It's some of the idiotic .gifs and YouTube videos.

In fact, any suggestion that people take advantage of the numerous features DU3 already has to modify their user experience- hide thread, hide thread by keyword, ignore, etc... Seems to only increase the already astronomical level of DU-related DU angst, among some DU users.

A modest perusal of GD any given month indicates there are clearly people whose lives are a turbulent emotional wasteland due to nothing but this website, a smoking crater of nothing but hellish, raw DU-enflamed emotion.

Why would anyone want to exacerbate that with more "options"?

ETA: in all seriousness, no im not opposed to choices and options. Might be a good question for ATA.

Last edited Thu Jun 12, 2014, 09:09 PM - Edit history (1)

for those who want it, be it work rules, public surfing, or to prevent slow loading, or whatever else.

I wonder why the option was dropped.

It was useful to have and I've even PM'd Skinner about it (he responded) about why in particular it might be useful as a security measure.

but not now.

DU is getting too Facebook... and that's *not* a good thing.

really no strong opinion either way.

either directly or indirectly.

I don't want corporations having any control over me whatsoever.

With image hiding, posts could not be censored because of "NSFW" considerations, because people who are at risk for disciplinary actions at work due to certain material being displayed on DU could simply use that function, block out all images, and never have any problem at work with images that might get them fired.

This way, we are not subject to rules imposed upon us by restrictive and idiotic corporate policies at DUers workplaces!

people who aren't blocking every single image.

could accidentally make me lose my job, if I have a simple, totally effective way to block those images.

I reckon I maybe don't see the wisdom in inconveniencing others because of the silly corporate rules at my work situation, if I have a reasonable option to not do so.

I guess I must not see the wisdom in unnecessarily allowing religious conservatives a venue to possibly inflict their subjective morality on others by using the NSFW ploy for text, or images, like mothers nursing their babies, that they may find "objectionable".

I don't see the wisdom in asking others to use the "NSFW" acronym, when I have a perfectly simple option to deal with my own shit. Or have others get their awesome posts censored because of their ignorance of the ludicrous corporate policies of my workplace.

But that's just me; and since it's not really any big deal to me (well, on second thought, being corralled into yielding to bullshit conservative corporate dictates on a progressive Democratic board really does make me the free spirited old liberal hippie country girl totally want to vomit my guts out), and since I'm a nice, kind, hearted, (and very modest) liberal, , I'll just use the NSFW acronym for any post that may be construed by authoritarian corporate asshole censors as "illegal", so as not to get people who believe that accidentally seeing images at work that might get them fired is smarter and more necessary than simply blocking out the images and never, ever having to worry about it again.

I know, I'm a horrible, selfish person for thinking and saying all this, my priorities are askew, and I have a warped idea of "netiquette", after all, obedience to corporate collective dictates always supercedes the interests of the non-corporate citizen...I guess I maybe just have a serious epic problem with any and every type of corporate control over my life, that's all.

I'll try to do better; maybe I can be re-programmed.




nah...fuck that.

Clearly others would like that option and just having it wouldn't effect my time here in any way. Hope it is something that can be done for those that want it.