Some things on the internet are extremely difficult to believe if they are real or not. OK, ok, 99% of the internet is unbelievable. Even the stuff that says “Yeah, this is real” invariably isn’t. This is yet another of those occasions – but I am prepared to eat humble pie if this proves to be real.
To give explanation to what I find difficult to believe:
About two years ago Google unveiled a new HTML attribute:
rel="nofollow"
By including that attribute in hyperlinks, website administrators direct search engines not to give any credit to the linked content. The attribute is generally applied by most blog software to comment and trackback content before it is posted. This obviously minimizes the incentive for comment spamming as a means of improving a site’s PageRank status.
Today I found an article whereby PJ Doland wants to give the world a new rel to follow: rel="nsfw". Whilst the idea appears brilliant, the implementation is the most amusing component. PJ says this is an acronym for “Not Suitable for Work“, thereby alleviating the pain of being caught by the boss staring at something other than work.
What I find most unbelievable is how many people took this idea so seriously. Some went so far as to create CSS and Javascript to implement this idea into their sites. I laughed very loudly at the implications, the implementation procedures, and … well, how do you police such a thing when the internet is growing at a few BILLION pages a day? Unless this starts RIGHT NOW, it’s just pointless.
I read through the commentary. Many of his commenters have brought up the same issues I have, but with a lot of seriousness – as if this was going to happen.
- World-wide approval. Valid point, but as we all know that could take time. Maybe instead of waiting for world-approval, we simply get the ball rollling now.
- Deemed to be Censorship. Yeah, like a few billion porn sites are suddenly going to implement this for the safety of workers getting caught staring at flesh during work time. I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
- And other crud from people whom I don’t believe saw what was going on here: This is an experiment in web-developers gullibility to their own understanding of the purpose of the internet.
Wait, Hold the Fort!
Wait, let me get this straight: You want web editors to include an extra attribute onto their hyper links in the off-chance they might be supplying information unsuitable for viewing during working hours?
All those web-editors out there suddenly have to say, because you say so, “Dude, this new NSFW thingie is being added to everything because someone’s child staying at work with mummy day might play on the computer, view my unorthodox website and click a link they should not?“
Can you see now why I think this is a farce, a joke, a little sideshow humor for the web-designers out there, something to smirk at? Possibly this is someone’s idea of satire against the W3C, though I don’t know which area of the W3C they might be taking the mickey out of…
Dose of Reality
If you are web-editor/master/writer, you decide what you do and don’t link to. Not your readers. If you do not link to porn, your readers don’t see it. Simple really. Isn’t it?
But if you are a normal JoeSchmo with a site/blog/store who decides to include .nsfw { visibility:hidden; } or .nsfw { display:none } or even *[rel=nsfw] { visibility:hidden; } *[rel=nsfw] { display:none } to hide potentially nasty-data from certain viewers: What is your reason for keeping the website?
Maybe my reasoning seems simplistic (and I can see that it might be), but NSFW seems to be like the mice trying to put a bell on the mouse. Hmmm. Not a great analogy. How ‘bout …. like putting the fences up after the bull has bolted? That’s better. Do you see my point now?
Those that do want you to view sites deemed NSFW are not going to change their sites. Why? Money. Simple. You do the math.
Discover more from The Entrepreneurial Life of Stephen Mitchell
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Entrepreneurial Life of Stephen Mitchell 