Why must it be one or the other? They could have a per-user flag to opt in to unsolicited nudes.
Even better, a more fine grained series of flags or enums indicating the level of nudity, topless, bottomless, or even background scenery (to be able to filter out, or in, public nudity).
I mean, isn't Bumble's implementation effectively that? Users can still view the potential nudes if they want.
In the abstract, I don't mind if Bumble wants to add a such a flag. In practice, I doubt they will since (1) it's a feature few people are likely to use and (2) the potential for bad press is high ("Woman Receives Thousands of Unwanted Nudes on Bumble after Accidentally Changing Settings").
I don't disagree with you that a majority of women do not want unsolicited nudes. But there's not a consensus or black and white line between messages that are wanted or unwanted. Not all women are puritans, yet big tech censorship tends to push all interactions toward a puritanical moral ideal.
Personally, I'm interested in dating people who are sex positive, kink friendly, polyamorous and open minded. While I absolutely do not send unsolicited nudes or lead with crude messages, it can be hard to find people with a similar mindset when dating apps insert their morals between me and my potential dates.
I'm advocating for sensible filters and feedback, rather than moralistic censorship. Even if a majority of people agree with the morals. The only morals that dating apps ought to be concerned with are that the interacting parties are all consenting adults.
That's an untenable position. Bumble should (and does) block pornographic, illegal, or harassing content. As already mentioned in the post, sending unsolicited nudes is illegal in at least one jurisdiction, so it's hardly a stretch to include unsolicited nudes in this category.
> But they absolutely should provide filtering tools and feedback to users to reduce low quality or obnoxious behavior. [...] I'm advocating for sensible filters and feedback, rather than moralistic censorship.
Isn't that exactly what this feature is? Users still have the option to view potential nudes; they just aren't exposed by default. It seems obvious that the feature should be opt-out (rather than opt-in), given that the majority of users would prefer not to be exposed to unsolicited nudes.
I don't see how that is in any way less practical than outright blocking everything.
Why? He's suggesting some people like that and advocating for liberalism in this (invoking the idea that it is religious conservatism that leads companies to be averse to such things).
It could be a setting.
I didn't find their comment clear, hence my question.
Honestly, their comment feels closer to concern trolling than a genuine grievance (not to insinuate that they're arguing in bad faith, just that the problem is so minor in comparison). Sure, I suppose Bumble could implement a per-user flag instead (at the risk of introducing a plethora of OnlyFans spam, as someone pointed out), but Bumble's new filter is significantly better than the status quo. I truly can't emphasize this point enough. The OP is imagining there's some slim minority of users who are harmed by being unable to receive unsolicited nudes -- and I'm sure that group exists somewhere -- but frankly the largest group "harmed" by Bumble's filter are perverts who get off on sending unsolicited nudes to women.
The new filter is an unambiguous improvement.
I don't understand. Are you suggesting that Bumble should allow users to send unsolicited nudes to strangers, despite the vast majority of women not appreciating that? Why would any company want to intentionally degrade the experience of roughly half their users?