Content Warnings for what?

[nic@toot.wales]

@pockets there's a few I use, but don't care about personally (eg. eye contact and food don't bother me but I try to CW them myself) and there's some that are non-negotiable for me (un-CWed lewds or gore are probably going to get you blocked; I scroll this feed on the bus). Some grey areas, like politics - I’d prefer hashtags or CWs but will mute/block as needed. Mental health stuff is tricky, depends where I am in my own MH.

[fnessa@social.data.coop]

@pockets I have unfollowed people because they post pictures of non-vegan food without content warning (still don't feel good about it even with content warning for obvious reasons), but honestly I'd count that as violence and gore.
I sometimes am more careful with content warnings when posting myself, as I know that some people appreciate it, even when I don't think it'd be necessary for me, so that is technically not symmetrical.

[luc@chaos.social]

@pockets spoilers only for lack of actual spoiler syntax on Mastodon. Otherwise you can just mark as spoiler the part that's a spoiler and not have to hide entire posts

[captainvellalives@lgbtqia.space]

@pockets

I use a lot of content warnings for long posts because I worry about clogging up folk's timelines¹ (especially on niche topics). For me, I appreciate other folks doing the same but honestly if an account gets too much I just mute or unfollow depending. Otherwise, I go by the "if someone looked over my shoulder in public and suddenly saw/read this would it cause them psychic damage?" rule and that's usually things like graphic content (violence, NSFW, etc). If an account doesn't CW something like that I'm out. It's not always one to one but as a rule the folks I follow CW their posts in ways that I would if I were posting them so for me it's ended up being pretty symmetrical

I should say by "CW" I mean hiding it behind the "show content" prompt and clearly labelling it, not just writing "CW:..." at the head of a post. If it's worth content warning then I feel like it's worth using the content warning system²

¹: this post is (well) over 1,000 characters so personally I'd consider this "Long Post" CW worthy
²: these are my own personal opinions and I'm not trying to tell anyone how to Fedi or get on anyone's case. It's not a big deal. Mute/filters exist for a reason. If someone posts in a way that you personally don't like then mute/filter, take a deep breath and let go. It's not worth getting excited about just be chill and respectful ️

[meadow@lgbtqia.space]

@captainvellalives
I agree with every word of this.
@pockets

[m1rk0@social.defcon42.net]

@pockets I don't need CWs and i don't post things, that need a CW. Rather simple approach. Why should i put a CW on Music and basic personal stuff? There is nothing offendable to be found there.

[cynblogger@sfba.social]

@pockets
INSECTS!
MOTHS!
BATS!

[glassblowerscat@wandering.shop]

@pockets
I want and put CWs on NSFW or spicy pics. Apart from that, I do not want CWs on anything and do not think they are generally a good idea. But I know lots of people want them, so I put them on some types of content.
@natasha

[stveje@mstdn.social]

@pockets My rule is simple: if it's something the *majority* of people don't want to see without a warning (erotic or violent content, spoilers), it gets a CW. For anything else, CWs is the wrong tool. Instead I try to make sure I include relevant keywords/hashtags so that people can filter out posts and apply CWs themselves, because no one knows what you want to see/not see better than you do.

[artbrew@mastodon.art]

@pockets I have no problem with most of these but because I know others will have I voted nsfw and violence. If I posted something myself with those I'd definitely put it under a warning. It's just a kindness to others thing.

[plutarch@gotosocial.plutar.ch]

@pockets

NSFW, NSFL, spoilers/punchlines.

[pussreboots@sfba.social]

@pockets popular memes and franchises

[naga@toot.cat]

@pockets "Why asymmetric" is easy for some of these. E.g, food posts and eye-contact don't bother me, but I know they bother significant numbers of people. So I don't need them incoming, but I put them outgoing as courtesy.

[dogfox@kpop.social]

I CW K-drama reviews/opinions/reactions, just b/c not everyone gaf.

I do food too because other ppl do, but would never think to if I hadn't seen it.

@pockets

[brahmabelarusian@regenerate.social]

@pockets NSFW, politics, "health/mental health" or as I generally call it "medical", violence/gore

& "other" religious as even in well intentioned attempts to include others with the generalizations of "enjoy your Christmas/Easter/New Years" when some of us really don't hold any of these holidays as in any way being ours. The stories pushed related to them as if they're "universal" when they're really not, is definitely traumatizing.

*Christmas isn't really comparable to Jews as a holiday with Chanukah, but rather the closest would be Passover in family joys & pains...

[brib@bribstodon.xyz]

@pockets I've started (imperfectly) CWing AI/LLM related posts because I understand many people (including myself) are getting tired of AI related posts

[urban_hermit@mstdn.social]

@pockets my "other" category is whenever I feel the need to talk frankly because the US president's junk is in the news again.

(Seriously, worst time line ever..)

On the opposite side, I am Autistic and I think anyone functional enough to use the Internet is mild enough to NOT be triggered by eye contact from a picture. Pictures are not thinking judgemental things and plotting to use us as pawns in their petty hierarchy struggles. This last sentence was more triggering than pictures with eyes.

[misusecase@twit.social]

@pockets NSFW, certain health content (including weight loss), violence and gore, and also “Other,” specifically tobacco like pipes and cigars.

[scooter@labyrinth.zone]

@pockets I tend to lean into doing CWs rather than not if there's any question about it because the "cost" associated with using them is extremely low; if you want to see it, you click one extra time. So as long as you're interested, you can see what's going on.

As far as what content merits that, I try to treat it as maybe a slightly more intimate setting than just being in public with strangers...say, the same as a cocktail party. So, if I wouldn't bring it up at a standard I-don't-necessarily-know-all-these-people cocktail party, but I want to discuss it here, then I use a CW.

[mauvedeity@mastodon.social]

@pockets noting, of course, that there is a difference between “US politics” and “politics”.