I don’t see how this solves anything ? You’d still have to define what content is problematic and in which context(s). It would still be highly subjective.
I’ve had discussions like this on other forums and totally different topics before (fatalities in sports, for instance). Even if you did come up with a ruling where “most can agree and understand” - it usually ends up with very broad definitions, defeating its purpose.
Is this something a user script can better solve ?
The point of this (provocative) example with artist names is not how often users will see them, but that someone could feel offended by them. Do you see the point more clearly now?
And to be clear: NO, I’m not actually personally offended - I’m just pointing out that some others might be, especially those who are asking for such a feature.
Thanks for the album art link! Contains some really great covers that I almost forgot about 
Jokes aside, I always have issues with these self-proclaimed “internet watchdogs” like IWW. On the surface, it all seems logical and fine (although they do not aid in prevention, only damage control) - it always boils down to: who decides what’s acceptable and what not. Is it a reasoned and openly discussed list, or just by who donates to their funding ?
I see the point you are making, but I am against arbitrary censorship like this. If the likes of Wikipedia don’t do it, then why should MusicBrainz. I am offended by Taylor Swift - can we get her blurred out 
I agree with @bartvaes - who draws the line?
The discussion here was really about cover art images. I don’t think we should extend it to titles. This is far less an issue then the images, and by adding titles to the discussion it just leads to this discussion leading to no solution at all.
No, it can’t. A user script has to be explicitly installed, and still it is lacking the information which images to hide. Also it does not cover the case where the user want to e.g. not have such images downloaded via Picard or other API use (see IMG-162).
Again, this is not censorship at all. Giving users the choice to hide such images is giving more control, not less. Nobody has asked to such images being removed completely, or making it impossible for the users to see it.
Wouldn’t this lead to a system where users can choose which descriptive criteria they want to filter or hide?
For example, for the mentioned Nirvana “Nevermind” album cover, the image could be tagged with attributes such as:
Anyone who feels that “nudity” is something they would rather avoid could simply add that category to their personal filter preferences.
Of course, this would require a reliable system for describing and categorizing image content, as well as giving users control over which categories they want to hide. This would provide more choice without forcing the same restrictions on everyone.
Well, yes, as said previously in thts thread we could have a couple of categories to tag. But again, we don’t need to overcomplicate things, there can be a set of specific categories that a image can be tagged for, like in that UI mockup of @aerozol .
I find it a bit funny that people pretend that it is impossible to agree whether an image is controversial in such regard, but still everyone brings up that Nirvana or Scorpions cover, and we all see that those fall exactly into this category. And, as I said previously, independently of how we personally perceive this. One might not have a problem seeing specific artwork, but can still relate to others who feel strongly about it.
Of course even if you turn on the filter you might see some images that still you didn’t want to see or the opposite some blurred image wouldn’t have offended you. But still, you have the choice to enable the blurring, and for each image you have the choice to view it anyway.
From my very personal point of view, this is actually the most important point: as long as the blurring remains optional and I can choose not to use it, I don’t have a problem with other people having different preferences or wanting different categories to be filtered.
What I would not want is for those preferences to become a default that limits what everyone else can see. People should have the choice to apply filters for themselves, but also the choice to view cover art content without modifications.
I don’t have an opinion on the default value for new users.
I think by “without modifications” you were thinking about existing users, right? The value should be “not blurred” for existing users, to keep things as they were for them.
But for new users, we can maybe decide a change.
But it would/should also be the same for not logged in users.
Which makes this decision and its possible MBS change significant.
The discussion here was really about cover art images.
Well yes, it starts with that. It’s only a matter of time before somebody comes in and asks if the system can be expanded upon. Technically, there’s no limit to what can or can’t be included.
But again, I don’t see why this is a Musicbrainz / Metabrainz issue to deal with. How do people do their content moderation on other sites ? You can call it “control”, but to me it’s borderline self-censorship or maybe even preference falsification, which is not a good thing (as in: being open to potentially objectionable content can lead to better understanding of social issues, for example).
And no, the Nirvana cover is not offensive at all. Why people always bring that up is beyond me.
Even Geffen Records itself was concerned that the infant’s penis, visible in the photo, would cause offense, and prepared an alternate cover without it. They relented when Kurt Cobain said the only compromise he would accept would be a sticker covering the penis reading: “If you’re offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile”.
The only reason I could see a problem with that cover, is the fact that babies can’t give consent. But then again, babies get their genitals mutilated all the time and people seem OK with that. But I digress… 
I really disagree with this being censorship, not even self-censorship. Let me give an example, let’s say there is some brutal gory horror movie.
As far as I’m concerned this discussion is about point 4: Tell me that this is a horror movie and let me decide to either watch it or not. Point 5 has been suggested in some comments above as a solution.
It’s frightening to throw someone who doesn’t know how to swim in the water and take a picture of them.
It’s my concern each time I come across this cover, again.
Even if I convinced myself that it was a setup and that the baby was most probably pulled out of the water, right after the photo was taken.
If it’s about #4 : just a warning banner on top saying there might be sensitive content on this site, then ? Could even hide cover art by default for users that aren’t logged in. Because in your example you could ask upfront and should’ve stated that you don’t want to see particular movies and decide to go or not. It’s on you.
Don’t expect people to just ‘know’ what other people find offensive (or that it’s objectively true for everyone), that’s the whole crux of this thread.
BTW, OP stated that he “had to hold off on adding art” and thus self-censored 
Just saying.
I guess I’m still waiting for a clear “why” and how all of this would be an improvement, instead of people just asserting that it is.
And of course how are you going to implement it whilst avoiding “revert wars” on tagged images - since it’s purely personal preference. Do users have to tag images themselves and it won’t affect other users ? How should it work exactly?
So that’s my #5: the cinema requiring everyone to watch the horror movie or stay away. That’s an acceptable solution for a website being about such imagery. But otherwise it is disrespectful.
Talking about self-censorship. I don’t really get why giving users the option to not see certain images is a problem, but hiding all images should be an acceptable solution.
That would be pointless. That’s “you are free to choose to not watch this horror movie, but only after you have watched it”.
We have edit wars occasionally about all kinds of changes already. It can be a problem, but it is not as pervasive as you make it to be. I don’t see why it will be any different here.
Yes, because there is no appropriate mechanism in place in MB to allow users to not see such content. That’s one of your “whys”. Others being in IMG-162 and MBS-6686