drama!
-
So anyone trying to enforce CWs is doing that because of *their own* sensibilities/fears/etc., you think
and what right does anyone have to tell someone else how to CW
on the terms of gore or porn, yes
on the terms of extreme sensitivities no. that doesn't mean someone won't be harmed. it means it is absolutely impossible to abide by ridiculous standards
you may CW your own content as you like. on any rationale
you have zero right to enforce this on others
-
drama!
i need to rant about #ContentWarning creep
i posted once of a Ukrainian reporter whose corpse was abused by Russia. i got calls for #CW. no pictures, no text details, just a link to a story
i suspect some CW calls are a manipulation to hide fascist abuse
certainly some are sincere
but they aren't serving a valid goal. an extreme level of sensitivity is absurd and unactionable
gore? absolutely CW
but some calls serve #fascism by hiding abuse. abuse we rightfully need to broadcast
I got so irritated by ridiculous CWs that I changed the settings in the control panel to disable them.
-
-
I got so irritated by ridiculous CWs that I changed the settings in the control panel to disable them.
i do the same
-
@sibrosan @benroyce Yes, of course they are, though they may pretend it's for some public good (what rubbish). Certain exceptions might exist, such as belonging to a group with specific rules about what people can post and what would require a content warning. But that isn't the case here, of course.
It's probably best, if you think a user violated your instance's rules, to report them rightaway without first politely warning them.
-
It's probably best, if you think a user violated your instance's rules, to report them rightaway without first politely warning them.
but the issue here is content warnings
-
@benroyce @msbellows @ignova @crow with that CW I expected some serious sh*t in your toot
. -
and what right does anyone have to tell someone else how to CW
on the terms of gore or porn, yes
on the terms of extreme sensitivities no. that doesn't mean someone won't be harmed. it means it is absolutely impossible to abide by ridiculous standards
you may CW your own content as you like. on any rationale
you have zero right to enforce this on others
@benroyce @sibrosan Seriously, I'm not putting a content warning on my fucking sandwich. Plenty of people do, and more power to 'em! I also don't think political views need to be hidden; that is the author's choice.
On the flip side, I see plenty of bullshit that other people post, but there's no way I'd be so arrogant and controlling that I'd tell another person that they have to hide something because I don't like it or because I disagree.
-
It's probably best, if you think a user violated your instance's rules, to report them rightaway without first politely warning them.
-
@benroyce I would hope the fediverse of all places would encourage us to expose these atrocities.
-
@benroyce @sibrosan Seriously, I'm not putting a content warning on my fucking sandwich. Plenty of people do, and more power to 'em! I also don't think political views need to be hidden; that is the author's choice.
On the flip side, I see plenty of bullshit that other people post, but there's no way I'd be so arrogant and controlling that I'd tell another person that they have to hide something because I don't like it or because I disagree.
-
but the issue here is content warnings
Yes, if someone violates your instance's rules with respect to content warnings, it's probably best to report them rightaway without politely warning them about it.
-
Yes, if someone violates your instance's rules with respect to content warnings, it's probably best to report them rightaway without politely warning them about it.
i don't think you understand what we're talking about here
we're talking about people who have their own personal standards for CW, and attempt to gatekeep by demanding other people follow their personal standards and CW their post. even though the person not using a CW is not breaking any server rules
-
@benroyce @sibrosan Seriously, I'm not putting a content warning on my fucking sandwich. Plenty of people do, and more power to 'em! I also don't think political views need to be hidden; that is the author's choice.
On the flip side, I see plenty of bullshit that other people post, but there's no way I'd be so arrogant and controlling that I'd tell another person that they have to hide something because I don't like it or because I disagree.
@alexpsmith @benroyce My instance's rules say thay you need to put a CW on sexually explicit material. That might apply to an image of a fucking sandwich.
-
@alexpsmith @benroyce My instance's rules say thay you need to put a CW on sexually explicit material. That might apply to an image of a fucking sandwich.
-
@alexpsmith @benroyce My instance's rules say thay you need to put a CW on sexually explicit material. That might apply to an image of a fucking sandwich.
-
@gobsmacked @benroyce I agree that authoritarianism and political violence should not be covered up. But I’m not convinced that there’s a dichotomy between denying or covering up fascist acts and broadcasting fascist acts to everyone. Does every person need to know the details of fascist acts? I would like to allow people to be able to opt out of reading or viewing material that they personally deem to be distressing, as much as possible and acknowledging that it might not be possible for an individual to avoid seeing every thing that is distressing to them.
Personally I think hashtags and filters work better for this purpose, as the receiver can opt out reasonably easily, but I think that the Fediverse has settled in content warnings as a default method.i agree with you on hashtag use
-
@benroyce
You do get that the word abuse itself is a memory trigger for abused people who don't like to be triggered by some news - no matter how valid or important it is?
If you get that, you understand that CW isn't there to censor, but to be nice and to make life better for certain people. That's part of why people use the Fediverse and don't use Twitter.@gobsmacked UI features are no substitute for help and treatment for people dealing with trauma. We're talking about a show/hide button here.
Further: hiding news and information about abuse is enabling abusers. Is this not obvious?
-
drama!
i need to rant about #ContentWarning creep
i posted once of a Ukrainian reporter whose corpse was abused by Russia. i got calls for #CW. no pictures, no text details, just a link to a story
i suspect some CW calls are a manipulation to hide fascist abuse
certainly some are sincere
but they aren't serving a valid goal. an extreme level of sensitivity is absurd and unactionable
gore? absolutely CW
but some calls serve #fascism by hiding abuse. abuse we rightfully need to broadcast
@benroyce I will use them occasionally but mostly I think the happy medium is hashtags. People can mute what they don't want to see without a poster having to meet the impossible demand of 100s of random users needs.
-
@benroyce I think there is nuance here around where we go for news. Some people come to fedi just to play with their friends, they receive their news from other places and share links with friends and family via signal. Sharing something without a content warning because "everyone needs to see this" implies that everyone isn't already reading the news in other places, putting us a savior/beacon for distributing news that is readily available everywhere. We are aware of the horrors, very very very aware, we are building momentum of revolution. And sometimes we just need a breather from the horrors because the horrors invade every single point of our lives. I do post about #uspol because I want to be a part of the conversations and I want to find other people who align in the revolution. Fighting over how we disseminate information is not going to bring more people to greater awareness. We also need spaces of softness and whimsy to keep us grounded in the tender possibilities of what CAN be built when we aren't lost in the madness of it all.
Well said.
On related issue "everybody needs to see this":
"Everyone" is often defined as being US citizens and subjects. Tags are often more important than CW.
Before the US presidential elections I had to be extremely inventive with filters (and indeed ended up just blocking English-posts as a rule) as so much content was intentionally refused to be tagged with USpol (got [ridiculed/piled on] for asking it of the few accounts that always got hundreds of retoots).
