@shiro t'étais pas allé te coucher ?
@Hiraelle je viens de recevoir la version finale alors j'ai posté u////u
@shiro oui mais si tu étais allé vraiment te coucher tu aurais rien pu voir 👀
@Hiraelle douche uwu
@shiro Please put the content warnings in the content-warning field and not in the body. They're easier to miss in the body, and they display better on most clients.
@dipolecat sorry, since I marked the media as sensitive and there was no cw content in the text, I did that so it's apparent the post contains an image :< (I wish Masto would show that with cw tag too)
Did you open it by mistake? sorry :<
@shiro When a post has a CW, it's assumed that it applies to text and/or the image. It's still apparent that there is an image before the image is made viewable, and the body of a CWed post can be viewed without viewing the image.
@shiro In unmodified Mastodon, a CWed post with an image shows like this. Clicking "show more" shows the body of the post but does not show the image.
In GlitchSoc, no space is taken up by the hidden image before "show more" is clicked. After clicking "show more", the body of the post is visible and the black "sensitive content click to view" rectangle appears.
@dipolecat oh yes you're right, why did I think the opposite °^°
@dipolecat (I thought it was the glitch soc way all around 😁 )
@dipolecat @shiro Plus, "sensitive" is a bit loaded, so *both* marking it sensitive and putting the CWs in the CW field is preferable. Clients all understand in this case to leave the discretion to the viewer.
And if for whatever reason you want to bring attention that there's an image inside, throw that in the CW too! More info is better than not enough.
A furry-oriented (single-user) instance made to interact with the fandom 🐎 🐈 🦌 🦊 🐂 🐁 🐇 🐻 🦈 🦎