Nobody is jacking off to that. Maybe shouldn't view it at work, but in the library is fine.
Maybe it's a funny meme pic but there's a nip slip situation going on. No biggy; it should probably be tagged NSFW. Probably don't want it showing up at actual work. But I want to enable this kind of content away from work without a bunch of actual porn showing up in my feed.
There should be a porn tag. It's not the same as NSFW.
EDIT: The two main devs have done some amazing work here, but as I understand it they are totally booked for the foreseeable future. My rust chops aren't quite up to snuff (yet) and my frontend chops are non-existent, so it might be a quite while before I'm up to speed enough to make a meaningful contribution. In the meantime just thought I'd point out the issue.
I'm thinking that having a generic "NSFW" flag and then a bunch of different tags you could use as modifiers would be better. "NSFW" would trigger the "blur/hide/whatever this" code, and you could filter based on #porn, #gore, #semprini, whatever, for the specific kind of stuff you're interested in/not interested in.
I'm very defensive when it comes to NSFW. But I think "NSFW flag with mandatory reason from a drop down" (e.g. nudity, sex, violence, gore, explicit-language) is the best solution which satisfy both. That is actually a great idea.
Just a UX nitpick: a drop down is usally for a single choice question but this should be multiple choice to avoid unintentional mislabeling.
I agree. A thing can be sensitive content for more than one reason at the same time.
This kind of solves the issue of cross content as well. I may be okay with seeing porn, but I don't want to see the like gore porn. So something tagged gore, and nudity can just be hidden from me thanks to me blocking anything tagged gore.