Ugh. Never visiting Gizmodo again.

[Doju]

Has anyone seen some of their articles today? One was about rejected iPhone app, and when I clicked the more info button to go to the website with the article, it was a gay pornography site. What the hell? They said NSFW, but not safe for work is the understatement of the year for gay three-ways.

Seriously, removed Gizmodo from my bookmark bar. Freaking disgusting, I don't want to have to worry about seeing guy-on-guy every time I want to read an article.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

I don't get it. they said NSFW which means it's raunchy, and then you complain when you go there and it's raunchy?

Personally, I prefer engadget, but only because i like their format better.

 

[Doju]

No, I complain because NSFW means not safe for work. Meaning, a picture with swearing in it, an article with swearing in it, a slightly suggestive video.

Guy-on-guy pornography is far worse than NSFW. Far worse than raunchy. I don't mind raunchy. When I see guys on top of eachother... doing... horrible things... yeah, I'm ticked.

Why the hell are they even linking to articles about that anyway?

I'll spare the link, I'd rather not get banned.

 

[fireshot91]

To be fair, I clicked on it, and it was all girls for me .
And NSFW means ANYTHING that's not safe for work, mostly used in pornography.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

The link is titled "Apple Thinks the Hole In Your Jeans Is Simply Pornographic [NSFW] " and has a picture of a topless guy.

I agree it's raunchy, but I don't see how you can say they didn't warn you.

 

[Doju]

To be fair, I clicked on it, and it was all girls for me .
And NSFW means ANYTHING that's not safe for work, mostly used in pornography.

Okay, even so, why link to pornography, especially gay pornography. Not hating on the gays, but I imagine 99% of the viewers are happily straight, and would live a happy life without seeing that.

And yeah, it's the first link to porn today. You're talking about the second.

 

[yg17]

Okay, even so, why link to pornography, especially gay pornography. Not hating on the gays, but I imagine 99% of the viewers are happily straight, and would live a happy life without seeing that.

And yeah, it's the first link to porn today. You're talking about the second.

I'm straight, I saw it, and I'm not any less happy than I was before I saw it. It's not something I'd want to watch, but just seeing a picture of it for 2 seconds isn't going to bother me.

 

[Azurael]

Guy-on-guy pornography is far worse than NSFW. Far worse than raunchy. I don't mind raunchy. When I see guys on top of eachother... doing... horrible things... yeah, I'm ticked.

NSFW to me means 'expect to see something you might not want to - click at your own risk'. Don't complain.

And frankly, despite not being gay myself, I'm actually offended that you obviously think it's okay to have straight porn (i.e. something 'raunchy') on an NSFW tag, but not gay porn. How do you think a gay person would feel if they accidentally see straight porn? I doubt they'd exactly be morally outraged, despite the fact that situation is exactly the same. You're just making a fuss because you're probably just a little bit homophobic. Have a nice day.

 

[spillproof]

Actually on their homepage as on now there are two stories about iPhone apps and sex. One is about lesbians the other gay 3-somes the OP is speaking of.

I'd link them, but that may be wrong.