[stryk]

The world where these particular sample images require a NSFW warning is FAKE. It's 100% manufactured 'drama'. The natural human reaction, from both sexes, to these photos (which can even be seen in other comments here) is "those are nice pictures" or "she's pretty" and NOT "OMG, I shouldn't be displaying these, I might offend someone." Excuse the language, but this is a quintessential example of 'PC bullshit'. Grow a goddamn spine, people. Come on, there are much, much more important, relevant, and pressing things to worry about than whether or not your co-workers might disapprove of some random images of a FULLY CLOTHED female human being on a website.

How sad.

[simonw]

I had the same reaction as the OP. I wasn't worried about offending people, I was embarrassed that co-workers might think I was looking at sexy pictures at work.

[gkya]

What's wrong about looking at some pictures that are by no standards NSFW? And again, at work you're supposed to be working, not checking out the latest js libraries and commenting on HN, so the fact that the pictures are those of Emma Watson or those of Peter Pan is irrelevant.

[Fuzzwah]

I'm in a similar situation to the original OP.

I do web dev work in an open office area where I'm surrounded by people who don't really understand what I get paid to do.

My boss is aware however, and I'm very confident that me investigating new js image viewer libs, browsing and posting on HN falls with in my job description.

I instantly closed the demo gallery because as much as it annoys me the perception of those around me matters.

I'm completely on board with your thoughts that these images are SFW and it shouldn't be an issue. I'm confident that I would be able to rationally explain why I happen to have a page full of Emma Watson pictures open. However, I wouldn't get the chance to explain. If someone around me noticed they'd immediately think that I was slacking off and looking at pictures of cute women on the internet.

If the demo images were of basically any other SFW subject matter it wouldn't be an issue.

I totally agree that the whole situation that this is even a concern is annoying as all hell. That doesn't stop it from being a thing.

:(

[anon4]

At this point I'm not sure if it's even the perception of those around you and not what those around you think the perceptions of those around them might be.

[7952]

You act like warnings are a form of censorship. The point is to help the person clicking the link, not the people around them who may accidentally see. I want my computer screen to appear professional which means no Facebook, albums of pretty men/women, and no Disney characters.

[prodigal_erik]

Thinking this stuff is unreasonable will not save you from a "hostile environment" lawsuit over it. Wise employers won't take an existential risk by allowing thoughtcrime in the office.

[xbryanx]

I use my spine to stand up to this regressive and harmful attitude.

[stryk]

It may very well be 'regressive' -- in the sense that it regresses back to before some of the public went essentially limp, to before political correctness comes before natural human rationale in people's pattern of thinking, it regresses back to relative normalcy instead of ridiculousness.

[gkya]

Please sit down.

[cmdrfred]

I use mine to stand up for free speech. Who does this harm exactly? Who is the victim, specifically?

[sp332]

What does this have to do with free speech? You're allowed to say what you want, and I'm allowed to close the tab and not read it.

[cmdrfred]

Of course you can close the tab, but I find attempts at censorship like this regressive and harmful.

[tobr]

This is hyperbole. There is no attempt at censorship here. No one has disallowed anyone to view anything.

If you think a critical comment qualifies as an attempt at censorship, then by the same logic, your own comments are an attempt to censor the OP.