I feel that the content warning on are not really useful, if there is no way to tell the user what's the reason for the CW. On mastodon you get an input-field where you can write why the content is behind a CW, on pixelfed not.
People have very different reasons why they put content behind a CW, and those reasons might not apply for all viewers. Therefore a short CW description is IMO absolutly necessary for this feature to work properly.

What do you think about it?

· · Web · 2 · 0 · 2

Seriously? Nobody has an opinion about this?

Also just noticed on the label for a (over an image) is "NSFW".
If someone puts a content warning over a piece of food because they think it might trigger someone, I do not feel that the label "Not safe for work" applies here.
Or am I missing something?

@aramloosman I don’t use pixel fed but I agree with you. So many commonly used digital terms have been outgrown.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Generic Mastodon instance hosted by the FairSocialNet association.