Quote - Why not have the nudity filter on by default?
It is.

The reasons for the new policy adoption were many. Not a question of "oh my god I saw a nipple and now I'm scarred for life."

• Consistency across the site
• Ability to feature images in the newsletter
• Not such an "in your face" shock on opening the gallery

 

I'm sorry if this is "beating a dead horse" all over again. 

But that just does not make much sense to me. At least not when I stop and think about it.

Here's why:

First lets look again at the given stated numerous times, reasons for this policy change

#1: "Consistency across the site".
#2: "Ability to feature images in the newsletter "
#3: "Not such an "in your face" shock on opening the gallery"

Yet when I look at those a little more I find that:

1 Banning nudity in thumbnails doesn't provide any  additional "consistency across the site" whatsoever. 

Because, nudity is still allowed in the main images themselves, its still allowed in certain parts of the marketplace, and it's still allowed here in the forums too. To have any consistency with the rest of the site at all, there'd have to be a site wide ban on nudity as well.

2 Banning nudity in a thumbnail image, does not make it any easier too include an image from the gallery in the newsletter either. 

Because obviously if you don't want a nudity in a thumbnail in the newsletter, then it follows that you don't want some other plain thumb in there, that leads to the image with nudity in it either.
 
3 If folks who don't want to see nudity, were using the nudity filters they were already so graciously, and  freely provided by rosity to begin with, then there isn't any "in your face shock" whatsoever. 

As they won't see any nudity to begin with.

"I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge." Albert Einstein

Free the freebies!