I think ’s new feature (obfuscating nsfw-ish images in a colorful very blurry fashion) is a pretty good idea – and works well in this first iteration (the best setting might be debatable).

Does somebody not like it? Are there any objective arguments against it?

Who else is using it?

Are there other use-cases besides the stated one?

@fabian I still kinda don't get it.

What is it for? It seems like it's just a slightly-nicer looking replacement image (instead of a black one you get some colors), but it's hailed as more than that and I don't understand why, especially considering that mastodon is supposedly heavy on resources, and this can't be free either.

@hirnbrot it is nicer looking; it gives you a hint what to expect (as said: the blurriness factor is debatable, but you can usually diff. between a landscape, a screenshot, and people/skin tones). It's not free but pretty light-weight: a 32x32px canvas element is rendered in the client.

@fabian I don't see the hint.

It seems much too blurry to make out _anything_, and I don't think you'd want to make out anything either?

And before rendering the canvas element, don't you have to compute the blur? I was under the impression that the image isn't sent until after you unhide it?

@hirnbrot the blur is calculated on upload, so a one-time fee to pay.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

For people who care about, support, or build Free, Libre, and Open Source Software (FLOSS).