[Site Rules] Treat Gore as NSFW or at Least Ban it from Thumbnails
I had this problem earlier today where a post had the thumbnail of an "aborted fetus" and the poster refused to change it even after I requested him to. The thumbnails also from the popping tribe tend to be disgusting as well. I have this problem with Imgur where I'll be browsing the front page and will randomly run into a picture of an impaled hand or a "feel good" post of a dog rescue where the first pic is of the dog with multiple infection patches and possibly a limb looking ready to fall off. I don't want the same thing to end up with Snapzu, especially since we have the ability to set the thumbnail photo so there's no need for gore to be in it. It would also be nice if other common phobia triggers (such as blood, spiders, vomit, etc) were restricted from a thumbnail.
Join the Discussion
Not labeling gore/adult content as NSFW when it's in fact adult content or gore is against the rules. If we miss something like this, please be sure to contact us and we will disable/remove the content in question.
Good to hear, thanks! I had originally thought about phrasing this post as a question in the lounge to see what Snapzu's stance was, but I figured just to go ahead and post it as a suggestion to save time in case gore wasn't considered NSFW.
Gosh you know it never occurred to me to mark /t/popping snaps as NSFW, but I suspect that says more about my views on what counts as gore. Point taken, I will mark things accordingly from now on.
I am, however, in total agreement with you about the foetus - totally unnecessary if not even pictured in the article. On the other hand, I don't think that the rescued dog incident can be considered in the same way as an aborted foetus. Animal rescue organisations habitually show the animals in distress (as well as once they have recovered) in an attempt to nudge the public consciousness. Sometimes people need to be repulsed.
It also doesn't seem reasonable to remove phobia triggers across the board, but certain things like blood, vomit and dead bodies count as gore when they are displayed for the purposes of gratification, but not when they are shown as a result of war. There again those pictures are intended as a plea to our collective conscience.
So, I think that stuff to do with humans, if posted for pleasure or out of a desire to shock should be classified NSFW. On the other hand stuff to do with animals, be it dogs or spiders, shouldn't.
I saw the thumbnail you mention as well and it was well and truly unmistakable for anything other than a bloody fetus. I went to the site to read the article, fully expecting the thumbnail image to be in there ... but it wasn't. No where on that page was a picture that matched (or even was bloody) the thumbnail image. Which struck me as the user who created the snap chose that particular image, and in choosing that image, most likely knew full well the reaction that image would get. And if that is the case, I doubt anyone putting something like that up for shock value would care to put a NSFW tag on it as that would not get the "pearl clutching" reaction they seem to want.
And I say the above not as a wide generalization for every person posting with a thumbnail with a gory image, but just for this particular one. I also concede that I don't know that users true intentions, but am giving my opinion.
It was definitely intended as a shock image. I'm pretty sure it wasn't even real as I know most of those anti-abortion images are spoofed in some way.
However, I think making stuff like that against the rules will give us a better way to handle it as then it'll give a legitimate reason to downvote or report, and will maybe keep people from posting gore that wasn't intended for the shock value (such as a news post about the violence in country that would have lots of bloody images and naturally the poster might consider putting one of those images in the thumbnail).
Awww... I thought this was an Al Gore beating up session.
Guys! I'm super cereal right now! ManBearPig is a major threat!
I don't know about phobias, that's going a little too extreme as people can have phobias about everything and anything. Like I hate spiders, snakes as much as the next person, but images don't creep me out... unless it's a live feed from my room and there's one coming right for me.
Why don't you act like a grown up and just look the other way? Why should something be banned because it offends you? Who do you think you are?
I think the better question is WHERE do you think YOU are? Snapzu bans offensive content so I'm very much within my right to suggest other offensive content to consider restricting. If being a grown up is looking the other way when it comes to things that are offensive, society would still be in the dark ages.
Being an adult means allowing freedom of speech and not expecting everything to please you.