[init2null]

The intent was clear. The only reason someone makes a video like that is to push puritanical filtering. I expect searching for beach might include shirtless men, and that's okay. Whether you see them as sexual or not depends more on you than the artist.

[NekkoDroid]

We are talking about the regular of regular "Art" category. Maybe, just maybe it shouldn't have NSFW stuff immediatly visible to anyone signing up (especially when they entered they are 13).

I really don't care either way, it's not exactly my problem and I don't really mind it, but there are parents that don't want their kids exposed to that (ignoring if parents need to be helicopter parents when the kids are on the internet) as well as other people that aren't comfortable with nudity in any way.

[ThePowerOfFuet]

I would rather 13-year-olds see naked people than chainsaw mass murder, yet what is socially acceptable in North America is the reverse; the normal thing is unacceptable and the horrendous thing is just fine.

[jncfhnb]

Neither of those things should be coming up for kids who search for “art”

[november84]

One of them is completely natural and accepted in America and the other are boob's.

I feel like is nudity wasn't so taboo and sexualized it may not be that bad.

But I do realize there's a difference between erotica art like in the video and art that happens to contain nudity.

[jncfhnb]

That difference is the whole problem though.

[jncfhnb]

Ok so you’re saying you searched beach and got a shirtless man and that should be ok.

But the video is implying that searching for beach is going to give you gay furry porn and Hentai featuring children.

[lebean]

Not letting users broadcast hentai under the Art category = puritanical.