[HN Gopher] Chrome, Firefox extension that blocks NSFW images us...
___________________________________________________________________
Chrome, Firefox extension that blocks NSFW images using TensorFlow
JS
Author : bishalb
Score : 123 points
Date : 2020-08-23 11:21 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| solarkraft wrote:
| Why would I care about not seeing NSFW images?
|
| What I really _do_ care about is not seeing worthless clickbait.
| That makes me endlessly angry. Could you build a filter like that
| on top of this?
| cheeze wrote:
| Uh, because I'm at work and wouldn't mind an additional layer
| of protection.
|
| Because I live stream and people try to trick me into viewing
| NSFW content on stream.
|
| Is this really a question?
| yetanothermonk wrote:
| Hey, Long here, I meant to keep this private for a while, but
| I'm building this thing. getpuritan dot com for now. My
| prototype is a chrome extension that blocks clickbait using a
| ML model that placed top 3 in a clickbait prediction
| competition, but it's really rough. My email is longintuition
| at protonmail if you'd like to help me test--can also send a
| video so you can see how it works
| goto11 wrote:
| > Why would I care about not seeing NSFW images?
|
| The issue with NSFW images is not _you_ seeing it on your own
| computer, it is other people seeing it on your computer (e.g.
| while walking by or for some other reason).
| bullman wrote:
| disappointed this is not called "hotdog / not hotdog"
| m3kw9 wrote:
| From experience 99.9% of the time unless I visit a porn site
| purposely or some warez site by accident, or questionable reddit
| channels, I see no NSFW. However I do see some benefits if this
| was for kids.
| yonixw wrote:
| Sound like you have ad-block or avoid sketchy (pirate)
| websites.
| esperent wrote:
| Adblock is a far simpler and probably more effective solution
| than this, with a host of other benefits such as speeding up
| websites, whereass presumably this extension will slow down
| the browsing experience quite a bit. Given that, the only
| reason I can see for using this is if adblock was not doing a
| good enough job alone.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| Preventing the last 0.1% could be meaningful though, depending
| on your environment.
| amelius wrote:
| I want this but for ads.
| ndm000 wrote:
| Shameless plug - I've been working on something similiar, but
| with a different aim.
|
| https://github.com/nmurray1984/porn-blocker-chrome-extension
|
| I found that the hardest problem to solve was the prevanlence of
| false positives. Even if you have a low false positive rate, it's
| still very likely to have an image blocked regularly just due to
| volume.
|
| For that reason, the focus of my plugin is - for users that are
| OK with it - contributing URLs that are not NSFW but have been
| blocked. The extension includes a right-click menu option to do
| so.
| antpls wrote:
| Assuming you meant some SFW images are mistakenly blocked, it
| is an easier situation than with true negative.
|
| Once an image tested positive with your first model, you could
| run a second more CPU intensive model (but also more accurate)
| on it.
| ndm000 wrote:
| Great idea. MobileNetv2 is the model used currently due to
| it's small footprint (I used transfer learning on a dataset
| of NSFW and SFW images). A more robust model ran on all
| positives could improve performance overal.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Assuming you have a notably more accurate algorithm. It's a
| difficult problem even with infinite computing power.
| umvi wrote:
| Now just make a version that whites-out NSFW text in e-books and
| market it to Utahns as a way to read PG-13 versions of Game of
| Thrones books and you'll be rich.
|
| However, you'll probably also be sued into oblivion by angry
| authors/publishers who don't like people modifying what they read
| in any way.
| KMnO4 wrote:
| I know that's tongue in cheek, but I'd really appreciate having
| a NSFW text filter.
|
| Some of my CX team is getting harassed by trolls who send
| profane messages and racial slurs through the Zendesk Chat
| interface. Zendesk does not have a way to filter out profanity
| (for Chat at least; there are options for emails or tickets).
|
| I've found simple client side extensions that can censor words,
| but a better approach would use NLP to grasp the context.
|
| "I hope you die" contains the same words as "My <product> got
| wet, I hope it didn't die", but with vastly different
| intention.
| dexen wrote:
| Google Jigsaw might have what you are looking for, under the
| "Harassment" headline [1]. Note however both Google
| (Alphabet, really) and the tool specifically, were accused of
| various forms of bias [2] by various sides of discourse.
|
| --
|
| [1] https://jigsaw.google.com/issues/
|
| [2] for example https://boingboing.net/2019/08/14/white-
| aligned-english.html
| aasasd wrote:
| I happen to not be afraid of boobs, so ever since my days on
| Reddit I wish for blocking of random gore instead. This is
| weirdly pertinent sometimes on DDG's image search.
|
| Edit: to clarify, I'm not afraid of some killing either, thanks
| to the pop culture of the past seventy years or so. Now, why eye-
| hurting images of bodily damage pop up on rather innocent
| searches--that's a haunting mystery. On Reddit, the 'NSFW' label
| is used equally for a vaguely sexually suggestive shape or a
| close-up more suitable for a surgical journal. As if I didn't get
| plenty of suggestiveness just from music videos anyway! So my
| long-standing wish was for an 'NSFL' filter instead.
| azalemeth wrote:
| I have never understood how acts of love (at best) or
| reproduction (at the least) are considered in some societies to
| be dangerous, shocking, and in need of the strictest censorship
| -- or at the very least, not on prime-time TV. Yet acts of war,
| killing, maiming, and violence in general are often the
| mainstay of entertainment.
|
| Sex is part of human nature - and, I would argue, a much bigger
| and better part of it than violence and aggression. Why do we
| hide from it?
| jpxw wrote:
| People want to avoid the porn industry because it's sleazy,
| predatory, and reduces sex to a commodity.
| rimliu wrote:
| And murder is ok?
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Porn is to murder as romance is to self-defence.
| bishalb wrote:
| You deduced that from his comment?
| Flimm wrote:
| If porn needs to be filtered then it needs to be filtered
| regardless of attitudes towards of depictions of violence,
| and if it doesn't, it doesn't. We shouldn't choose as a
| baseline depictions of violence.
|
| Many people say they are negatively affected by porn
| addiction (whether consumers, or partners of consumers, or
| parents, or people who feel objectified, even some people in
| the industry), and they feel strongly about it. Just because
| sex is a good part of human nature doesn't invalidate that in
| their eyes. In fact, it is precisely because some consider
| sex to be good and precious that they want to be much more
| careful about viewing it or depicting it, and I agree with
| that.
|
| The number of societies that don't want censored sexuality is
| near zero. It is not just "some societies". And there are
| plenty of societies that desire that more than western ones.
| umvi wrote:
| Sex is complicated. Sex is not always a beautiful expression
| of love between committed partners. Sometimes it's a casual
| pursuit of pleasure. Sometimes it's a whimsical act of
| exploration.
|
| In many cases sex is the direct cause of much sorrow, misery,
| and emotional damage. Maybe your partner cheated on you.
| Maybe you got pregnant and your partner left. Maybe alcohol
| was involved. Maybe you are lonely and got addicted to
| pornography. Maybe you didn't use contraceptives and are now
| seeking (or went and got) an abortion. If you look around in
| poor communities, you'll find a big source of poverty is...
| unprotected sex. It turns out, you can pretty much ruin your
| life as a teenager and guarantee you'll stay in poverty your
| whole life if you get pregnant and have a baby while you are
| in middle school/high school.
|
| Unlike war and murder, sex is something most people will
| participate in (in some form or another). So I would argue
| that it's more important than ever to consider the types of
| sexual messages we send in media. Do we want to promote
| sexual relationships between committed partners or do we want
| to promote wanton promiscuity? I would argue that whichever
| you choose will have an impact on some non-negligible % of
| the future choices of the viewers. To be clear, I think we
| also need to be careful of depictions of extreme
| gore/violence as well, but for slightly different reasons.
|
| In general, I'm of the opinion that implicit > explicit for
| both sex and violence in media, but perhaps there is a
| time/place for being explicit (i.e. so people understand what
| really happened during the Holocaust, etc).
| iso947 wrote:
| For some reason in America half a butt cheek is worthy of a 15+
| rating in films, but "general release" films are fine with
| burnt bodies hanging from trees
| liability wrote:
| America doesn't have a '15+' rating, lots of 'PG' movies have
| butts in them, and what 'G' rated movie has burnt corpses
| hanging from trees??
| zxcvbn4038 wrote:
| Missed opportunity - where is the browser extension that makes
| all of the images NSFW?
|
| You leave your laptop unlocked and suddenly it looks like the
| nude bomb went off (https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0081249/).
| nextaccountic wrote:
| Does the Tensorflow model run in JS? How fast is that?
|
| Would it be feasible to run the model in wasm or in the GPU?
| rtz12 wrote:
| I just installed this, and my whole browser grinds to a halt
| when I load a page...
| langitbiru wrote:
| Yes, tensorflow model can run on JS. I did that when developing
| a Deep Learning product, PredictSalary
| (https://predictsalary.com). The problem is not the model, but
| the TensorflowJS library (using Node) is big (8MB) after
| webpack-ing it (even after using compressing flag).
|
| So I decided to move the inference to the server.
|
| It's fast but I didn't toy with GPU setting when running
| Tensorflow model on JS.
| rlayton2 wrote:
| I can't speak for this specific model/extension, but "most"
| neural networks aren't that big at the end of the day, and you
| are just a few matrix dot products away from getting your
| classification (of course, I'm drastically simplifying).
|
| Its the training that takes forever, due to the fact all those
| numbers need tweaking. However one you have the model,
| classifying is pretty fast.
| imvetri wrote:
| Are there tools to visualise trained model,?
| rlayton2 wrote:
| Something like this: https://www.tensorflow.org/tensorboard
| imvetri wrote:
| Something to visualise the models, the one in this link
|
| https://github.com/nsfw-filter/nsfw-
| filter/tree/master/dist/...
| dc_count wrote:
| Use netron to visualize model:
|
| https://lutzroeder.github.io/netron/?url=https://raw.gith
| ubu...
| halflings wrote:
| This is amazing. Thanks for sharing! Didn't know about
| netron.
| tantalor wrote:
| > Wait, it's all a DAG?
|
| >> Always has been.
| dc_count wrote:
| The brain is a heavily cyclic graph. We're not there yet
| ;)
| refresher wrote:
| I've jokingly / seriously been waiting for things like this. I'm
| the type to go overboard with filtering and mute lists on
| twitter, but images are harder to deal with. I did have a 60,000
| line pastebin that was used in conjunction with a Chrome
| extension to block Wojack and Pepe memes on 4chan using md5
| hashes, but something not rely on specific hashes is obviously
| superior.
|
| One day someone will release the 'detect and block anything
| resembling kpop' extension for Twitter and I'll be happy.
| solarkraft wrote:
| > block Wojack and Pepe memes on 4chan
|
| What are you there for, then?
| nabaraz wrote:
| to collect dataset?
| [deleted]
| justanotherhn wrote:
| I expressed some interest at some point of hiding profiles
| which contained a certain phrase in their bio and got
| downvoted. Does anyone know of any extentions that can do this?
| justnotworthit wrote:
| I'd love a youtube comment filter that instantly removes
| anyone with a meme avatar or famous world leader avatar. I
| can skip the opinions of Hitler, pepe and JC Denton.
| sergiotapia wrote:
| I would use this for sure. Certain phrases are great flags
| for me to know "I won't be interested in anything this person
| has to say."
| raister wrote:
| My kid would just turn off the extension and keep his business
| going... :'(
| jankiehodgpodge wrote:
| You can easily enforce installations of extensions via Chrome's
| admin templates.
| Darmody wrote:
| This is not a parental control software. It's made for you to
| be able to browse the web without worrying about NSFW images.
| speedgoose wrote:
| You can also simply not worry about NSFW images. If you don't
| like them, scroll more or close the webpage.
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| In the USA having something like that on your monitor could
| be considered sexual harassment if someone else could see
| it.
| Darmody wrote:
| I've heard a lot of times about the "American puritanism"
| but this blows my mind.
|
| Is it true that male teachers can't put their hand in
| their pockets because they could touch their penis or
| something like that?
| [deleted]
| pjmlp wrote:
| Luckily in Europe, that is hardly an issue as most countries
| are quite alright with their bodies and sexualities.
| detaro wrote:
| I'm fairly sure quite a few European women would be happy
| about an optional NSFW filter for their social media DMs.
| [deleted]
| saagarjha wrote:
| I'm curious: how would you boss react to such an image
| appearing on your monitor? Is this considered "OK" in a
| European workplace?
| [deleted]
| Darmody wrote:
| That depends.
|
| If you're doing your work and something NSFW pops on your
| screen I doubt your boss will give a fuck.
|
| If you're spending your time watching NSFW stuff in your
| work time he'll probably be mad, not because of the NSFW
| stuff but because you're not doing your work.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Probably it would have been forwarded by the boss to
| start with.
|
| We don't have issues with nudity on prime time, although
| explicit stuff tends to be shown after 11pm.
|
| In some countries sex shop contents are visible from the
| street, and you can buy some kinds of toys on the local
| supermarket.
|
| And to be honest there is hardly anything left to hide
| when being at the beach or some parks.
| numpad0 wrote:
| You guys are pretty harsh on manga style arts though
| pjmlp wrote:
| Depends I never had any issue on manga comics stores.
| Darmody wrote:
| I don't mind about NSFW stuff while I work and my co-
| workers don't care either. I don't know if it's because
| we're from Europe or what.
|
| Most of the annoying stuff is blocked with uBlock anyway.
| fastball wrote:
| When I was a kid I probably would have trained this but in
| reverse so that I _only_ see NSFW images.
| EForEndeavour wrote:
| Sigh... _forks repo_
| kmfrk wrote:
| This is great, except it'd be really, really great with some sort
| of placeholder image for the blocked images if possible.
| zmix wrote:
| I'd rather have every news about the Trumpeteer blocked.
| gftsantana wrote:
| I've been wanting for something like this ever since we by
| accident looked at our 9 year old daughter's screen. She likes to
| draw characters from her favorite cartoon and searches for images
| on the web. Apparently there's a porn actress with the same name
| as one of the characters... DDG was set to "strict", so no full
| nudity or any explicit act, but still _very_ NSFW.
| moooo99 wrote:
| DDG is kind of fascinating. Ever since I switched to DDG as my
| main search engine, I feel like the internet is 90% porn.
| Although that's probably not far off, I'd prefer seeing
| relevant search results instead.
| detaro wrote:
| Far from that bad IMHO, but it has a weird tendency to
| surface NSFW results, yes.
| Santosh83 wrote:
| Anyone know of a tool which can process videos (movies) and
| black/blur out nude scenes and make the film "family friendly"?
| The processing doesn't have to be realtime...
|
| Just to expand: there are many excellent films which are not
| "family friendly" only because of 1 or 2 nude scenes which aren't
| even germane to the overall plot in many cases. I often wished
| there was a tool or SaaS that could detect such scenes and cut or
| blur them out. Would save a lot of manual processing.
| [deleted]
| jasonlfunk wrote:
| There is a company that was trying to work in this space called
| VidAngel. https://www.vidangel.com/ I used to use them quite a
| lot and then they got sued by everyone and now I'm not sure
| what they are up too. It's unclear if a company has the right
| to offer others content in a modified form - ie filtering out
| unacceptable content.
|
| My favorite thing is that they had a JarJar filter for the Star
| Wars prequels.
| sircastor wrote:
| They do on the fly skipping in streaming services. Rather
| than reselling modified content, they're skipping time codes.
| umvi wrote:
| Yeah, VidAngel is pretty much non-usable now because of the
| lawsuit(s)
| ThinkBeat wrote:
| There is or used to be a start that addressed this market.
|
| They had an ever expanding catalog of films they had processed
| to avoid any nudity or bad language. I think they cut those
| parts out entirety.
|
| Here I found it.
|
| They got sued out of existence apparently by the movies studios
| but was recreated and they now somehow do it with streaming
| content from Netflix or HBO.
|
| I dont know how they do that but I figure they will be sued
| again.
|
| I am not endorsing the company. I have never used it and never
| will but it is out there.
|
| https://www.vidangel.com/
| sneak wrote:
| Chopping out scenes with swearing and sex and violence won't
| make an adult story suitable for children.
|
| There's a whole genre of family friendly films, those will
| serve you better than trying to hack up stories for full
| adults.
| umvi wrote:
| You could use ffmpeg to delete the scenes containing
| violence/sex, but you'll have to manually find the timestamps
| yourself.
| louisgeo wrote:
| SaaS tool that does that: https://sightengine.com
|
| Will flag sections of the video with explicit / suggestive /
| partial nudity
| BagPiper5000 wrote:
| I'm going to be a little hypocritical here since I hate when I
| ask for help on the internet and people tell me instead to not
| want to do that thing... but:
|
| Surely a much easier thing to do would be to simply stop being
| offended by the human body? Just watch the movies anyway. Your
| kids won't explode if they see a boob.
|
| This reminds me of when I went thru all different low calorie
| sweeteners to put in coffee until I realized this is a problem
| I created myself and coffee is actually better if I just get
| used to having it plain.
| monadic2 wrote:
| Or even better, ads! Just show a nice landscape instead.
| speedgoose wrote:
| Is there a need? I feel like if you are old enough to watch a
| movie for adults, you are more than old enough to know about
| sex. But anyway, when was the last time you saw an erect penis
| in a movie you wanted to watch in a family setting?
| mkoubaa wrote:
| If people want to use it then there is a need. You can't just
| tell people to stop having sensibilities
| [deleted]
| petespeed wrote:
| For non-stream media (iso,dvds), skip files can work. These
| files allow you to define frames or seconds to skip or mute.
| For example mplayer has edl (edit decision list).
| http://www.mplayerhq.hu/DOCS/HTML/en/edl.html
|
| Crowdsourcing such metadata would be a good start, although it
| can be subjective.
|
| If you find out a better way for streaming media, please share.
| simion314 wrote:
| Wouldn't make sense to remove the entire scene? Doing the
| Japanese style pixalation/censorship won't help IMO when you
| watch some movie with your kid and people start moaning. If the
| movie includes sex and nudity it probably includes some similar
| adult language so a tool that works in real time that only is
| trained on porn will be probably terrible and a waste of time
| though some "entrepreneur" would probably try to sell you such
| a tool (I mean it is just gluing shit togheter like most tools
| this days)
| tyingq wrote:
| CleanFlix[1] did something like that, but was shut down by
| movie studios.
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CleanFlicks
|
| Vid Angel took a different approach, allowing you to fast
| forward over parts, and appears to still be operating:
| https://www.vidangel.com/
| [deleted]
| capableweb wrote:
| If you want to make videos family friendly, it's probably better
| to aim for removing violence than nudity, as one is clearly worse
| for the psych than the other.
|
| Expansion: how are nude scenes not family friendly? Not trying to
| start any flame wars here, just trying to understand how one or
| two scenes with nudity suddenly means the video is not family
| friendly? We all go through life seeing nudity, so should be
| fine. Violence however is something we both strive and should
| avoid as much as possible.
| pmachinery wrote:
| Surely it's not that hard to understand that for religious,
| cultural or other reasons some people and/or members of their
| family may feel uncomfortable seeing nudity.
| izacus wrote:
| It doesn't make that viewpoint any less bizarre when our
| media is filled with people murdering each other on pretty
| much hourly basis. And it doesn't make a viewpoint that
| allows killing over depicting our bodies any less worth
| challenging.
| capableweb wrote:
| Yeah, as far as I know, no religions or cultures forbid
| people to be naked or see other naked people. What other
| reasons are you referring to here?
|
| It is indeed hard for me to understand how someone can feel
| uncomfortable seeing nudity, as it's everywhere in life and
| always has been.
| [deleted]
| pmachinery wrote:
| Nudity isn't "everywhere in life", so what is the point of
| this, since it's not to start a flame war?
| monadic2 wrote:
| Reading the thread, it seems to be trying to explain the
| double standard with violence.
| capableweb wrote:
| I take a shower in the morning, nude. I go to the beach,
| there is nude people. I go to the gym and after taking a
| shower, nude people. I look at Instagram/Facebook/Any
| social media, there will be almost nude people, same with
| ads all over the place. Sometimes I sleep naked too. If
| you have a family, there is plenty of nudity and can
| happen at any point. Anyone who raised a child will give
| you an idea of how much nudity there really is in life.
| bishalb wrote:
| That's like saying you are always nude under your clothes
| so nudity isn't a problem. Nudity in movies is like
| softcore porn and they often come with bed scenes. Of
| course if your family is just you and your wife it's fine
| but I don't think any sane person would consider that ok
| for kids.
| ivalm wrote:
| Why not? I'd definitely be more ok with a soft core scene
| than some brutal violence. Sex is normal/good part of
| life. One should educate kids about sex (and when it is
| appropriate) rather than pretend it literally doesn't
| exist.
| bishalb wrote:
| I would say keep kids away from both. Sex isn't something
| that needs to be taught, your kids will figure it out
| when they are ready and old enough.
| pmachinery wrote:
| That's not everywhere, it's two examples. Beaches and
| communal showers.
|
| "Almost nude" simply means not nude, and personal,
| private nudity is obviously different from seeing other
| people nude.
|
| Even if someone doesn't mind seeing naked people in the
| situations you describe, it still doesn't follow they
| should therefore be okay with nudity on screen in front
| of their family.
| saagarjha wrote:
| Religions or cultures don't forbid this in general, but
| some do for purposes outside of procreation. It's really
| not "everywhere in life" for most people.
| names_are_hard wrote:
| You're not very familiar with other religions, then. I was
| raised in a religious environment that absolutely forbade
| people to see members of the opposite sex naked except in
| very specific scenarios (ie married couples, doctors
| treating patients, and that's about it).
|
| This was one of the stated reasons why we couldn't watch TV
| or movies that weren't strictly vetted first.
| terhechte wrote:
| What Kind of Religion would find the depiction of violence
| and death fine, and the creation of life / nudity
| "uncomfortable"?
| danielheath wrote:
| I mean... not to be banal, but... most of them?
|
| Certainly all the abrahamic ones are fine with detailed
| descriptions of violence (have you _read_ the Old
| Testament).
| capableweb wrote:
| Most of religions forbid people to be naked / see other
| people naked? Please, list some of them, as I'm having a
| hard time finding which ones do this.
| yepguy wrote:
| The Catholic Church insists on modesty, for example. You
| won't find an outright ban on nudity, because what is
| considered modest can change depending on culture.
| However, if you are trying to remain chaste by avoiding
| pre-marital sex & masturbation, it is not difficult to
| see how sexually explicit images make that difficult. In
| fact, pornography is specifically singled out as a crime
| against chastity.
|
| > 2523 There is a modesty of the feelings as well as of
| the body. It protests, for example, against the
| voyeuristic explorations of the human body in certain
| advertisements, or against the solicitations of certain
| media that go too far in the exhibition of intimate
| things. Modesty inspires a way of life which makes it
| possible to resist the allurements of fashion and the
| pressures of prevailing ideologies.
|
| > 2524 The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture
| to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an
| intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. It is
| born with the awakening consciousness of being a subject.
| Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means
| awakening in them respect for the human person. [1]
|
| > 2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated
| sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order
| to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends
| against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act,
| the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does
| grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors,
| vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of
| base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses
| all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world.
| It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent
| the production and distribution of pornographic
| materials. [2]
|
| [1]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catech
| ism/p3s2... [2]: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/ar
| chive/catechism/p3s2...
| hvdijk wrote:
| You are conflating nudity and porn when they are two
| different things, and as far as nudity is concerned,
| focusing only on whether it is okay according to
| Christianity to be naked, rather than the other question
| more relevant to this story, which is whether it is okay
| according to Christianity to see someone else (who may or
| may not be Christian themself) be naked.
| yepguy wrote:
| No, I didn't conflate anything. My post specifically
| covered that pornography is banned, while nudity may be
| permissible if it does not offend modesty.
| hvdijk wrote:
| The question you responded to was:
|
| > Most of religions forbid people to be naked / see other
| people naked? Please, list some of them, as I'm having a
| hard time finding which ones do this.
|
| You decided to respond with a point about pornography.
| Either you conflated nudity and pornography, or you
| responded with something unrelated to the question. I
| assumed the former as that seemed to me to be the more
| charitable explanation, but if the latter was the case
| instead, I apologise for the incorrect assumption.
| Instead, let me ask you: why did you feel it relevant to
| bring up pornography in response to that question?
| yepguy wrote:
| For all practical purposes, Catholicism is an example of
| a religion that forbids nudity. Depictions of nudity that
| the church would find acceptable, online or in popular
| media, are rare enough that a concerned Catholic would be
| justified in avoiding all nudity out of caution.
| pmachinery wrote:
| The bulk of his reply was not about pornography. He
| specifically stated the Catholic Church has no outright
| ban on nudity, but quoted two paragraphs from the Vatican
| about "resist[ing] the allurements" of "voyeuristic
| explorations of the human body" in advertising or other
| media that "go too far in the exhibition of intimate
| things".
|
| If advertising material qualifies, nudity in films
| qualifies.
| cole-k wrote:
| From my (limited) understanding of Genesis, I assumed
| nudity was thought to be fine, at least in the beginning.
| It was only after eating the forbidden fruit did Adam and
| Eve clothe themselves, presumably out of some sort of shame
| or "decency."
|
| I wouldn't be surprised if there are later passages
| condemning it, but I personally prefer the interpretation
| that it's not religion which makes nudity uncomfortable,
| but mankind and their flaws.
| EugeneOZ wrote:
| These people need to follow rest of civilization and educate
| themselves.
| null_deref wrote:
| Why not both? You could also argue that repeatedly seeing the
| most beautiful actors in the business nude, can hurt a teenager
| self image pretty badly, or that learning about sex from movies
| is probably not the best idea.
| sjwright wrote:
| IMHO it's not sex that's the real problem for teenagers, but
| rather extreme sexualisation. And that doesn't require
| nudity.
| goda90 wrote:
| Lots of nudity in film is of a sexual nature. Uncontrolled
| exposure to fictional depictions of sex could create unhealthy
| understanding of sex in children that parents want to avoid.
| Hence not family friendly. I'm not saying most in film violence
| is either, but that's the reason.
|
| One film I think of in this regard is Schindler's List. I've
| seen both the original and the TV edit that Spielberg made to
| broadcast for teenagers to see. The primary edits I noticed
| were sex scenes and post-sex nudity. Those scenes weren't
| gratuitous(they showed something about the characters) or
| anything, but were edited(either cut or blacked out part of the
| frame). BUT there was still lots of nudity in the edited film.
| This was nudity of a different nature. People forced to strip
| down and paraded in the open for inspection.
|
| Sometimes parents just want to take the easy path and consider
| all nudity as out of bounds for their kids. I think that's
| fine.
| heavenlyblue wrote:
| > Sometimes parents just want to take the easy path and
| consider all nudity as out of bounds for their kids.
|
| Sometimes parents consider vaccinations to be out of bounds
| for their kids, too.
| dirtnugget wrote:
| I would generally put Schindlers List onto the "not-so-
| family-friendly"-list. It's educational I guess but I
| wouldn't want to show it to anyone below 16. And after that
| the nudity should be fine.
| kube-system wrote:
| FWIW, my local secondary school here in the US has no
| issues showing Schindlers List to students in class. But
| this attitude isn't something that would extend to a movie
| with nudity of a sexual or casual nature.
| dirtnugget wrote:
| They have no issues about showing that because the
| primary actor of violence was not their own state. Do
| they show footage of Guantanamo Bay or Abu-Ghuraib in
| secondary school?
|
| https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/AbuGh
| rai...
|
| https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Abu-
| ghra...
| umvi wrote:
| Because it's awkward getting sexually aroused in front of
| family members?
| shubb wrote:
| That's starting from the assumption you are doing this to
| engineer your children ands psychology.
|
| Actually I think a lot of people find it awkward to watch
| graphic sex scenes and extended nudity with their family. As a
| grown up, the I feel awkward watching parts of game of thrones
| with my parents.
|
| That's a shame because I would like to watch this show with
| them. Lately a lot of major TV shows seem to aim to include one
| nude scene per episode - I guess the money people think that's
| what sells...
|
| I can understand why some people might find violence equally
| difficult, but where it features it tends to be much more tied
| to the plot.
| schrijver wrote:
| Right, but doesn't this awkwardness come from you growing up
| in a culture (I assume U.S.) where depictions of nudity are
| taboo?
|
| If this taboo wouldn't have existed for you as a kid I'm not
| so sure the awkwardness would exist for you as an adult. As a
| sample size of 1, coming from a country where there is much
| less of a taboo I feel very differently on this topic.
| dang wrote:
| We detached this subthread from
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24251297.
| skrause wrote:
| > _Expansion: how are nude scenes not family friendly?_
|
| The answer is "American Prudery".
| chance_state wrote:
| No, not really. Most people don't want to watch graphic sex
| scenes with their parents. It's not a "muh America" issue.
| konart wrote:
| > Most people don't want to watch graphic sex scenes with
| their parents.
|
| Teenagers don't, obviously. But when you are 30+ and you
| are watching a movie with your father or mother - none of
| you is embarrassed by it typically. Exactly because for
| grown-ups it's just sex.
|
| And anyway - how many movies you can name with graphic sex
| scenes that are now porno? I can think of barely 2 or 3
| maybe
| pledg wrote:
| See also American TV where you can show pretty extreme
| violence but not swear.
| zodiakzz wrote:
| Gore-filled cartoons censoring/hiding the female nipple
| always gets me.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| On that note, did you see this?
| https://www.indy100.com/article/instagram-is-flummoxed-
| by-me...
| andrekorol wrote:
| This extension reminded me of that Black Mirror episode where a
| mother filtered what her daughter could see and hear.
|
| Great work with TensorFlow by the way, can't wait to see this
| technology maturing over the years.
| pledg wrote:
| This would be too late in my workplace, as they'd be logged that
| I downloaded the images. That I didn't see them in my browser
| would be irrelevant.
| gvjddbnvdrbv wrote:
| I'm curious how workplaces do this. Does they have a root cert
| installed so they can MITM SSL traffic?
| pledg wrote:
| Basically yes.
| amelius wrote:
| You could still run your own layer of encryption through that
| pipe though.
| gvjddbnvdrbv wrote:
| Presumably that is against policy and would get you fired?
| jwalton wrote:
| Yes exactly. And, ironically, many of these solutions can
| make you less safe; at one of my former employers we had
| something like this, but the problem is that since you're
| getting a cert from the MITM server, you're not able to
| inspect the cert from the real server, and at least in the
| case of the Cisco product we were using, the MITM server
| wouldn't bother to inspect it either; expired certs, certs
| with the wrong CN, self signed cert, didn't matter - the MITM
| server would ignore the problem and happily replace the cert
| with a valid one signed by the company CA.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| That is more often a configuration issue than a technology
| issue. MITM proxies can be configured to reset connections
| to sites with invalid/expired certificates.
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| Every place I ever worked did exactly this. They use a
| protocol called WCCP which is essentially source routing, so
| if you're going to the internet on certain ports it routes
| you to a proxy server instead of whichever router it normally
| would.
|
| Most companies big enough to do this already have their own
| internal CA installed on all the machines, for internal
| sites, so they use that same CA to sign the mitm cert. With
| so many sites using HSTS it can be annoying if you access a
| site while off the network.
|
| As far as them knowing the content of a particular image they
| would need to have some kind of machine learning like this
| extension.
| jijji wrote:
| true, the client still downloads the image so you'd still
| violate a work related policy... This plugin would have to
| operate as a proxy and filter the actual images that are NSFW
| so your client never downloads the actual image.
| treis wrote:
| I don't think it's irrelevant. Having a NSFW pop up in the
| middle of a meeting and your access logged is much worse than
| just your access being logged.
| rtz12 wrote:
| It would be a nice feature for this extention to collect the
| URLs of detected porn images and report their hashes back, so
| they could be integrated into the extention itself.
| capableweb wrote:
| Yeah, fixing that would require breaking "The extension runs
| completely on your browser. i.e No user data is being sent to a
| server for processing." as image requests would have to be
| hashed, checked on a server and only allowed depending on the
| response.
|
| So seems this extension is not really for your use case but for
| others.
| [deleted]
| williesleg wrote:
| Boring. I'd like the inverse, where only NSFW images are shown.
| Now THAT would be an extension!
| liability wrote:
| > _All the images remain hidden until they are found to be NSFW
| or not_
|
| The demo screenshot/page seems to only show NSFW images, so the
| demo doesn't convey how quickly this classifier can operate. The
| demo page should have some non-NSFW images to show off how
| quickly SFW images are revealed, since the default is to block
| all images.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-08-23 23:00 UTC)