Removing things from so-called Trending breaks the voting and reward algorithm and was an ill-considered and inappropriate mechanism to address NSFW content that may be offensive or inappropriate for some users. Better would be a user-option to enable such a filter when appropriate and desired; this could even include locking such a filter under the control of another "parent" account. However, even this mechanism would fail to protect children when inappropriate, illegal, or offensive content is posted and mislabeled.
As a stakeholder, and an adult, I need to see in context the complete list of most voted and rewarded posts (aka Trending) to assess whether the reward pool is being allocated appropriately. Likewise, as a curator, and an adult, I need to see the entire unfiltered stream of New, Hot and Active posts to assess whether those posts are appropriate to upvote or downvote.
If your neighbor has signed up for the site then they do not see Trending as their front page; they see their Feed as the front page. I would highly doubt that it would be appropriate for a child to "follow" @alexanova (nor other adult-content-oriented accounts which might be likely to resteem her posts) and therefore she would never appear on their Feed. It would also likely be inappropriate for a child to view any of the global pages, which could contain any manner of inappropriate, illegal, or offensive content, including those which are unlabeled or mislabeled, before those are downvoted (assuming they eventually are).
Some sections of this site are appropriate for children (i.e. choosing appropriate bloggers to "follow"), but many are not and never will be.
I agree with you that "child-proofing" steemit is not a good basis for what does and does not appear on the global feeds.
My issue with material like this in the global feeds is an issue of the most comfort for the most users. To me, porn is like anchovies. Even if you really, really like anchovies, theyre pretty disgusting when paired with most other foods. They simply don't go with a lot of things.
Youve said (in another thread) that there are billions of people who like porn, and that its a huge industry. And you're correct. But ask yourself this. How many successful websites or other communication media do you know of that routinely offer porn side by side with non-sex-related topics, and are taken seriously for their non-sex-related content?
Take a look at a real, paper-and-ink playboy one of these days. Nude photographs take up maybe 10% of the pages, if that. In fact, its one of the best paying periodicals for (mostly non erotic) fiction and non fiction writing. Yet its a nudie magazine. Most people would be uncomfortable reading one of those well-written articles at work, or around their children, even if their children could not see the pictures. In fact, the guy who says "I read playboy for the articles" is a sitcom joke -- a ridiculous cliche.
How many men do you know who wouldn't be uncomfortable reading a playboy, with the magazine opened to a non-photograph section in a public place like a coffee-shop or hanging out with their girlfriend or around their neighbors. I wouldnt, and i give less of a crap what people think of me than most.
Would you take investment advice from a financial website that had a live stream of one of their brokers giving it to a girl boiler room style under the stock ticker. Would you hire a doctor if she had x-rated pictures of her encounter with "moe the monster" under her CV on her website. (and lest i come off as a misogynist, i also wouldn't hire a dude with pictures of his moe the monster encounter below his CV)
Take a look at a real, paper-and-ink playboy one of these days. Nude photographs take up maybe 10% of the pages, if that. In fact, its one of the best paying periodicals for (mostly non erotic) fiction and non fiction writing. Yet its a nudie magazine. Most people would be uncomfortable reading one of those well-written articles at work, or around their children, even if their children could not see the pictures. In fact, the guy who says "I read the playboy for the articles" is a sitcom joke -- a ridiculous chiche.
Now, i don't speak or vote for everyone, i just speak and vote for me. Me, personally, i watch porn. I have no problem with it. But i have a particular time, a particular place, and a particular headspace where i am comfortable with it. Just like the playboy reader has a time and a place where hes comfortable reading playboy.
Im not necessarily comfortable in starbucks looking at a trending page with articles about alexa tying up moe the monster, even if theyre greyed out and even if I don't click on them.
Now, am I a middle aged american white guy who lives in the suburbs? Sure. And maybe im just super sexually repressed and out-of-touch with mainstream sensibilities. But i feel like there are way more potential users coming from the same headspace I am. To me the refrain this site has a bunch of porn on it. if you don't want porn don't click on it is one thats apt to chase a lot of potential users away.
Just as a side note, up until now, Karl Hungus has always been my go to generic male porn name. But from now on, its going to be Moe The Monster. TIL a cool new porn name.
I'm entirely comfortable with viewing a Trending page in Starbucks that shows a SFW first image and a headline that clearly states "NFSW, uncensored". I just won't be clicking on that post at Starbucks. YMMV.
Look I'm not opposed to features that allow people to customize what they see, and create a family-friendly or work-friendly view if that's what they want. But global view that are intended to show everything that is on the platform (e.g., for curation purposes) should actually show everything that is on the platform (unless specifically customized otherwise).
That said, I also believe that the users you think will be alienated are already well-served by Facebook, etc. If we can also accommodate them by providing filtering and customization, fair enough, but focusing excessively on that market is probably a big mistake.