Makes no odds. If you look at the source it is actually a vegan news - and it wasn’t pixelated there. NSFW stands for “not suitable for work”. No idea in what line of work picture of a breakfast would not be suitable.
People also use it for nsfl/gore. Edit: if it was posted to a meat free comm, probably not surprising they marked it nsfw, whereas the news site did not.
See my edit. If it was posted to a vegan sub, they probably marked nfsw out of consideration for other users who probably don’t want to see meat in their feed.
I’m merely attempting to explain to why I suspect it was marked like that. It likely was marked that for being meat, not breakfast. If this (frankly easy to understand, even if we may not entirely agree with it) explanation and the votes on the post aren’t convincing enough, that’s your choice.
Makes no odds. If you look at the source it is actually a vegan news - and it wasn’t pixelated there. NSFW stands for “not suitable for work”. No idea in what line of work picture of a breakfast would not be suitable.
People also use it for nsfl/gore. Edit: if it was posted to a meat free comm, probably not surprising they marked it nsfw, whereas the news site did not.
Your point is?
See my edit. If it was posted to a vegan sub, they probably marked nfsw out of consideration for other users who probably don’t want to see meat in their feed.
Your edit doesn’t change anything. There are no circumstances under which picture of breakfast needs pixelating - thus “OP is a fucking idiot”.
I’m merely attempting to explain to why I suspect it was marked like that. It likely was marked that for being meat, not breakfast. If this (frankly easy to understand, even if we may not entirely agree with it) explanation and the votes on the post aren’t convincing enough, that’s your choice.
Ok.