Content Warnings for what?
-
@pockets my reason to vote politics is: even for the most populated countries, more than 80% of the world does not live in your country.
In particular, one of the most populated countries has the tendency of never qualifying their assertions, so most of the time the rest of the 95%+ of the world must qualify them by adding "[this shit is going good or bad] in the US".
@mdione
In my experience with the wide world of people I interact with, it's mostly US-based folks who act like the US is the center of the world and assume everybody else lives there until proven otherwise.If someone doesn't specify where they are in the world and are making regular posts about "the state of the world", good odds they're in the US.
I suppose I shouldn't complain too loudly though, as I'm (regretfully) living in their midst.
-
@ecsaln
I always forget about the meta meme, mostly because I try not to participate. Thanks for the reminder.Personally, I'd lump all the addiction-related stuff in with the health and mental health category, but I can certainly understand the justification for giving it its own bullet point.
-
@purplepadma
I personally have my preferences set so that all images start as black blocks (I don't even go for the color blob thing), and brace myself for the worst if I stumble across a post that is just an image and no context to indicate the subject matter.But I know a lot of people don't like doing that.
Thanks for weighing in.
-
@pockets I usually (though not 100% reliably) put content warnings on posts about politics or the various wars that are going on at the moment.
This is not symmetrical. I don't use content warnings at all when I read toots, I've set it to show the whole post by default, even if there is a content warning on it.
@statsguy
Thanks for being kind to your community beyond your personal preferences. It makes me smile to see all the folks who are asymmetrical in that direction. -
Content Warnings for what?
This poll assumes types of content that you put Content Warnings on are the same types of content that you want to see others put Content Warnings on. If it's not symmetrical for you, I'd like to know why.
About half an hour left and I'm not expecting much change at this point, so here's the followup. (If something does drastically change, I'll edit this post, but with 364 respondents, I'd have to be trending 3 days after the initial post.)
1430 total button clicks over 10 choices from 364 accounts.
NSFW leads with 86% or approximately 313 selections.
Second goes to Violence and Gore at 85% and 309 selections.
Third to Spoilers and Punchlines at 74% and 269 selections.
Fourth is Politics with a mere 50%.
Fifth is Health, including Mental Health with 39%. Though I know from the comments, some of the folks who selected "other" mentioned things that I would consider fall into the Health category.
The "Long Posts" option performed fairly poorly, with a mere 23%, but I expect that can likely be attributed by the number of instances that have low character limits on their posts and force their users to write threads of posts (or take it offsite) when they want to be verbose.
Eye contact came in seventh with a mere 17%, followed by Food at 12%. I did receive one comment from a vegan who considered non-vegan food to count under the "Violence and Gore".
Below that came Other and Nothing with 6% and 4% respectfully.
Most folks who responded in regards to asymmetry were those who tended to CW their own content as a kindness to their community beyond what they themselves wish to see CWed, including a couple of folks who chose to go into their settings and disable hidden posts altogether (on Mastodon desktop, it's Preferences > Appearance > scroll down to Sensitive Media > Always expand posts marked with content warnings).
And the folks who provided comments for "other" listed: smoking paraphernalia, politics adjacent content, LLM content, religious stuff, certain media (like Harry Potter), audio, flashing images, phobias and creepy crawlies, drugs and addictions, and fedi meta.
One person weighed with a commendable "err on the side of caution" which I read as "better to CW too much than not enough" (which is very much how I feel about the whole matter). And I got one from someone who feels the opposite and doesn't CW anything at all.
